Identifying Programs That Impact Teen Pregnancy, 

Sexually Transmitted Infections, and Associated Sexual Risk 

Behaviors 

Review Protocol | Version 6.0

Review Author

Mathematica 

Contact: tpper@mathematica-mpr.com

Review Timeline

Initial review findings (version 1.0 of standards): April 2010 

Updated findings (version 2.0 of standards): April 2012 

Updated findings (version 3.0 of standards): July 2014

Updated findings (version 4.0 of standards): February 2015 

Updated findings (version 5.0 of standards): June 2016 

Updated findings (version 5.0 of standards): April 2018 

Updated findings (version 6.0 of standards): April 2023 
This page left blank for double-sided printing. 
REVIEW PROTOCOL VERSION 6.0

iii

CONTENTS

A. SEARCH FOR STUDIES................................................................................................................. 1

1. Call for studies........................................................................................................................... 2

2. Keyword search of electronic databases................................................................................... 2

3. Scan of journals......................................................................................................................... 2

4. Review citations in recently published literature reviews and meta-analyses ........................... 2

B. SCREEN AND SELECT STUDIES.................................................................................................. 3

1. Types of participants ................................................................................................................. 3

2. Types of programs..................................................................................................................... 3

3. Types of research designs and data used in the analysis ........................................................ 3

4. Timeliness of the study findings ................................................................................................ 3

5. Types of outcomes .................................................................................................................... 3

C. ASSESS INDIVIDUAL STUDIES..................................................................................................... 4

1. Study design.............................................................................................................................. 4

2. Attrition....................................................................................................................................... 5

3. Baseline equivalence................................................................................................................. 7

4. Reassignment............................................................................................................................ 8

5. Confounding .............................................................................................................................. 9

D. ANALYZE EVIDENCE FOR INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS ................................................................. 9

1. Data extraction ........................................................................................................................ 10

2. Identifying programs with evidence of effectiveness............................................................... 10

3. Describing and summarizing the supporting research evidence............................................. 11

E. DESCRIBING PROGRAM COMPONENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS.......... 12

F. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.......................................................................................................... 13

APPENDIX A. SEARCH STRATEGY........................................................................................................A.1
This page left blank for double-sided printing. 
REVIEW PROTOCOL VERSION 6.0

v 

TABLES

1. Summary of study quality ratings.............................................................................................................. 4

2. Domain categorization rating for individual studies ................................................................................ 11

3. Domain categorization rating for programs (potentially pooling across studies) .................................... 12

A.1. Keyword search databases ................................................................................................................A.1

A.2. Journals included in table of contents search ....................................................................................A.2

FIGURES

1. Standard for assessing sample attrition in study quality ratings (WWC cautious attrition

assumption)...................................................................................................................................... 6
This page left blank for double-sided printing. 
REVIEW PROTOCOL VERSION 6.0

1 

Since 2009, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has sponsored an ongoing 

systematic review of the research literature on programs to reduce teen pregnancy, sexually 

transmitted infections (STIs), and associated sexual risk behaviors. The HHS Teen Pregnancy 

Prevention (TPP) Evidence Review was created in response to the 2010 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, which indicates that teen pregnancy prevention programs must be “proven 

effective through rigorous evaluation to reduce teenage pregnancy, behavioral risk factors 

underlying teenage pregnancy, or other associated risk factors.” Mathematica conducts the TPP 

Evidence Review (TPPER), which is sponsored by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), the Office of Population Affairs (OPA) (previously, the Office 

of Adolescent Health) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, and the Family and 

Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF).

Mathematica updates the review findings on a periodic basis as new research emerges. 

Findings from the initial review of the evidence were released in spring 2010 and covered 

research released over a roughly 20-year period from 1989 through January 2010. The findings 

have since been updated periodically. The latest round of review captured studies published 

through early 2022. Each update to the review involves the following five main steps: 

1. Search for new studies released since the last update to the review

2. Screen identified studies against pre-specified eligibility criteria

3. Assess each eligible study for the quality and execution of its research design 

4. Use findings from the assessed studies to identify programs with evidence of effectiveness 

in reducing teen pregnancy, STIs, or associated sexual risk behaviors 

5. For programs showing evidence of effectiveness, describe their components and 

implementation requirements 

Each update to the review findings may include both (1) newly available evidence for 

programs previously reviewed and (2) evidence for new programs that prior rounds of the review 

did not include. When assessing newly available evidence for programs previously reviewed, the 

review team updates its assessment of program effectiveness by comparing the findings from the 

newly identified studies with the findings of those studies previously reviewed. Similarly, when 

assessing evidence for new programs that prior rounds of the review did not include, the review 

team seeks to identify and account for all currently available evidence on the program.

