Preventing early pregnancy among vulnerable adolescents requires innovative and sustained approaches. Prime Time, a youth development intervention, aims to reduce pregnancy risk among adolescent girls seeking clinic services who are at high risk for pregnancy.
Objective
To evaluate sexual risk behaviors and related outcomes with a 24-month postbaseline survey, 6 months after the conclusion of the Prime Time intervention.
Design
Randomized controlled trial.
Setting
Community and school-based primary care clinics.
Participants
Of 253 sexually active 13- to 17-year-old girls meeting specified risk criteria, 236 (93.3%) completed the 24-month follow-up survey.
Intervention
Offered during an 18-month period, Prime Time includes case management and youth leadership programs.
Main Outcome Measures
Self-reported consistency of condom, hormonal, and dual-method contraceptive use with most recent male sex partner and number of male sex partners in the past 6 months.
Results
At 24-month follow-up, the intervention group reported significantly more consistent use of condoms, hormonal contraception, and dual-method contraception than the control group. Intervention participants also reported improvements in family connectedness and self-efficacy to refuse unwanted sex, and reductions in the perceived importance of having sex. No between-group differences were found in the number of recent male sex partners.
Conclusions and Relevance
This study contributes to what has been a dearth of evidence regarding youth development interventions offered through clinic settings, where access to high-risk adolescents is plentiful but few efforts have emphasized a dual approach of strengthening sexual and nonsexual protective factors while addressing risk. Findings suggest that health services grounded in a youth development framework can lead to long-term reductions in sexual risk among vulnerable youth.
Despite reaching historic lows, the United States continues to have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and childbearing among industrialized nations.1 Each year, more than 750 000 young women aged 15 to 19 years become pregnant, resulting in more than 400 000 births.2 Pregnancy rates are disproportionately high among adolescents of color, with non-Hispanic black and Hispanic teenagers experiencing twice the rate of pregnancy as their non-Hispanic white counterparts.2
Teen pregnancy and childbearing are associated with adverse outcomes for teen age mothers and their children, including lower educational attainment for teenage parents, lower overall well-being for their children, and increased poverty for young families.3 As overall birth rates decline, evidence indicates growing disadvantage among teenagers who give birth.4 Teen childbearing also results in substantial economic costs to society, with an estimated cost of $10.9 billion to US taxpayers in 2008 alone.5
Among teenagers at high risk for pregnancy, interventions that are multifaceted and sustained over time are needed to positively affect risk behaviors linked to early pregnancy.6,7 Promising ap proaches are grounded in a youth development framework. Such interventions build on young people's strengths, incorporating both prevention and promotion strategies and enhancing protective factors such as sex refusal skills and family and school connectedness.8,9 By emphasizing protective factors and resources rather than focusing exclusively on risks, youth development approaches may be particularly appealing to communities that have experienced profound social and health disparities.10
According to a recent National Research Council and Institute of Medicine report,11 incorporating youth development approaches is fundamental to improving preventive and promotive health services for adolescents, especially for those most vulnerable to negative health outcomes, including early pregnancy. To date, limited evidence exists regarding outcomes of health services grounded in a youth development framework, especially from studies using rigorous evaluation designs.11
Prime Time is a multicomponent youth development intervention for girls at high risk for pregnancy. Designed for primary care clinics, this 18-month intervention aims to reduce precursors of teen pregnancy, including sexual risk behaviors, violence involvement, and school disconnection. A Prime Time randomized trial involved clinics in Minneapolis and St Paul, Minnesota.
We have previously demonstrated intervention effects on sexual risk behaviors at a 12-month (post baseline) interim point.12 At the end of the 18-month intervention, we found higher levels of enrollment in postsecondary education and lower levels of relational aggression among the intervention group,13 as well as lower levels of violence victimization among intervention participants with strong family connections.14 In this article, we examine sexual health outcomes of Prime Time—namely, patterns of contraceptive use, number of sex partners, and related psychosocial attributes—6 months after the conclusion of the intervention. Given the earlier effects on sexual risk behaviors and psychosocial attributes already noted, we hypothesized that the intervention would have enduring effects on these outcomes at this follow-up point.
