Sexual ViolenceYAPNCT07729644
Evaluation of State-Level Sexual and Gender Minority Laws for the Primary Prevention of Sexual and Intimate Partner Violence Among Sexual and Gender Minority Youth in the U.S.
An observational study of Sexual Violence and Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), run by University of California, Berkeley at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The goal of this observational study is to learn how state-level laws related to sexual and gender minority (SGM) youth affect the risk of sexual violence (SV) and intimate partner violence (IPV) among sexual minority (SM) youth in the United States. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 13 to 18 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Sexual Violence, Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
- What is being tested?
- Enumerated anti-bullying state legislation, Conversion therapy state legislation and Gender-affirming care state legislation
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Aug 2026to Sep 2029
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 13 to 18 years
- All sexes
- Child, Adult
Study population: SGM youth ages 13-18 recruited through outreach via research team and partners' networks of community based organizations across U.S. states selected to represent high, medium, and low adoption of SGM-affirming policies.
Who may be able to join
- Ages 13-18 years
- Resides in a U.S. state selected for the study
- Self-identifies as a sexual and/or gender minority (for example, lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, queer, questioning, asexual, nonbinary, transgender, or another non-heterosexual or non-cisgender identity)
- Able to complete the interview in English
- Sufficient literacy to review age-appropriate assent materials
- Exclusion Criteria: No additional exclusion criteria beyond not meeting inclusion criteria
Who cannot join
None listed.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
United States1 site
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California, 94710-1754
Sabrina C Boyce, PhD, 916-709-1123, boyce.sabrina@berkeley.edu
Ricardo B Vera Monroy, MS, 619-277-8303, rveramonroy@berkeley.edu
About this study
The goal of this observational study is to learn how state-level laws related to sexual and gender minority (SGM) youth affect the risk of sexual violence (SV) and intimate partner violence (IPV) among sexual minority (SM) youth in the United States. The study looks at both supportive laws (such as bans on conversion therapy and anti-bullying protections) and restrictive laws (such as limits on gender-affirming care) passed between 2017 and 2025. The main questions it aims to answer are:
Part 1:
Read more
- Do supportive SGM laws lower the risk of SV/IPV among SM youth?
- Do restrictive SGM laws raise the risk of SV/IPV among SM youth?
- Does the social climate in a state (such as levels of stigma toward SGM people) change how these laws affect SM youth?
Part 2:
-How do SGM youth themselves describe the ways that laws and social climates affect their safety and wellbeing?
Part 1 - Quantitative analysis: Researchers will use existing, publicly available survey data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) to compare changes in SV/IPV risk among SM youth across states that adopted different types of SGM laws over the period of 2017-2025. No participants are enrolled for this part.
Part 2 - Qualitative interviews: Researchers will conduct one-on-one interviews with approximately 30 SGM youth ages 13-18 living across U.S. states with varying levels of adoption of supportive SGM laws. Each youth will take part in one 60-minute interview. Youth will be asked about their views on how laws and social climates affect safety, stigma, and access to resources. Youth will not be asked to share personal experiences of violence.
Read the detailed description
Quantitative Component (Aims 1-2):
SM youth are identified using the YRBSS sexual identity item, which asks respondents "Which of the following best describes you?" Respondents indicating gay, lesbian, bisexual, describing their sexual identity some other way, or questioning are categorized as SM. Respondents indicating heterosexual (straight) are categorized as non-SM.
Primary outcomes are three individual-level YRBSS items measuring past 12-month sexual violence (SV) victimization and past 12-month intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization (physical and sexual).
Policy exposures are constructed as state-level binary indicators (present versus absent) for three types of SGM laws: gender-affirming care laws, conversion therapy bans, and enumerated identity-based anti-bullying laws. Exposure data are drawn from legal epidemiology datasets available through LawAtlas.org for years 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024 with a one-year lag between exposure measurement and outcome assessment to ensure policies are implemented before outcome measurement. Outcome data are drawn from YRBSS survey including 29 states for the years 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023, 2025 representing 98 state-years with a total sample of approximately 357,040 youth.