This document explains the specific protocol the review team follows in conducting the 

review. The protocol is intended in part for researchers, practitioners, and program developers 

wanting to learn more about the review process and how studies and programs are assessed. The 

protocol is also used by members of the review team as a guide for conducting each update to the 

review findings. The protocol has been updated over time to account for any changes in the 

review standards or procedures. 

A. SEARCH FOR STUDIES

The review team identifies new studies for each update in four ways: (1) issuing a public 

call for studies to solicit new and unpublished research, (2) conducting keyword searches of 
REVIEW PROTOCOL VERSION 6.0

2 

electronic databases, (3) scanning the tables of contents of relevant research journals, and (4) 

reviewing citations in recently published literature reviews and meta-analyses. 

1. Call for studies

To mark the start of each new update to the review findings, the review team issues a public 

call for studies through an e-mail distribution list and a posting on the TPPER website. The call 

requests both (1) newly available evidence for programs previously reviewed and (2) evidence 

for new programs that prior rounds of the review did not include. Authors are typically given six 

to eight weeks to submit materials. Submissions are accepted by email. During the call for 

studies period, OPA and FYSB are also invited to submit studies from their recently funded 

evaluation grants. 

2. Keyword search of electronic databases

Additional studies are identified by conducting keyword searches of 15 electronic citation 

databases (see Table A.1 for a list). The searches are conducted by Mathematica’s professional 

librarians using the following keyword combination: 

(((((HIV[ti] OR AIDS[ti] OR pregnan*[ti] OR sexually transmit*[ti] OR STI[ti] OR STD[ti] 

OR birth[ti]) AND prevent*[ti]) OR (sex[ti] AND educat*[ti]) OR (sexual*[ti] AND 

(initiate*[ti] OR minorit*[ti] OR health[ti] OR risk avoid*[ti])) OR sexually[ti] OR "sex 

ed"[ti] OR abstinence[ti] OR abstain[ti] OR "risky sex" OR "teen pregnancy") AND 

(adolescen*[ti] OR teen*[ti] OR youth*[ti] OR student*[ti] OR minor*[ti] OR young[ti])) 

AND (Treatment[ti] OR interven*[ti] OR trial[ti] OR trials[ti] OR program*[ti] OR 

evaluat*[ti] OR random*[ti] OR quasi*[ti] OR matched[ti] OR review[ti] OR 

systematic[ti])) NOT (Africa OR "Africa"[Mesh]) 

3. Scan of journals

The review team also scans the tables of contents of 13 academic research journals (see 

Table A.2 for list) to identify studies that might be eligible for review. 

4. Review citations in recently published literature reviews and metaanalyses

The review team also reviewed the reference lists of recently published literature reviews 

and meta-analyses to identify studies that were not picked up in the literature search or call for 

papers. 
REVIEW PROTOCOL VERSION 6.0

3 

B. SCREEN AND SELECT STUDIES

The review team screens each study identified through the literature search against a set of 

pre-specified eligibility criteria. These criteria account for (1) the types of participants included 

in the study, (2) the types of programs examined, (3) the types of research designs and data used 

in the study, (4) the timeliness of the study findings, and (5) the types of outcome measures 

examined.

1. Types of participants

The review considers studies on U.S. youth ages 19 or younger. Studies with a subsample 

outside of this age range are considered for review if the study establishes that the majority of 

sample members are 19 or younger. There is no lower bound on age. 

2. Types of programs

The review focuses on programs that intend to reduce rates of teen pregnancy, STIs, or 

associated sexual risk behaviors through some combination of educational, skill-building, and/or 

psychosocial intervention. Programs may be delivered either one-on-one to individuals or in 

groups, in any type of public, private, or institutional setting. Examples include classroom-based 

health curricula, individualized programs delivered by health professionals in clinics or other 

settings, community-based or afterschool programs, and specialized programs for youth in the 

juvenile justice or child welfare systems. The review excludes programs that (1) focus primarily 

or entirely on the provision of clinical services (such as condom distribution programs) or (2) 

may affect sexual risk behavior and health outcomes only indirectly or through spillover effects 

on other outcomes (such as school dropout prevention, early childhood education, or job training 

programs). The review likewise excludes studies of state- or federal-policy changes, such as 

policies affecting access to contraception through Medicaid. 