METHODSPARTICIPANTS
Our sample consisted of sexually active girls aged 13 to 17 years who met at least 1 of the following risk criteria: (1) clinic visit involving negative pregnancy test,15 (2) clinic visit involving treatment for sexually transmitted infection,16 (3) young age (13 or 14 years),6 (4) aggressive and violent behaviors,6,17 (5) sexual risk behaviors,6 and (6) behaviors indicating school disconnection.6 Recent sexual activity and risk criteria 3 through 6 were assessed with a self-report screening tool.18 Girls who did not understand consent materials, were married or pregnant, or had given birth were not eligible. University and participating clinics’ institutional review boards approved the study.
From April 19, 2007, through October 22, 2008, trained study staff screened 1434 girls at 4 community and school-based primary care clinics (Figure). Of these, 571 sexually active girls who met at least 1 risk criterion were invited to participate. Enrollment involved 2 clinic visits to minimize attrition,19 which is problematic in high-risk, highly mobile youth populations.20 At the first visit, research staff identified study-eligible girls and invited them to return for a second visit within 2 weeks. At the second visit, girls signed an informed consent statement, provided baseline data, and were then randomized into study conditions. In total, 253 girls were enrolled, including 118 from community and 135 from school-based clinics.
Demographic and risk behavior items on the screening tool (completed at the first visit) were used to compare participants (n=253) with eligible nonparticipants (n=318). The 2 groups were similar for multiple indicators.12 Participants were more likely than eligible nonparticipants to live with only 1 parent (64.5% vs 52.4%) (χ22=19.09 [n = 545]; P=.02).
Table 1 provides data on participant demographics and sexual behaviors at baseline. Intervention and control groups were equivalent on these descriptors. Compared with national and statewide samples of sexually active girls of similar ages (eg, Youth Risk Behavior Survey21 and Minnesota Student Survey22), baseline data indicate high rates of sexual risk behaviors in this sample. For example, whereas 47% of sexually active 9th- and 12th-grade girls in Minnesota reported always using condoms,22 only 31.5% of our sample reported consistent condom use during the past 6 months.
INTERVENTION COMPONENTS
The resilience paradigm,23 social cognitive theory,24 and findings from a pilot study25 guided design of Prime Time. The primary focus was on promoting change in selected psychosocial attributes linked to sexual risk behaviors and other behavioral outcomes.6
Girls were involved in intervention programming for 18 months. Case managers experienced in working with urban teenagers from diverse cultural backgrounds led all programming. Details regarding case managers’ backgrounds, training, and supervision are found elsewhere as are intervention components, which are summarized here.18,26
Case Management
The overall goal of Prime Time case management was to establish a trusting relationship in which a teenager and her case manager worked together to address attributes targeted by this intervention. One-on-one visits focused on core topics including healthy relationships, responsible sexual behaviors (eg, contraceptive use), and positive family and school involvement. As a client-centered approach, the capacities, interests, and needs of individual participants determined the topics addressed during a visit. With each girl actively involved in case management, all core topics were addressed during each 6-month interval. Monthly visits occurred for the duration of the 18-month intervention in locations convenient for individual teenagers. Participants received $10 for each visit.
Youth Leadership Groups
Designed to complement one-on-one case management, peer educator and service learning groups provided hands-on skill-building experiences.
Peer Educator Groups: Just In Time
The goal of Just In Time was to provide opportunities for positive peer, school, and community involvement by actively engaging participants as peer educators. Just In Time training used a standard 15-session curriculum addressing interpersonal skills, expectations and skills for healthy relationships; social influences on sexual behaviors; sexual decision making; and contraceptive skills. Weekly homework gave teenagers opportunities to discuss Just In Time topics with adult family members.
Starting with their first training session, girls were instructed to reach and teach others outside their peer educator group. Girls received $5 for each contact, for up to 50 contacts. After completing the Just In Time curriculum, girls engaged in a group teaching practicum. During this 7-session practicum, groups selected a topic, developed a lesson plan, taught a session to another group of youths, adjusted the lesson plan as needed, and taught a second group session.
Service Learning Groups: It's Our Time
These groups focused on expanding girls’ social-emotional skills and their real-world experience in youth leadership. It's Our Time groups followed a standard curriculum featuring core service learning elements: preparation, action, reflection, and celebration. An initial unit emphasized building group cohesion and identifying participants’ leadership skills. In a second unit, groups explored community needs, assets, and potential service projects. In a third unit, groups implemented their service project during 5 or 6 sessions (eg, domestic violence awareness campaign). Each implementation session included a group reflection regarding the impact of service on recipients and on group members themselves. In a final session, groups celebrated their accomplishments.