Aim 1 employs a difference-in-differences (DiD) approach in a quasi-experimental framework using mixed effects DiD Poisson models to estimate the effect of SGM law adoption on SV/IPV risk among SM youth. Separate models are estimated for each law type and each outcome. Time-varying state-level covariates include population size, percentage below poverty line, and state-level demographic composition of race/ethnicity and age. Sensitivity analyses include Goodman-Bacon decomposition, doubly robust estimators, and imputation-based estimators to address potential treatment effect heterogeneity across adoption timing. Parallel pre-trends are assessed using lag and lead models with bounds adjusted for any non-parallel pre-trends. Exploratory analyses examine effects among specific racial/ethnic SM youth subgroups (Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American/Alaska Native, and mixed race SM youth), reporting point estimates with 95 percent confidence intervals without formal hypothesis testing to provide directional evidence.
Aim 2 builds on the Aim 1 models by adding an interaction term between state-level SGM law adoption and social climate to test whether policy effects on SV/IPV risk differ based on state-level stigma toward SGM populations. Social climate is measured using publicly available survey data from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) American Values Atlas collected from a nationally representative sample of approximately 22,000 adults annually from all 50 states 2016-2024. Respondents are asked the degree to which they favor allowing same-sex couples to marry legally, with responses dichotomized as favorable or unfavorable and summarized as the proportion with favorable attitudes at the state level (continuous). State-level estimates are derived using a multilevel regression and poststratification (MRP) approach with maximum likelihood modeling and poststratification based on demographics and state characteristics from the American Community Survey. Using model output, relative risks are calculated for meaningful cut-offs in SM social climate (for example, quartiles) using average marginal effects.
Qualitative Component (Aim 3):
Aim 3 participants are purposively sampled from states representing three strata of SGM-affirming policy adoption: high, medium, and low, with up to 10 youth per stratum. Within each stratum, constructed sampling quotas aim to include approximately 4 cisgender boys, 4 cisgender girls, and 2 transgender or nonbinary youth, and to ensure that at least half of participants identify as a racial or ethnic minority. This approach supports exploration of intersectional mechanisms and addresses known limitations of surveillance data in capturing diverse SGM youth experiences. Qualitative data are analyzed using thematic analysis to identify mechanisms through which state-level policies and social climates may affect SV/IPV risk among SGM youth. These findings contextualize and interpret the population-level quantitative results from Aims 1 and 2.
- Conditions
- Sexual Violence, Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
- Being tested
- Enumerated anti-bullying state legislation, Conversion therapy state legislation, Gender-affirming care state legislation
- Keywords
- Anti-bullying laws, Gender-affirming care, Conversion therapy, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, Sexual minority youth, sexual violence, dating violence
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Enumerated anti-bullying state legislationOther
The interventions in this study are being studied as a natural experiment and are not assigned or implemented by the study. In any given cohort year, some states are exposed to the legislation of interest and others are not, as assessed using data from LawAtlas.org and categorized by the research team.
Enumerated anti-bullying state legislation is state-level legislation that prohibits bullying in educational settings and that explicitly includes sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes.
Conversion therapy state legislationOther
The interventions in this study are being studied as a natural experiment and are not assigned or implemented by the study. In any given cohort year, some states are exposed to the legislation of interest and others are not, as assessed using data from LawAtlas.org and categorized by the research team.
Conversion therapy state legislation is state-level legislation that prohibits the practice of conversion therapy, a practice that attempts to change a person/client's sexual orientation or gender identity to conform to prevailing cisgender and/or heterosexual norms.
Gender-affirming care state legislationOther
The interventions in this study are being studied as a natural experiment and are not assigned or implemented by the study. In any given cohort year, some states are exposed to the legislation of interest and others are not, as assessed using data from LawAtlas.org and categorized by the research team.