3. Types of research designs and data used in the analysis

Studies must examine the effects of a program using quantitative data, statistical analysis, 

and hypothesis testing. The review considers both randomized controlled trials and quasiexperimental impact study designs. 

4. Timeliness of the study findings

To be eligible for the review, programs must have at least one impact study with follow-up 

data collection conducted within the last 20 years. As long as a program meets this criterion, 

evidence from all studies related to the program are considered for the review. However, 

programs for which the only impact study with evidence of effectiveness is more than 20 years 

old are excluded from the review. This “moving window” is designed to keep the review 

findings current and to encourage continued research on established programs. 

5. Types of outcomes

Studies must measure program impacts on at least one measure of sexual risk behavior or its 

health consequences. Measures meeting this definition fall into the following five domains: (1) 

sexual activity; (2) number of sexual partners; (3) contraceptive use; (4) STIs or HIV; and (5) 

pregnancies. Most studies use self-reported measures, but biological measures of STIs and 
REVIEW PROTOCOL VERSION 6.0

4 

administrative data (for example, birth records) are also considered. Measures with limitations in 

terms of their quality or interpretation (for example, reports from males of their female partners’ 

use of birth control pills or scales of behavioral risk and contraceptive use, which combine 

multiple measures into a single “black box” scale) are excluded from the review.

C. ASSESS INDIVIDUAL STUDIES

Studies that meet the review eligibility criteria are assessed by teams of two trained 

reviewers for the quality and execution of their research designs. The first reviewer conducts a 

detailed assessment of the study using a modified version of the rating tool first developed by the 

U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). The second reviewer 

checks and verifies the assessment for accuracy and completeness. Differences of opinion are 

resolved through consensus. 

As a part of the assessment process, the reviewers assign each study a quality rating of high, 

moderate, or low according to the risk of bias in the study’s impact estimates (see Table 1). In 

brief, the high rating is reserved for well-implemented randomized controlled trials. The 

moderate rating is considered for (1) quasi-experimental comparison group designs and (2) 

randomized controlled trials that do not meet the criteria for the highest rating. The low-quality 

rating is applied to studies that do not meet the review criteria for either a high or a moderate 

rating. The original rating scheme was developed by Mathematica and approved by the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services in fall 2009; the rating scheme was most recently 

revised in 2022. 

Table 1. Summary of study quality ratings

Criteria category

Features of studies with the 

high study rating

Features of studies with the 

moderate study rating

Study design Random or functionally random 

assignment

Random assignment design with high attrition or 

reassignment; Quasi-experimental design with a 

comparison group

Attrition Random assignment studies that do not 

exceed What Works Clearinghouse 

standards for overall and differential 

attrition (cautious assumption)

Random assignment studies that exceed What 

Works Clearinghouse attrition standards;

Attrition is not assessed in quasi-experimental 

designs

Baseline equivalence Not assessed – samples are assumed to 

be equivalent by virtue of random 

assignment and low levels of sample 

attrition

The equivalence of the research groups is 

demonstrated at baseline, and systematically 

adjusted for in impact analyses

Reassignment Analysis is based on original assignment 

to research groups

Not assessed, given the baseline equivalence 

requirement described above that ensures 

equivalence of the research groups

Confounding factors At least two subjects or groups in each 

research group and no systematic 

differences in data collection methods

At least two subjects or groups in each research 

group and no systematic differences in data 

collection methods

Note: Studies that do not achieve the high or moderate rating are given a “low” study rating. 
REVIEW PROTOCOL VERSION 6.0

5 

1. Study design

The highest study quality rating is reserved for randomized controlled trials and similar 

studies that randomly assigned subjects to their research groups. Studies using random 

assignment provide the strongest evidence that differences in the outcomes between the 

treatment and control groups can be attributed to the program. (Designs based on functionally 

random assignment, such as alternating based on last name, date of birth, or certain digits of an 

identification number, are also eligible for this highest rating.) 

