Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Evidence and Innovation 
            -  Teen Pregnancy Prevention Evidence Review 
            -           PPRER0S22016      

# PPRER0S22016

Guilamo-Ramos, V., Benzekri, A., Thimm-Kaiser, M., Dittus, P., Ruiz, Y., Cleland, C. M., McCoy, W. (2020). A triadic intervention for adolescent sexual health: A randomized clinical trial. em Pediatrics /em, 145(5).

Families Talking Together

High
This study received a high study quality rating because it is a low-attrition randomized controlled trial with no known issues that would suggest the findings cannot be attributed to the program

### Program Information

### Evaluation Setting

### Study Sample

### Research Design

900

1

Twelve month post-baseline

### Study Findings

This study used a randomized controlled trial involving Hispanic or African American youth ages 11–14. Mothers and their children were recruited as dyads from a pediatric clinic in the New York City area. Dyads were randomly assigned to either a treatment group that received the Families Talking Together program or to a control group that did not receive any program. During the 45–60-minute single-session program, health care providers discussed sexual risks for teenagers and the importance of good parent-adolescent communication on these topics. In addition, parents were given program materials and encouraged to use them to talk to their children about the program's content. This was followed by one phone call at one-month post-program to check in with the parents and encourage them once more to talk to their children. Data from parents and children were collected immediately before the program (baseline), and three months and 12 months after study enrollment. The study found that 12 months after enrolling in the study, teenagers who participated in the program were significantly less likely to report having had vaginal sex (effect size = -0.84) and having had their sexual debut in the past 12 months (effect size = -0.76). The study also examined program impacts on the children's knowledge about healthy relationships and dating; their self-esteem; attitudes and knowledge about leadership; healthy life skills; knowledge about the process of career and decision making; knowledge about career readiness, college readiness, sexual risk, and condom use; confidence in

NA = Not available. This means the authors did not report the information in the manuscripts associated with the studies we reviewed.

a This information was not available whenever authors did not report information for the treatment and comparison groups separately on outcome means, standard deviations, and/or sample sizes.

b Authors reported that the program effect (impact) estimate is statistically significant with a p-value of less than 0.05 based on a two-tailed test.

c For some outcomes, having less of that outcome is favorable. In those cases, an effect with a negative sign is favorable to the treatment group (that is, the treatment group had a more favorable outcome than the comparison group, on average).

d An effect meets the review standards for credible evidence whenever it is statistically significant with a p-value of less than 0.05 based on a two-tailed test, includes the appropriate adjustment for clustering (if applicable), and it is not based on an endogenous subgroup.