Gender-affirming care state legislation is state-level legislation regarding the use of healthcare tailored to support the patient's gender identity (may prohibit or protect the right to use this type of healthcare)
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| YRBSS state-representative cohort 2017 | First year of primary analytic population for quantitative analyses examining the effect of state-level SGM law adoption on SV/IPV risk (Aims 1-2). Receives: Other: Enumerated anti-bullying state legislation; Other: Conversion therapy state legislation; Other: Gender-affirming care state legislation | |
| YRBSS state-representative cohort 2019 | Second year of primary analytic population for quantitative analyses examining the effect of state-level SGM law adoption on SV/IPV risk (Aims 1-2). Receives: Other: Enumerated anti-bullying state legislation; Other: Conversion therapy state legislation; Other: Gender-affirming care state legislation | |
| SGM Youth Interview Participants | Sexual and gender minority youth ages 13-18 enrolled for one-on-one qualitative interviews exploring perceptions of how state-level policies and social climates affect safety, stigma, and access to resources (Aim 3). Receives: Other: Enumerated anti-bullying state legislation; Other: Conversion therapy state legislation; Other: Gender-affirming care state legislation | |
| YRBSS state-representative cohort 2021 | Third year of primary analytic population for quantitative analyses examining the effect of state-level SGM law adoption on SV/IPV risk (Aims 1-2). Receives: Other: Enumerated anti-bullying state legislation; Other: Conversion therapy state legislation; Other: Gender-affirming care state legislation | |
| YRBSS state-representative cohort 2023 | Fourth year of primary analytic population for quantitative analyses examining the effect of state-level SGM law adoption on SV/IPV risk (Aims 1-2). Receives: Other: Enumerated anti-bullying state legislation; Other: Conversion therapy state legislation; Other: Gender-affirming care state legislation | |
| YRBSS state-representative cohort 2025 | Fifth year of primary analytic population for quantitative analyses examining the effect of state-level SGM law adoption on SV/IPV risk (Aims 1-2). Receives: Other: Enumerated anti-bullying state legislation; Other: Conversion therapy state legislation; Other: Gender-affirming care state legislation |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Past 12-Month Sexual Violence Victimization
Binary self-reported YRBSS item indicating sexual violence victimization in the past 12 months. Risk ratios estimated comparing states with and without specific SGM laws.
Measured: Past 12 months at each biennial YRBSS survey administration (repeated cross-sectional assessments from 2017 to 2025)
Past 12-Month Intimate Partner Violence Victimization
Binary composite of two self-reported YRBSS items indicating physical dating violence or sexual dating violence in the past 12 months, coded as victimization if either item is endorsed. Risk ratios estimated comparing states with and without specific SGM laws.
Measured: Past 12 months at each biennial YRBSS survey administration (repeated cross-sectional assessments from 2017 to 2025)
Secondary outcomes (2)
Past 12-months Suicidality
Binary composite of three self-reported YRBSS items indicating suicidality in the past 12 months (serious consideration of attempting suicide, planning, and attempts). Risk ratios estimated comparing states with and without specific SGM laws.
Measured: Past 12 months at each biennial YRBSS survey administration (repeated cross-sectional assessments from 2017 to 2025)
Past 12-month Bullying
Binary composite of two self-reported YRBSS items indicating in-person or electronic bullying victimization in the past 12 months. Risk ratios estimated comparing states with and without specific SGM laws.
Measured: Past 12 months at each biennial YRBSS survey administration (repeated cross-sectional assessments from 2017 to 2025)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Jul 2026
- Study startAug 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completionSep 2027 (estimated)
- Study completionSep 2029 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Sexual ViolenceStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Ecologic or community
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of California, Berkeley
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Michigan, Tulane University, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Sabrina C Boyce, PhD, Principal investigator, University of California, Berkeley
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07729644
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2026-01-19304
- Other IDs
- U01CE003753
- Acronym
- YAP
- Status last verified
- Jul 2026
- First submitted
- 22 Jul 2026
- Last updated
- 29 Jul 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Sharing individual-level qualitative data would pose re-identification risk given the small sample size and the need to protect vulnerable youth discussing sensitive topics related to safety, stigma, and policy experiences.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 29 Jul 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Evaluation of State-Level Sexual and Gender Minority Laws for the Primary Prevention of Sexual and Intimate Partner Violence Among Sexual and Gender Minority Youth in the U.S.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07729644
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- YAP / 2026-01-19304
- Conditions
- Sexual Violence, Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
- Keywords
- Anti-bullying laws, Gender-affirming care, Conversion therapy, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, Sexual minority youth, sexual violence, dating violence
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University of California, BerkeleyUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Michigan, Tulane University, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Study start
- Aug 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Sep 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Sep 2029 (estimated)
- First posted
- 27 Jul 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The goal of this observational study is to learn how state-level laws related to sexual and gender minority (SGM) youth affect the risk of sexual violence (SV) and intimate partner violence (IPV) among sexual minority (SM) youth in the United States. The study looks at both supportive laws (such as bans on conversion therapy and anti-bullying protections) and restrictive laws (such as limits on gender-affirming care) passed between 2017 and 2025. The main questions it aims to answer are:
Part 1:
- Do supportive SGM laws lower the risk of SV/IPV among SM youth?
