Adolescent Age at Time of Receipt of One or More Sexual Risk Reduction Interventions

Abstract

Purpose Age of the target audience at time of intervention is thought to be a critical variable influencing the effectiveness of adolescent sexual risk reduction interventions. Despite this postulated importance, to date studies have not been designed to enable a direct comparison of outcomes according to age at time of intervention delivery. Methods We examined outcomes of 598 youth who were sequentially involved in two randomized controlled trials of sexual risk prevention interventions, the first one delivered in grade 6 [Focus on Youth in the Caribbean (FOYC)] and the second one in grade ten [Bahamian Focus on Older Youth (BFOOY)]. Four groups were examined, including those who received: 1) both treatment conditions, FOYC and BFOOY; 2) FOYC in grade 6 and the control condition in grade 10; 3) the control condition in grade 6 and BFOOY in grade 10; and 4) both control conditions. Intentions, perceptions, condom-use skills as well as HIV-related knowledge were assessed over 60 months. Results Data showed that those who received both interventions had the greatest increase in condom-use skills. Youth who received FOYC in grade 6 had greater scores in knowledge and intention. Conclusion These results suggest that youth receive the most protection with early and repeated exposure to interventions. These findings suggest that educators should consider implementing HIV prevention and risk reduction programs as a fixed component of education curriculum beginning in the pre-adolescent years and if possible also during the adolescent years.

Adolescent HIV Risk Reduction in the Bahamas: Results from Two Randomized Controlled Intervention Trials Spanning Elementary School Through High School

“…As previously reported [18,19], at baseline in grade-10, prior to receipt of either BFOOY or HFLE, those youth who had attended schools receiving FOYC in grade-6 (N=530) exhibited higher condom-use skills, HIV/AIDS knowledge, and condom-use self-efficacy than youth in schools not receiving FOYC (N=1579). In terms of improvements in HIV-prevention skills, youth who had not been exposed to FOYC in grade-6 demonstrated greater positive change as a result of receipt of BFOOY.…”

“…Males exhibited significantly higher condom-use skills and condom-use self-efficacy and females show higher HIV/AIDS knowledge. For all youth, condom-use skills, HIV/AIDS knowledge, condom-use self-efficacy, and condom-use intention displayed significant increases with time [18, 19]. Significant main effects for intervention showed that compared to youth who received both FOYC and BFOOY, WW+BFOOY had significantly lower condom use skills, HIV/AIDS knowledge, condom use self-efficacy and intention and WW+HFLE had lower HIV/AIDS knowledge.…”

“…A subset of 598 students was enrolled in both of these studies [16-19] (Figure 1). In both the grade-6 and grade-10 studies, the youths' parents were invited to participate and randomized to receive a parental monitoring and communication intervention (CImPACT) or a dose-control intervention about career planning [Goal for It (GFI)], or no intervention.…”

“…Through the beginning of grade-12, youth who received BFOOY with CImPACT exhibited higher HIV/AIDS knowledge, condom-use skills, and self-efficacy and marginally higher consistent condom-use [6]. A subset of youth were in both the grade-6 and grade-10 trials; follow-up through grade-11 revealed that youth who received early (grade-6) and repeated (grades-6 and 10) interventions demonstrated the greatest protection[19]. …”

The Impact of Parent Involvement in an Effective Adolescent Risk Reduction Intervention on Sexual Risk Communication and Adolescent Outcomes

“…Results at six, 12 and 18 months follow-up described elsewhere (Dinaj-Koci et al, 2014; Stanton et al, submitted) indicate that BFOOY is an effective sexual risk-reduction intervention. This present analyses offer the unique opportunity to examine whether (and if so how) a brief parent-adolescent sexual risk communication intervention in addition to an effective adolescent intervention would confer added benefit among older adolescents who are gradually engaging in more risky behaviors.…”