EVALUATION
All participants completed an audio computer-assisted self-interview at baseline and 24 months after enrollment. Participants were paid $25 for completing each survey.
Participants
Of 253 participants who completed baseline surveys, 236 (93.3%) completed a 24-month follow-up survey. Seventeen participants were unavailable for follow-up at the 24-month point, 13 of whom were in the intervention condition. There were no significant differences in baseline measures (age, ethnicity, public assistance, sexual behaviors, and contraceptive use) between girls in the intervention and control groups completing the 24-month survey. An attrition analysis yielded isolated differences in baseline characteristics between girls unavailable for follow-up and those completing the 24-month survey. Compared with girls in the 24-month sample, those unavailable for follow-up reported fewer recent male sex partners in the past 6 months (mean, 1.3 vs 1.7 partners; P = .04) and less dual-method contraceptive use with their most recent partner (used dual methods 6% vs 16% of time with this partner; P = .05).
Outcome Measures
Two primary behavioral outcomes were the focus of this analysis: contraceptive use consistency with a most recent sex partner and number of male sex partners in the past 6 months. Previous research has established the reliability of these measures among sexually active adolescent girls.27
Contraceptive Use Consistency With Most Recent Partner
Participants identified in which of the past 6 months they had had sex and in which of these months they had used a hormonal method (oral contraception, injection, contraceptive patch, or vaginal ring), dual methods (hormonal method plus condoms), or condoms every time or most times they had sex with their most recent male partner. To measure consistency of contraceptive use, we tallied the number of months a participant reported using a hormonal method, dual methods, or condoms every or most times she had sex (count for each type of contraception ranged from 0 to 7 months, including current month).
Number of Male Sex Partners
Participants indicated the number of male partners with whom they had had vaginal sex in the past 6 months.
Psychosocial attributes repeatedly associated with adolescent sexual and contraceptive behaviors and targeted for change in the intervention were also examined. The eTable (http://www.jamapeds.com) describes these variables and their measurement properties.
Data Analysis
We used an intent-to-treat approach in which participants’ data were analyzed based on the group to which they were randomized, regardless of their level of participation. Generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate intervention efficacy. This strategy allows for modeling of both normally and nonnormally distributed variables and adjustment of standard errors for correlations between participants enrolled from the same clinic.28,29 Generalized estimating equation models are population averaged30; thus, model estimates are interpreted as applicable to an “average” participant in this population of high-risk adolescents.
Each 24-month outcome was regressed on participation in Prime Time (intervention vs control), controlling for the baseline measure of the outcome, with the exception of attending college or technical school. Models of partner-specific outcomes (eg, self-efficacy to use condoms with partner) included an indicator of whether the most recent partner at 24 months was the same partner reported at baseline. Models for contraceptive use consistency also included an exposure variable (number of months sexually active with most recent partner) to adjust for varying lengths of time at risk. Results are presented as adjusted odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes, adjusted incidence risk ratios for count outcomes, and adjusted mean differences for continuous outcomes. Analyses were conducted with Stata software (version 10).31
RESULTSINTERVENTION PARTICIPATION
Participation in case management and peer educator components was high. Specifically, 88.4% of girls completed at least 4 case management visits; among girls who reached this threshold, the median number of case management visits was 13. Moreover, 66.9% of participants completed at least 4 peer educator sessions; among those who reached this threshold, the median number of peer educator sessions was 18. In contrast, participation in the service learning component was low; only 30.6% of participants completed at least 4 sessions.
INTERVENTION EFFECTS
Table 2 compares intervention and control groups for study outcomes at the 24-month survey, 6 months after the conclusion of the intervention. For sexual behaviors, intervention participants reported significantly more consistent condom use with their most recent partner than controls (adjusted means for intervention vs control, 1.53 vs 0.93 months). Intervention participants also reported significantly more consistent hormonal use (adjusted means, 3.29 vs 2.34 months) and more consistent dual-method use (adjusted means, 0.65 vs 0.42 months). No between-group differences were found in the number of male sex partners in the past 6 months.
For psychosocial attributes, intervention participants reported significantly higher levels of family connectedness than controls. Fewer intervention participants than controls reported that it was important to have sex with their most recent partner in exchange for material things (6.0% vs 11.9%). Intervention participants reported significantly greater self-efficacy to refuse unwanted sex than controls. No between-group differences were found in the remaining psychosocial attributes.