Quasi-experimental designs with an external comparison group are eligible for at best a 

moderate rating. In such studies, subjects are sorted into the research groups through a process 

other than random assignment; therefore, even if the treatment and comparison groups are well 

matched based on observed characteristics, they may still differ on unmeasured characteristics. 

We therefore cannot rule out the possibility that the findings are attributable to unmeasured 

group differences. The moderate study rating is also applied to random assignment designs that 

do not meet other criteria for the highest rating (that is, attrition or reassignment), as explained in 

more detail below.

Quasi-experimental designs without an external comparison group (for example, pre-post 

designs) are given a low study rating. These designs are not considered for either the high or 

moderate rating because they offer no credible means to assess what the sample’s outcomes 

would have been absent the intervention—a necessary condition for obtaining an unbiased 

impact estimate. Quasi-experimental and random assignment studies that do not meet the other 

criteria for a high or moderate rating are also assigned the lowest rating.

2. Attrition

In random assignment studies, a loss of study participants can bias the study’s impact 

estimates by creating differences in the characteristics of the treatment and control groups. Bias 

can arise from overall attrition (the percentage of study participants lost among the total study 

sample) or differential attrition (the difference in attrition rates between the treatment and control 

groups). 

The review team assesses the level of sample attrition against standards established by the 

WWC. As seen in Figure 1 (next page), the WWC standards recognize a trade-off between 

overall and differential attrition. Namely, for an expected level of bias, studies with a relatively 

low level of overall attrition can meet standards with a relatively high level of differential 

attrition, whereas studies with a relatively high level of overall attrition require a lower level of 

differential attrition. Thus, the cutoff for an acceptable level of sample attrition is tied not only to 

the extent of overall attrition or differential attrition but rather to a combination of the two. For 

example, for studies with a relatively low overall attrition rate of 10 percent, the WWC allows a 

rate of differential attrition up to approximately 6 percent. However, for studies with a higher 

overall attrition rate of 30 percent, the WWC standard requires a lower rate of differential 

attrition, at approximately 4 percent. Only random assignment studies meeting the standard for 

acceptable combinations of overall and differential attrition using the cautious assumptions are 

considered for the highest study rating. Random assignment studies that do not meet these 

standards are considered for the moderate study rating. 
REVIEW PROTOCOL VERSION 6.0

6 

For cluster randomized trials, in which individuals are assigned to treatment and control 

conditions in groups (for example, schools or classrooms), the review team first assesses the 

level of attrition for the clusters or groups. If the combination of overall and differential attrition 

at the cluster level meets the WWC attrition standards, the review team then assesses attrition at 

the sub-cluster (or individual) level among non-attriting clusters. Random assignment studies 

with low attrition at both levels are eligible for the high rating. Random assignment studies with 

high attrition at either level must demonstrate baseline equivalence of the analytic sample to be 

eligible for the moderate study rating. 

In addition, cluster randomized trials that include sample members in the impact analysis 

who were not included in the sample at the time of random assignment (in other words, they 

joined the sample after random assignment) may also be required to demonstrate baseline 

equivalence of the analytic sample to be eligible for the moderate study rating. This requirement 

is enforced in contexts where the unit of assignment could potentially be exploited by joiners (for 

example, when classrooms within a school are the unit of assignment and a student may join a 

particular classroom in order to get the intervention). 

Figure 1. Standard for assessing sample attrition in study quality ratings

(WWC cautious attrition assumption) 

Source: WWC. Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 4.1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 

2020. 

In calculating the rate of sample attrition, the review team compares the number of clusters 

and individuals at the time of random assignment to the size of the final analytic sample1. Thus, 

any sample exclusions made after random assignment may factor into the attrition calculation. 

Depending on the specifics of the research design, these sample exclusions may arise from 

1 Sample attrition is calculated based on observed data (in other words, unimputed data) in the analytic sample, 

regardless of any approach used to impute or address missing data. 
REVIEW PROTOCOL VERSION 6.0

7 

participant nonconsent, nonresponse, nonparticipation, or any number of other factors. The key 

determination is whether the exclusion in question presents any risk of bias to the study’s impact 

estimates. Any sample exclusion that occurs after random assignment and presents a risk of bias 

will be factored into the attrition calculation. 