- Do restrictive SGM laws raise the risk of SV/IPV among SM youth?
- Does the social climate in a state (such as levels of stigma toward SGM people) change how these laws affect SM youth?
Part 2:
-How do SGM youth themselves describe the ways that laws and social climates affect their safety and wellbeing?
Part 1 - Quantitative analysis: Researchers will use existing, publicly available survey data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) to compare changes in SV/IPV risk among SM youth across states that adopted different types of SGM laws over the period of 2017-2025. No participants are enrolled for this part.
Part 2 - Qualitative interviews: Researchers will conduct one-on-one interviews with approximately 30 SGM youth ages 13-18 living across U.S. states with varying levels of adoption of supportive SGM laws. Each youth will take part in one 60-minute interview. Youth will be asked about their views on how laws and social climates affect safety, stigma, and access to resources. Youth will not be asked to share personal experiences of violence.
Detailed description
Quantitative Component (Aims 1-2):
SM youth are identified using the YRBSS sexual identity item, which asks respondents "Which of the following best describes you?" Respondents indicating gay, lesbian, bisexual, describing their sexual identity some other way, or questioning are categorized as SM. Respondents indicating heterosexual (straight) are categorized as non-SM.
Primary outcomes are three individual-level YRBSS items measuring past 12-month sexual violence (SV) victimization and past 12-month intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization (physical and sexual).
Policy exposures are constructed as state-level binary indicators (present versus absent) for three types of SGM laws: gender-affirming care laws, conversion therapy bans, and enumerated identity-based anti-bullying laws. Exposure data are drawn from legal epidemiology datasets available through LawAtlas.org for years 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024 with a one-year lag between exposure measurement and outcome assessment to ensure policies are implemented before outcome measurement. Outcome data are drawn from YRBSS survey including 29 states for the years 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023, 2025 representing 98 state-years with a total sample of approximately 357,040 youth.
Aim 1 employs a difference-in-differences (DiD) approach in a quasi-experimental framework using mixed effects DiD Poisson models to estimate the effect of SGM law adoption on SV/IPV risk among SM youth. Separate models are estimated for each law type and each outcome. Time-varying state-level covariates include population size, percentage below poverty line, and state-level demographic composition of race/ethnicity and age. Sensitivity analyses include Goodman-Bacon decomposition, doubly robust estimators, and imputation-based estimators to address potential treatment effect heterogeneity across adoption timing. Parallel pre-trends are assessed using lag and lead models with bounds adjusted for any non-parallel pre-trends. Exploratory analyses examine effects among specific racial/ethnic SM youth subgroups (Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American/Alaska Native, and mixed race SM youth), reporting point estimates with 95 percent confidence intervals without formal hypothesis testing to provide directional evidence.
Aim 2 builds on the Aim 1 models by adding an interaction term between state-level SGM law adoption and social climate to test whether policy effects on SV/IPV risk differ based on state-level stigma toward SGM populations. Social climate is measured using publicly available survey data from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) American Values Atlas collected from a nationally representative sample of approximately 22,000 adults annually from all 50 states 2016-2024. Respondents are asked the degree to which they favor allowing same-sex couples to marry legally, with responses dichotomized as favorable or unfavorable and summarized as the proportion with favorable attitudes at the state level (continuous). State-level estimates are derived using a multilevel regression and poststratification (MRP) approach with maximum likelihood modeling and poststratification based on demographics and state characteristics from the American Community Survey. Using model output, relative risks are calculated for meaningful cut-offs in SM social climate (for example, quartiles) using average marginal effects.