INTERVENTION EFFECTS OVER TIME
Table 3 presents intervention effects at 12-, 18-, and 24-month assessment points to provide a context for sustained effects on sexual health outcomes. Among significant outcomes at 24 months, greater hormonal contraceptive consistency was noted at both prior assessments. Greater consistency in the use of condoms and dual-method contraceptives had been noted at the 12-month assessment,12 and greater family connectedness at the 18-month assessment.13 Significant effects on self-efficacy to refuse unwanted sex and the perceived importance of having sex for material reasons were noted only at the 24-month assessment.
COMMENT
Findings of sustained Prime Time program impact add to a growing evidence base supporting multicomponent youth development approaches for reducing sexual risk among adolescent girls at high risk for pregnancy. This project demonstrated that a large proportion of high-risk adolescent girls seeking clinic services will engage in youth development programming occurring outside the physical space of clinics. Nine in 10 intervention participants (88.4%) were actively involved in case management; two-thirds (66.9%) were actively involved in peer educator groups. This level of involvement yielded sustained improvements in participants’ use of condoms and hormonal and dual-method contraceptives. The intervention was also associated with sustained improvements in family connectedness, increases in sex refusal self-efficacy, and reductions in the perceived importance of having sex for material reasons.
Among the sexual behaviors targeted for change, Prime Time was particularly efficacious in improving girls’ consistent use of condoms and hormonal contraception. Consistent use of contraceptives was a key topic in both case management and peer educator sessions. Case managers regularly discussed contraceptive use as a responsible sexual behavior and an aspect of healthy sexual relationships. They also supplied girls with condoms and reminded them of clinic appointments for hormonal contraception. In peer educator sessions, girls discussed contraceptive options, communicating with partners about contraception, and contraceptive use as part of healthy sexual relationships. In turn, improvements in hormonal use were first noted at a 12-month interim assessment and sustained over time. Similarly, improvements in condom use were first seen at the interim and again 6 months after the conclusion of the intervention. Prior research32,33 indicates that improvements in contraceptive use are a driving force behind recent declines in teen pregnancy and childbearing. Thus, efforts such as Prime Time that promote consistent contraceptive use among sexually active teenagers via repeated messages from adults and peers may be a key to further reducing teen pregnancy rates.
In contrast to improvements in the consistent use of contraception, Prime Time had limited effects on reducing girls’ number of sexual partners. Having multiple sex partners was not normative in this sample: 64.8% of participants reported 1 and 19.4% reported 2 sex partners in the 6 months before study enrollment. Thus, there was less room for reducing sexual risk by decreasing numbers of sex partners than by improving contraceptive consistency.
Of psychosocial attributes targeted for change, Prime Time seems to have shifted girls’ sexual beliefs and increased their self-efficacy to refuse unwanted sex. Reductions in perceived importance of having sex for material reasons along with improvements in self-confidence to refuse unwanted sex may be indicators of establishing clear sexual relationship boundaries within the intervention group. Prime Time also may have augmented girls’ connections to family; intervention effects on family connectedness were sustained, having previously been noted at the conclusion of the 18-month intervention.13 A substantial number of Prime Time participants lived in disadvantaged social contexts (eg, residential mobility, family poverty), which may pose particular barriers to development of supportive family bonds. Expanding opportunities that foster positive family communication and connectedness may be critical to sustaining healthy sexual behaviors, including contraceptive use, especially for youth from disadvantaged contexts.7,34,35
This study has several methodological limitations. First, data were collected using self-report surveys that are subject to response bias. Using self-reports is standard practice for intervention studies addressing sexual risk behaviors36; prior research supports the reliability of adolescents’ reports of sexual and contraceptive behaviors,27,37 particularly with audio computer-assisted self-interview methods.38 Still, including biological measures, such as urine pregnancy tests, would have enhanced this study.39 Second, our study lacks measures assessing relational elements of the intervention. Thus, we are unable to assess the extent to which intervention effects were mediated through ongoing, individualized attention from a supportive adult professional. Third, findings may not be generalizable to high-risk adolescent girls who do not access clinic services. These limitations are balanced by methodological strengths. First, because participants were similar to eligible nonparticipants on a range of indicators, findings may be generalizable to a population of high-risk adolescent girls seeking clinic services. Second, minimal loss to follow-up at the 24-month survey along with only isolated differences between girls in the 24-month sample and those unavailable for follow-up increase our confidence in the validity of findings.40
This study contributes to what has been a dearth of evidence about long-term effects of preventive services for youth with complex, multisystem needs.11,36 Vulnerable youth comprise a critical subset of the adolescent population that typically does not receive comprehensive health services,41 thereby contributing to enduring disparities in pregnancy and birth rates. Although innovative multifaceted models of preventive services for this population exist,11 evidence regarding outcomes, costs, and downstream benefits of such approaches is limited. In this era of health care reform, evidence about efficacy and the costs and benefits of preventive services are critical to guiding changes in the organization, staffing, and delivery of health services for vulnerable youth.