The attrition standards are not applied to quasi-experimental studies, because the review 

team evaluates these studies on the basis of their final analytic samples, from which there is no 

attrition. This criterion is explained in greater detail below.

Study authors must also handle missing data appropriately, regardless of design. The most 

common and straightforward method researchers use when data are missing is to simply remove 

observations with missing data from the samples they analyze and conduct a complete-case 

analysis. But other methods for handling missing data are sometimes used, including imputation 

(replacing observations with guesses as to the most reasonable value) or maximum likelihood 

(creating a statistical model to account for the missing data), and these alternate approaches may 

provide more credible estimates of program effectiveness than complete-case analyses. The 

WWC Standards Handbook Version 4.1 lists five acceptable approaches to handle missing data, 

along with standards for how RCTs and QEDs with missing outcome or baseline data should be 

handled (WWC 2020). When studies present credible analyses that align with WWC’s 

acceptable approaches for handling missing data, TPPER will allow such studies to receive a 

moderate or high rating, depending on other features of the study design and execution. 

3. Baseline equivalence

In quasi-experimental comparison group studies and random assignment studies with 

concerns about sample composition change (for example, studies with high attrition, 

reassignment, or individuals included in the analysis who may have selected/joined a cluster 

based on an attractive intervention), the use of well-matched treatment and comparison groups 

can minimize the risk of bias in the impact estimates. Therefore, in order to receive the moderate 

study rating, quasi-experimental comparison group studies and random assignment studies with 

concerns about sample composition change are required to demonstrate that the intervention and 

comparison groups were similar at baseline on three key demographic characteristics: age or 

grade level, gender, and race/ethnicity. For studies with sample members at least 14 years old at 

baseline (or eighth grade or higher), the study authors must also establish baseline equivalence 

on at least one behavioral outcome measure (for example, rates of sexual initiation). This 

criterion is not applied to studies with younger sample members because rates of sexual risk 

behaviors are typically low for this age group. 

TPPER will use the following approach to determine if samples satisfy the baseline 

equivalence requirement: If the reported difference of a specified baseline characteristic is 

greater than 0.25 standard deviations in absolute value, based on the variation of that 

characteristic in the pooled sample of treatment and control group members, TPPER considers 

the treatment and control groups to be nonequivalent. 

Depending on the size of the baseline difference, TPPER may require a statistical 

adjustment in the analysis. TPPER has slightly different rules for statistical adjustment 

requirements for demographic characteristics and baseline measures of the outcomes: 
REVIEW PROTOCOL VERSION 6.0

8 

• For demographic characteristics, when differences in the specified baseline characteristics 

are greater than 0.05 and lower or equal to 0.25 standard deviations, the analysis must 

include a statistical adjustment to meet the baseline equivalence requirement.2 Differences 

of less than or equal to 0.05 standard deviation require no statistical adjustment. 

• For baseline measures of the outcome, any difference lower than or equal to 0.25 standard 

deviations must be statistically adjusted for. 

Only those outcomes for which baseline equivalence is established are considered for 

possible evidence of program effectiveness. For example, if a study examined program impacts 

on three relevant outcome measures—sexual initiation, contraceptive use, and pregnancy—but 

established baseline equivalence for only one of the three measures (sexual initiation), the study 

meets the criteria for a moderate study rating, but only the impact findings for that one outcome 

measure (sexual initiation) are considered for possible evidence of program effectiveness. 

These baseline equivalence criteria are assessed on the study’s final analysis sample. In 

some cases, studies assess equivalence for all youth who completed a baseline survey, but then 

present impact estimates for only a smaller subset of youth who completed a follow-up survey. 

These studies do not meet the baseline equivalence criteria of this review, because equivalence 

was not established for the smaller subset of youth on which the program impacts were based. 

Similarly, studies are not considered for the moderate rating if they present baseline equivalence 

statistics separately for subgroups defined by age, gender, or race/ethnicity, without also 

establishing equivalence for the full analytic sample on which they estimated program impacts. 

Some studies, for example, present baseline equivalence statistics separately for males and 

females or for subgroups of older and younger youth, but not for the overall combined sample. 