Qualitative Component (Aim 3):
Aim 3 participants are purposively sampled from states representing three strata of SGM-affirming policy adoption: high, medium, and low, with up to 10 youth per stratum. Within each stratum, constructed sampling quotas aim to include approximately 4 cisgender boys, 4 cisgender girls, and 2 transgender or nonbinary youth, and to ensure that at least half of participants identify as a racial or ethnic minority. This approach supports exploration of intersectional mechanisms and addresses known limitations of surveillance data in capturing diverse SGM youth experiences. Qualitative data are analyzed using thematic analysis to identify mechanisms through which state-level policies and social climates may affect SV/IPV risk among SGM youth. These findings contextualize and interpret the population-level quantitative results from Aims 1 and 2.
Study design
- Observational model
- Ecologic or community
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Number of arms
- 6
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| YRBSS state-representative cohort 2017 | – | Other: Enumerated anti-bullying state legislation, Other: Conversion therapy state legislation, Other: Gender-affirming care state legislationFirst year of primary analytic population for quantitative analyses examining the effect of state-level SGM law adoption on SV/IPV risk (Aims 1-2). |
| YRBSS state-representative cohort 2019 | – | Other: Enumerated anti-bullying state legislation, Other: Conversion therapy state legislation, Other: Gender-affirming care state legislationSecond year of primary analytic population for quantitative analyses examining the effect of state-level SGM law adoption on SV/IPV risk (Aims 1-2). |
| SGM Youth Interview Participants | – | Other: Enumerated anti-bullying state legislation, Other: Conversion therapy state legislation, Other: Gender-affirming care state legislationSexual and gender minority youth ages 13-18 enrolled for one-on-one qualitative interviews exploring perceptions of how state-level policies and social climates affect safety, stigma, and access to resources (Aim 3). |
| YRBSS state-representative cohort 2021 | – | Other: Enumerated anti-bullying state legislation, Other: Conversion therapy state legislation, Other: Gender-affirming care state legislationThird year of primary analytic population for quantitative analyses examining the effect of state-level SGM law adoption on SV/IPV risk (Aims 1-2). |
| YRBSS state-representative cohort 2023 | – | Other: Enumerated anti-bullying state legislation, Other: Conversion therapy state legislation, Other: Gender-affirming care state legislationFourth year of primary analytic population for quantitative analyses examining the effect of state-level SGM law adoption on SV/IPV risk (Aims 1-2). |
| YRBSS state-representative cohort 2025 | – | Other: Enumerated anti-bullying state legislation, Other: Conversion therapy state legislation, Other: Gender-affirming care state legislationFifth year of primary analytic population for quantitative analyses examining the effect of state-level SGM law adoption on SV/IPV risk (Aims 1-2). |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 13 to 18 years
- Sex
- All
- Age groups
- Child, Adult
- Study population
- SGM youth ages 13-18 recruited through outreach via research team and partners' networks of community based organizations across U.S. states selected to represent high, medium, and low adoption of SGM-affirming policies.