Together with previous findings demonstrating reductions in sexual risk behaviors, relational aggression, and violence victimization among Prime Time participants,12-14,26 results from this study suggest that involvement in a youth development intervention that combines individualized case management and youth leadership components holds great promise for preventing multiple risk behaviors among youth most vulnerable to poor health outcomes, including early pregnancy. Furthermore, long-term increases in family connectedness as well as the beliefs and self-efficacy necessary to set healthy sexual boundaries suggest that interventions such as Prime Time may foster social and intrapersonal attributes needed to sustain healthy behaviors.
Supplementary Material
Funding/Support: This project is supported with funds from the National Institute of Nursing Research (grant 5R01-NR008778; Dr Sieving, principal investigator), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (grant U48-DP001939; Dr Resnick, principal investigator), and the Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration (grant T32HP22239).
Role of the Sponsors: The funding agencies were not involved in the design and conduct of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.
Author Contributions: Dr Sieving had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Sieving, Beckman, Bearinger, Oliphant, Plowman, and Resnick. Acquisition of data: Sieving, Beckman, Plowman, and Secor-Turner. Analysis and interpretation of data: Sieving, McRee, McMorris, Beckman, Pettingell, Bearinger, Garwick, Oliphant, Plowman, and Secor-Turner. Drafting of the manuscript: Sieving, McRee, Bearinger, Oliphant, and Secor-Turner. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Sieving, McRee, McMorris, Beckman, Pettingell, Garwick, Oliphant, Plowman, Resnick, and Secor-Turner. Statistical analysis: McRee, McMorris, and Pettingell. Obtained funding: Sieving, Bearinger, Oliphant, and Resnick. Administrative, technical, and material support: Sieving, Beckman, Oliphant, Plowman, and Resnick. Study supervision: Sieving.
Additional Contributions: The Prime Time study would not have been possible without the cooperation and contributions of the adolescents, clinics, and research staff involved with this project. We also thank Jenna Baumgartner, BA, for her excellent editorial assistance with manuscript preparation.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Sieving is principal investigator for the Prime Time study.
REFERENCESHamiltonBEVenturaSJBirth Rates for U.S. Teenagers Reach Historic Lows for All Age and Ethnic Groups2012National Center for Health StatisticsHyattsville, MDNCHS Data Brief, No. 89Centers for Disease Control and PreventionVital signs: teen pregnancy—United States, 1991-2009.MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep2011601341442021471949MaynardRHoffmanSMaynardRHoffmanSThe costs of adolescent childbearing.Kids Having Kids: Economic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy2008359402Urban Institute PressWashington, DCKearneyMSLevinePBWhy is the teen birth rate in the United States so high and why does it matter?J Econ Perspect201226214116622792555HoffmanSCounting It Up: The Public Costs of Teen Childbearing2011National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned PregnancyWashington, DCKirbyDEmerging Answers 2007: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases2007National Campaign to Prevent Teen PregnancyWashington, DCPhilliberSKayeJWHerrlingSWestEPreventing pregnancy and improving health care access among teenagers: an evaluation of the Children's Aid Society-Carrera program.Perspect Sex Reprod Health200234524425112392217CatalanoRFFaganAAGavinLEWorldwide application of prevention science in adolescent health.Lancet201237998261653166422538180RothJBrooks-GunnJMurrayLFosterWPromoting healthy adolescents: synthesis of youth development program evaluations.J Res Adolesc199884423459RewLHornerSDYouth resilience framework for reducing health-risk behaviors in adolescents.J Pediatr Nurs200318637938815058534National Research Council and Institute of MedicineAdolescent Health Services: Missing Opportunities2009National Academies PressWashington, DCSievingREMcMorrisBJBeckmanKJPrime Time: 12-month sexual health outcomes of a clinic-based intervention to prevent pregnancy risk behaviors.J Adolesc Health2011492172179doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.12.00221783050SievingREMcMorrisBJSecor-TurnerMPrime Time: 18-month violence outcomes of a clinic-based intervention.Prev SciIn pressShlaferRJMcMorrisBJSievingREGowerALThe impact of family and peer protective factors on girls’ violence perpetration and victimization [published online September 26, 2012].J Adolesc Health2012doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.07.015ZabinLSSedivyVEmersonMRSubsequent risk of childbearing among adolescents with a negative pregnancy test.Fam Plann Perspect1994265212217OrrDPJohnstonKBrizendineEKatzBFortenberryJDSubsequent sexually transmitted infection in urban adolescents and young adults.Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med20011558947953doi:10.1001/archpedi.155.8.94711483124SilvermanJGRajAMucciLAHathawayJEDating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality.JAMA2001286557257911476659SievingREResnickMDGarwickAWA clinic-based, youth development approach to teen pregnancy prevention.Am J Health Behav201135334635821683023HennekenCEpidemiology in Medicine1987Little, BrownBoston, MASussmanSDentCWStacyAWProject Towards No Drug Abuse: a review of the findings and future directions.Am J Health Behav200226535436512206445Centers for Disease Control and Preventionouth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2007.MMWR Surveill Summ200857SS-42123Minnesota Department of HealthMinnesota Student Survey 2007http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/mss/statewidetables/.January 21, 2013ResnickMDProtective factors, resiliency and healthy youth development.Adolesc Med200011115716510640344BanduraASocial Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory1986Prentice-HallEnglewood Cliffs, NJSievingREBernatDHResnickMDA clinic-based youth development program to reduce sexual risk behaviors among adolescent girls: Prime Time pilot study.Health Promot Pract2012134462471doi:10.1177/152483991038601121606323TannerAESecor-TurnerMGarwickAWSievingRERushKEngaging vulnerable adolescents in a pregnancy prevention program: perspectives of Prime Time staff.J Pediatr Health Care2012264254265doi:10.1016/j.pedhc.2010.10.00322726710SievingREHellerstedtWMcNeelyCFeeRSnyderJResnickMReliability of self-reported contraceptive use and sexual behaviors among adolescent girls.J Sex Res200542215916616123846LiangKYZegerSLLongitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models.Biometrika1986731322ZegerSLLiangKYLongitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes.Biometrics19864211211303719049HubbardAEAhernJFleischerNLTo GEE or not to GEE: comparing population average and mixed models for estimating the associations between neighborhood risk factors and health.Epidemiology201021446747420220526StataCorpStata Statistical Software: Release 102007Stata-CorpCollege Station, TXSantelliJSOrrMLindbergLDDiazDCChanging behavioral risk for pregnancy among high school students in the United States, 1991-2007.J Adolesc Health2009451253219541246SantelliJSMelnikasAJTeen fertility in transition: recent and historic trends in the United States.Annu Rev Public Health201031137138320070205PittmanKJIrbyMTolmanJYohalemNFerberTPreventing Problems, Promoting Development, Encouraging Engagement: Competing Priorities on Inseparable Goals?2003Forum for Youth InvestmentWashington, DCSecor-TurnerMMcMorrisBSievingRBearingerLLife experiences of instability and sexual risk behaviors among high risk adolescent girls.Perspect Sex Reprod HealthIn pressMathematica Policy ResearchIdentifying Programs That Impact Teen Pregnancy, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and Associated Sexual Risk Behaviors. Review Protocol, Version 2.02012Office of Adolescent HealthWashington, DCBrenerNDKannLMcManusTKinchenSASundbergECRossJGReliability of the 1999 youth risk behavior survey questionnaire.J Adolesc Health200231433634212359379TurnerCFKuLRogersSMLindbergLDPleckJHSonensteinFLAdolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology.Science199828053658678739572724OliphantJLeVasseurDMcReeALBeckmanKPlowmanSSievingREPregnancy testing for high-risk adolescents in non-traditional locations.Paper presented at: American Public Health Association 140th Annual ConferenceSan Franciso, CA.October 29, 2012https://apha.confex.com/alpha/140am/webprogram/Paper269081.html.January 23, 2013DavisLLBroomeMECoxRPMaximizing retention in community-based clinical trials.J Nurs Scholarsh2002341475311901967IrwinCEJrAdamsSHParkMJNewacheckPWPreventive care for adolescents: few get visits and fewer get services.Pediatrics20091234e565e57219336348
Flowchart showing randomization of Prime Time study participants. Among patients unavailable for follow-up, “lost” indicates those who could not be located; and “no-show,” those who were contacted and scheduled for a follow-up survey but did not complete the survey.