Finally, studies must demonstrate baseline equivalence of their analytic samples for various 

outcomes using unimputed baseline data. When there are multiple analytic samples, studies 

should ideally present baseline equivalence for each analytic sample. To avoid overburdening 

study authors, TPPER reviewers may assess baseline equivalence using information for a sample 

of individuals that differs slightly from the sample of individuals used to produce a finding, (for 

example, due to item-level nonresponse on a survey) provided the difference in samples falls 

below the threshold for high attrition. 

4. Reassignment

In random assignment studies, deviation from the original random assignment (for example, 

moving youth from the treatment to the control group) can bias the study’s impact estimates. 

Therefore, in order for a random assignment study to meet the criteria for the highest rating, the 

analysis has to have been performed on the sample as originally assigned. In order to receive a 

high rating, subjects cannot be reassigned, based on actual treatment they received, for reasons 

such as contamination, noncompliance, or level of exposure. Random assignment studies that 

somehow alter the original random assignment must establish baseline equivalence of their final 

analysis sample in order to be considered for a moderate study rating. 

2 When demographic characteristics are presented for multiple categories (for example, multiple races or genders), 

the assessment of baseline equivalence will be based on the modal category.
REVIEW PROTOCOL VERSION 6.0

9 

For similar reasons, random assignment studies cannot statistically control for measures of 

program dosage, participation, or any other factors that effectively alter the composition of the 

treatment and control groups as originally assigned. Any impact estimates resulting from such 

analyses are excluded from our subsequent data extraction and assessment of program 

effectiveness (described below).

5. Confounding

In certain cases, a component of the research design or methods lines up exactly with the 

intervention being tested, undermining the credibility of attributing an observed effect to the 

intervention. For example, if a study assigns only one subject or group (for example, classroom 

or school) to the treatment or control condition, there is no way to distinguish the effects of the 

program from the particular effects of that one assigned subject or group. This can happen, for 

example, in quasi-experimental comparison group studies that estimate program impacts by 

comparing a single school or school district that implemented a pregnancy prevention program 

with a neighboring school or school district that did not have the program. In these cases, there is 

no way to distinguish the effects of the program from other characteristics of the particular 

school or district that implemented the program. A confounding factor can also arise from 

systematic differences in data collection methods for the treatment and comparison groups—for 

example, if program staff collect data from all subjects in the treatment group but an independent 

group of staff collect data from the control group. In this case, the mode of data collection cannot 

be separated from the effects of the intervention. Because the presence of such confounding 

factors severely weakens the credibility of a study’s findings, a low rating is assigned to random 

assignment or quasi-experimental comparison group studies with either (1) only one subject or 

group in the treatment and control condition or (2) systematic differences in data collection 

procedures between the treatment and control groups. 

D. ANALYZE EVIDENCE FOR INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS

All impact studies meeting the criteria for a high or moderate study quality rating are 

considered eligible for providing credible evidence of program impacts. For these eligible 

studies, the review team documents the impact estimate(s) for all relevant outcome measures, 

and uses this information to assess a program’s evidence of effectiveness. Studies receiving a 

low rating are not subject to data collection and extraction, as the information provided in these 

studies is considered not to provide credible estimates of program impacts. The process of 

analyzing individual programs for evidence of effectiveness involves three sequential steps: (1) 

extracting information on the impact findings for each study, (2) identifying programs meeting 

the review criteria for evidence of effectiveness, and (3) describing and summarizing the 

evidence across all available studies of the program. 
REVIEW PROTOCOL VERSION 6.0

10

1. Data extraction

For each relevant impact estimate from an eligible impact study, the review team collects 

and records the following information: the name and description of the outcome measure, length 

of follow-up, analytic sample used to estimate the program impact (full sample3 or subgroup of 

interest defined by (1) gender or (2) sexual experience at baseline), the reported statistical 

confidence interval or associated standard error of the estimate, the reported p-value or other 

associated test statistic, and statistical significance level as reported by the study authors. The 

review team extracts this information only for eligible outcome measures as defined in the 

review protocol. 

In the case of random assignment studies with multiple follow-up periods, this information 

is documented only for follow-up periods meeting the standard for low sample attrition. For 

follow-up periods not meeting the attrition standard, the information is treated as if it was based 

on a moderate quality study and documented only if the study establishes baseline equivalence 

for the analysis sample of that follow-up. 