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Ages 13-18 years
- Resides in a U.S. state selected for the study
- Self-identifies as a sexual and/or gender minority (for example, lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, queer, questioning, asexual, nonbinary, transgender, or another non-heterosexual or non-cisgender identity)
- Able to complete the interview in English
- Sufficient literacy to review age-appropriate assent materials
Key exclusion criteria (0 listed)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Enumerated anti-bullying state legislationThe interventions in this study are being studied as a natural experiment and are not assigned or implemented by the study. In any given cohort year, some states are exposed to the legislation of interest and others are not, as assessed using data from LawAtlas.org and categorized by the research team. Enumerated anti-bullying state legislation is state-level legislation that prohibits bullying in educational settings and that explicitly includes sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. | Other | SGM Youth Interview Participants, YRBSS state-representative cohort 2017, YRBSS state-representative cohort 2019, YRBSS state-representative cohort 2021, YRBSS state-representative cohort 2023, YRBSS state-representative cohort 2025 |
| Conversion therapy state legislationThe interventions in this study are being studied as a natural experiment and are not assigned or implemented by the study. In any given cohort year, some states are exposed to the legislation of interest and others are not, as assessed using data from LawAtlas.org and categorized by the research team. Conversion therapy state legislation is state-level legislation that prohibits the practice of conversion therapy, a practice that attempts to change a person/client's sexual orientation or gender identity to conform to prevailing cisgender and/or heterosexual norms. | Other | SGM Youth Interview Participants, YRBSS state-representative cohort 2017, YRBSS state-representative cohort 2019, YRBSS state-representative cohort 2021, YRBSS state-representative cohort 2023, YRBSS state-representative cohort 2025 |
| Gender-affirming care state legislationThe interventions in this study are being studied as a natural experiment and are not assigned or implemented by the study. In any given cohort year, some states are exposed to the legislation of interest and others are not, as assessed using data from LawAtlas.org and categorized by the research team. Gender-affirming care state legislation is state-level legislation regarding the use of healthcare tailored to support the patient's gender identity (may prohibit or protect the right to use this type of healthcare) | Other | SGM Youth Interview Participants, YRBSS state-representative cohort 2017, YRBSS state-representative cohort 2019, YRBSS state-representative cohort 2021, YRBSS state-representative cohort 2023, YRBSS state-representative cohort 2025 |
Primary outcome
Past 12-Month Sexual Violence Victimization
Time frame: Past 12 months at each biennial YRBSS survey administration (repeated cross-sectional assessments from 2017 to 2025)
Binary self-reported YRBSS item indicating sexual violence victimization in the past 12 months. Risk ratios estimated comparing states with and without specific SGM laws.
Past 12-Month Intimate Partner Violence Victimization
Time frame: Past 12 months at each biennial YRBSS survey administration (repeated cross-sectional assessments from 2017 to 2025)
Binary composite of two self-reported YRBSS items indicating physical dating violence or sexual dating violence in the past 12 months, coded as victimization if either item is endorsed. Risk ratios estimated comparing states with and without specific SGM laws.
2 secondary outcomes
Past 12-months Suicidality
Time frame: Past 12 months at each biennial YRBSS survey administration (repeated cross-sectional assessments from 2017 to 2025)
Past 12-month Bullying
Time frame: Past 12 months at each biennial YRBSS survey administration (repeated cross-sectional assessments from 2017 to 2025)
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 29 Jul 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Sharing individual-level qualitative data would pose re-identification risk given the small sample size and the need to protect vulnerable youth discussing sensitive topics related to safety, stigma, and policy experiences.
Related trials for Sexual Violence
Active, not recruiting
What Works to Prevent Violence Against Women and Girls in Madagascar
Comprehensive Sexual Education
Not yet recruiting
BEAR for Women Who Have Experienced Sexual Assault and Have Suicidal Thoughts
Sexual Assault and Rape, Suicidal Thoughts
RecruitingPhase 2
Study of Cross-Cutting E-Health Prevention Approaches
Alcohol Misuse Prevention, Sexual Violence Prevention
Enrolling by invitation
The Effectiveness of a Brief Early Intervention of Acute Stress Syndrome Stabilization Protocol for Victims of Sexual Violence (ASSYST-SV).
Acute Stress Symptoms, Sexual Violence
Recruiting
SER Familia: A Family-Based Intervention Addressing Syndemic Conditions Among Latino Families
Substance Abuse, Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Sabrina C Boyce, PhD principal investigator
University of California, Berkeley
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Sexual Violence and Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), run by University of California, Berkeley at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 0 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 29 Jul 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Sabrina C Boyce, PhD (916-709-1123, boyce.sabrina@berkeley.edu), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Past 12-Month Sexual Violence Victimization (time frame: Past 12 months at each biennial YRBSS survey administration (repeated cross-sectional assessments from 2017 to 2025)). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 29 Jul 2026.