Baseline Characteristics of Prime Time Participants by Intervention Conditiona
Baseline Characteristic
Intervention Group
Control Group
Demographic data
Age, mean (SE), y
15.7(0.1)
15.5(0.2)
Age, y
13
0.8
2.4
14
14.3
22.0
15
28.6
23.7
16
27.0
28.3
17
29.3
23.6
Race or ethnicityb
American Indian/Native American
3.2
2.4
Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander
10.3
13.4
Black/African/African American
44.4
37.8
Hispanic/Latina
16.7
7.9
White/European American
6.3
15.7
Mixed/multiple
19.1
22.8
No. of parents or guardians in homec
0
4.0
2.4
1
46.4
44.1
2
37.6
45.6
Other arrangements
12.0
7.9
No. of places lived in past 6 mo
1
57.9
60.6
2
25.4
23.6
≥3
16.7
15.8
Family receipt of public assistance in past 1 yd
No
32.8
31.5
Yes
43.2
51.2
Unsure
24.0
17.3
Currently enrolled in school
93.6
96.0
Ever suspended from school
64.8
74.6
Sexual behaviors
No. of male sex partners in past 6 mo, mean (SE)
1.5(0.2)
1.8(0.1)
No. of male sex partners in past 6 mo
1
64.8
57.5
2
26.4
24.4
3
2.4
8.7
≥4
6.4
9.4
Condom use in past 6 mo (n = 251)
Never
14.4
9.5
Half the time or less
32.0
32.5
More than half the time
22.4
26.2
Every time
31.2
31.8
Months of using hormonal contraception in past 6 mo, mean (SE)e
2.1 (0.3)
2.1 (0.5)
Data represent percentage of participants unless otherwise noted. The intervention group included 126 participants and the control group, 127, except that for condom use in past 6 mo, the intervention group included 125 participants and the control group, 126.
Mutually exclusive race categories; participants were allowed to select >1 category.
Adults and guardians include biological or adoptive parents, stepparents, foster parents, grandparents, and other guardians.
Public assistance includes welfare payments, aid from the Minnesota Family Investment Program, public assistance, and food stamps.
Hormonal methods include oral contraception, injection, contraceptive patch, and vaginal ring.
Effects of Prime Time Intervention on Behavioral and Psychosocial Outcomes at 24 Monthsa
Variable
Sample Size
Adjusted % or Mean Score
ARR, AOR, or Mean Difference (95% CI)b
Intervention Group
Control Group
Sexual Behavior Outcomes
Consistency of condom usec,d,e,f
204
1.53
0.93
ARR, 1.57 (1.28 to 1.94)
Consistency of hormonal contraceptive used,e,f,g
203
3.29
2.34
ARR, 1.30 (1.06 to 1.58)
Consistency of dual-method contraceptive used,e,f,g
203
0.65
0.42
ARR, 1.36 (1.01 to 1.85)
No. of male sex partners in past 6 mod,h
234
1.39
1.34
ARR, 1.06 (0.84 to 1.32)
Psychosocial Outcomes
Environmental attributes
Social connectedness
Familyi
233
2.21
1.91
0.30 (0.14 to 0.46)
Schooli,j
158
2.20
2.13
0.07 (−0.08 to 0.22)
Attending college or technical schoolk,l
75
61.5%
44.2%
AOR, 2.01 (0.86 to 4.74)
Perceived norms regarding contraception
Perceived partner desire to use contraceptionk,m
202
41.3%
33.3%
AOR, 1.15 (0.74 to 1.77)
Personal attributes
Sexual attitudes and beliefs
Reasons for having sex, material considerationse,k
214
6.0%
11.9%
AOR, 0.50 (0.41 to 0.61)
Reasons for having sex, relationship considerationse
Unless otherwise indicated, all models controlled for outcome at baseline and adjusted for within-clinic similarities.