The review team documents all of this information as the author(s) reports it. For example, 

studies can report the magnitude of the impact estimates in many forms—as log-odds ratios, 

differences in probabilities, or effect size units—and the review team documents each magnitude 

as it is reported. To help users of the review make sense of these estimates and better understand 

the magnitude of program effects, the review team encourages study authors to report both an 

unstandardized and a standardized estimate of magnitude for each impact estimate, regardless of 

the level of statistical significance. The review team may also follow up with study authors to 

request missing information on program effect sizes. 

2. Identifying programs with evidence of effectiveness

Based on the information collected and extracted from the eligible impact studies, the 

review team identifies programs meeting the review criteria for evidence of effectiveness. These 

criteria require a program to have at least one impact study showing evidence of a favorable, 

statistically significant impact on at least one outcome measure within one of the eligible 

outcome domains, for either the full analytic sample or a subgroup defined by (1) gender or (2) 

sexual experience at baseline. The eligible outcome domains are (1) sexual activity; (2) number 

of sexual partners; (3) contraceptive use; (4) STIs or HIV; and (5) pregnancies. In addition, the 

study cannot show evidence of any adverse, statistically significant impacts on any outcomes in 

these domains. 

Statistical significance is assessed with a two-tailed hypothesis test and a specified alpha 

level of p < .05. For studies in which the unit of assignment is a group (or cluster) of individuals 

(for example, schools or classrooms), study authors must appropriately adjust statistical 

significance tests for the correlation in measurement among individuals within the same group 

(intra-cluster correlation). If the tests are not appropriately adjusted, the review team may follow 

up with study authors to request adjusted estimates. If adjusted estimates are unavailable, the 

evidence in question will be excluded from the review. 

3 In a multi-site evaluation, site-specific impacts can be considered full sample contrasts when they are presented as 

intentional feature of the study design (for example, the sites represent different replication settings, the report 

mentions that it pre-registered a plan to report site-specific impact estimates, etc.).
REVIEW PROTOCOL VERSION 6.0

11

Although commonly featured in the literature, evidence from subgroups defined by sexual 

activity at follow-up is not considered when assessing program effectiveness. As with other 

endogenous subgroups that are defined by behavior emerging after the start of the program, the 

composition of those who are sexually active at follow-up may be affected by program 

participation. As a result, even with an experimental design, the treatment and comparison 

groups within such subgroups may lack equivalence, leading to biased estimates of a program’s 

impact for these groups (see Colman 2012). 

3. Describing and summarizing the supporting research evidence

For programs meeting the review criteria for evidence of effectiveness, the review team

describes and summarizes the research evidence across all available studies of the program. 

Some programs have been evaluated only once and so have evidence from only a single impact 

study. For these programs, the review team’s summary of the evidence is limited to the evidence 

from a single study. Other programs have been evaluated in multiple, separate studies. For these 

programs, the review team compares and summarizes the evidence across all the available 

studies. 

For each study, the review team first describes and summarizes the findings in each of the 

five eligible outcome domains: (1) sexual activity; (2) number of sexual partners; (3) 

contraceptive use; (4) STIs or HIV; and (5) pregnancies. For each outcome domain, the study’s 

findings are classified as falling into one of the following six categories (Table 2). In addition, 

on the TPPER website, the TPPER team will report the magnitude of the observed impacts for 

all outcomes that meet TPPER standards for a moderate or high rating, when information is 

available. This will include information on both unstandardized impacts and standardized effect 

sizes, which will be calculated by the TPPER team when feasible.

Table 2. Domain categorization rating for individual studies

Domain rating Criteria

Favorable findings • Two or more favorable impacts and no unfavorable impacts, regardless of 

null findings

Potentially favorable findings • At least one favorable impact and no unfavorable impacts, regardless of 

null findings

Indeterminate findings • Uniformly null findings

Conflicting findings • At least one favorable and at least one unfavorable impact, regardless of 

null findings

Potentially unfavorable findings • At least one unfavorable impact and no favorable impacts, regardless of 

null findings

Unfavorable findings • Two or more unfavorable impacts and no favorable impacts, regardless of 

null findings

To characterize the evidence for a program (which may include findings from multiple 

studies), the review team uses the following rating approach for each outcome domain (Table 3): 
REVIEW PROTOCOL VERSION 6.0

12

Table 3. Domain categorization rating for programs (potentially pooling 

across studies)

High-level 

rating Specific rating Criteria

Favorable Favorable evidence: Strong 

evidence of favorable findings 

with no overriding contrary 

evidence

• Two or more studies show Favorable findings, AND

• No studies have Inconsistent findings, Potentially 

unfavorable findings, or Unfavorable findings

Potentially favorable 

evidence: Evidence of a 

favorable findings with no 

evidence of adverse findings

• At least one study shows Favorable findings or Potentially 

favorable findings, AND 

• No studies have Inconsistent findings, Potentially

unfavorable findings, or Unfavorable findings

Null Indeterminate evidence: No 

affirmative evidence of findings

• All of the studies show Indeterminate findings

Conflicting Conflicting evidence: 

Evidence of conflicting (both 

favorable and unfavorable) 

findings

• At least one study shows Inconsistent findings OR 

− At least one study shows Favorable findings, or 

Potentially favorable findings, AND

− At least one study shows Unfavorable findings, or 

Potentially unfavorable findings

Unfavorable Potentially unfavorable 

evidence: Evidence of 

unfavorable findings with no 

overriding contrary evidence

• At least one study shows Unfavorable findings or Potentially 

unfavorable findings, AND 

• No studies have Inconsistent findings, Potentially favorable 

findings, or Favorable findings

Unfavorable evidence: Strong 

evidence of unfavorable findings 

with no overriding contrary 

evidence

• Two or more studies show Unfavorable findings, AND

• No studies have Inconsistent findings, Potentially favorable 

findings, or Favorable findings

The review team makes these study and program assessments separately for each of the five 

outcome domains. As a result, a program may be classified as having “favorable evidence” in 

one domain but “conflicting evidence” in another domain. In addition, programs are classified in 

these categories only for the domains on which they have been evaluated. For example, if a 

program has been evaluated for impacts on sexual activity but not pregnancy, the review team 

classifies the program’s evidence of effectiveness only for the domain of sexual activity. 

E. DESCRIBING PROGRAM COMPONENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION 

REQUIREMENTS

For programs meeting the review criteria for evidence of effectiveness, the review team will 

report information on program components and developer-intended and study-level 

implementation requirements. The information will be used to develop implementation profiles 

summarizing information about each intervention that will appear on the TPPER website. Data 

elements will be reported on three broad topics: 

• Program overview. This section will summarize information about the program and its 

intended population and setting, and developer contact information. 

• Program components. This section will summarize information about the ingredients of the 

program, including its objectives and goals, content, and instructional methods. 
REVIEW PROTOCOL VERSION 6.0

13

• Implementation requirements and guidance. This section will summarize information 

about program structure and timeline, staffing requirements, fidelity guidelines, and 

allowable adaptations.

The purposes of the implementation profiles are to 1) document the most updated 

implementation information available for programs that demonstrate evidence of effectiveness; 

2) provide context to help understand study research findings; 3) help the public learn more 

about a particular TPP program and whether it might be a good fit for their community, setting, 

and population; and 4) begin to disaggregate core program and implementation components. The 

target audience for the profiles will be practitioners and/or program administrators/staff as well 

as researchers.

F. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Members of the review team are not allowed to assess studies they were involved in 

designing or conducting. The review team does not otherwise face any potential conflicts of 

interest.
This page left blank for double-sided printing. 
REVIEW PROTOCOL VERSION 6.0

A.1 

APPENDIX A. SEARCH STRATEGY

Table A.1. Keyword search databases

Database

Academic Search Premier

CINAHL with Full Text

Cochrane Methodology Register

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect

Dissertation Abstracts

Education Research Complete

ERIC

Health Policy Reference Center

Mathematica’s in-house E-journals database

MedLine

PsycInfo

Science Direct 

SocINDEX with Full Text
REVIEW PROTOCOL VERSION 6.0

A.2 

Table A.2. Journals included in table of contents search

1 American Journal of Health Education 

2 American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing

3 American Journal of Public Health

4 Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine

5 Health Education and Behavior

6 Journal of Adolescent Health

7 Journal of AIDS Education and Prevention

8 Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

9 Journal of School Health

10 Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 

11 Prevention Science

12 Public Health Reports

13 Sexually Transmitted Diseases