Difference between intervention and control groups.
Counts for using a condom every time or most of the time ranged from 0 to 7 mo.
Poisson regression model for count outcome.
Model controlled for having the same sex partner at baseline and 24-mo assessment.
Model adjusted for number of months participant had sex with most recent partner
Counts ranged from 0 to 7 mo.
Values ranged from 0 to 10 partners in the past 6 mo.
Scores ranged from 0 (low) to 3 (high).
Model excluded participants who had completed high school or General Education Development requirements at 24-mo follow-up.
Logistic regression model for dichotomous outcome.
Model included only participants who had graduated from high school or received General Education Development certification.
Percentage reporting most recent sex partner always wanted to use contraception.
Percentage reporting always wanting to use contraception with most recent sex partner.
Scores ranged from 0 (no communication about sexual risk with most recent sex partner), 1 (communication with partner after having sex), and 2 (communication with partner before having sex).
Effects of Prime Time Intervention on Behavioral and Psychosocial Outcomes at 12, 18, and 24 Months After Baselinea
ARR, AOR, or Mean Difference (95% CI)
Variable
12 mob,c
18 moc,d
24 moc
Sexual Behavior Outcomes
Consistency of condom usee,f,g,h
ARR, 1.45 (1.26 to 1.67)
ARR, 1.10 (0.73 to 1.68)
ARR, 1.57 (1.28 to 1.94)
Consistency of hormonal contraceptive usee,f,g,i
ARR, 1.46 (1.13 to 1.89)
ARR, 1.36 (1.02 to 1.83)
ARR, 1.30 (1.06 to 1.58)
Consistency of dual-method contraceptive usee,f,g,i
ARR, 1.58 (1.03 to 2.43)
ARR, 1.08 (0.78 to 1.50)
ARR, 1.36 (1.01 to 1.85)
No. of male sex partners in past 6 moe,j
ARR, 1.08 (0.89 to 1.31)
ARR, 0.97 (0.77 to 1.22)
ARR, 1.06 (0.84 to 1.32)
Psychosocial Outcomes
Environmental attributes
Social connectedness
Familyk
0.12 (−0.01 to 0.26)
0.18 (0.07 to 0.28)
0.30 (0.14 to 0.46)
Schoolk,l
0.16 (−0.01 to 0.33)
−0.02 (−0.15 to 0.12)
0.07 (−0.08 to 0.22)
Attending college or technical schoolm,n
AOR, 1.58 (0.76 to 3.28)
AOR, 2.25 (1.30 to 3.93)
AOR, 2.01 (0.86 to 4.74)
Perceived norms regarding contraception
Perceived partner desire to use contraceptionm
AOR, 1.50 (0.88 to 2.56)
AOR, 1.12 (0.64 to 1.97)
AOR, 1.15 (0.74 to 1.77)
Personal attributes
Sexual attitudes and beliefs
Reasons for having sex, material considerationsf,m
AOR, 0.88 (0.72 to 1.07)
AOR, 0.76 (0.33 to 1.75)
AOR, 0.50 (0.41 to 0.61)
Reasons for having sex, relationship considerationsf,k
Unless otherwise indicated, all models controlled for outcome at baseline and adjusted for within-clinic similarities. ARR, AOR, and mean differences noted in bold indicate differences between intervention and control groups that were significant at P < .05.
All 12-mo outcomes, except attending college or technical school and reasons for having sex (material and relationship considerations) have been reported elsewhere.12
Difference between intervention and control groups.
The 18-mo outcomes for family connectedness, school connectedness, stress management skills, and attending college or technical school have been reported elsewhere.13
Poisson regression model for count outcome.
Model controlled for having the same sex partner at baseline and 24-mo assessment.
Model adjusted for number of months participant had sex with most recent partner.
Counts for using a condom every time or most of the time ranged from 0 to 7 mo.
Counts ranged from 0 to 7 mo.
Values ranged from 0 to 10 partners in the past 6 mo.
Scores ranged from 0 (low) to 3 (high).
Model excluded participants who had completed high school or General Education Development requirements at 24-mo follow-up point.
Logistic regression model for dichotomous outcome.
Model included only participants who had graduated from high school or received General Education Development certification.
Scores ranged from 0 (no communication about sexual risk with most recent sex partner), 1 (communication with partner after having sex), and 2 (communication with partner before having sex).