Association of Sexual Health Interventions With Sexual Health Outcomes in Black Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | Adolescent Medicine | JAMA Pediatrics | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure 1.  Forest Plot for Abstinence Outcome
Forest Plot for Abstinence Outcome

Forest plot displaying effect sizes and 95% CIs for abstinence. Positive effect sizes indicate that sexual activity was reduced in intervention participants compared with control individuals. Error bars indicate 95% CIs; diamond, overall effect size.

Figure 2.  Forest Plot for Condom Use Outcome
Forest Plot for Condom Use Outcome

Forest plot displaying effect size and 95% CIs for condom use. Positive effect sizes indicate that condom use was increased in intervention participants compared with control individuals. Error bars indicate 95% CIs; diamond, overall effect size.

Table 1.  Study Characteristics
Study Characteristics
Table 2.  Weighted Mean Effect Sizes of Sexual Health Interventions for Sexual Health Outcomes in Black Adolescentsa
Weighted Mean Effect Sizes of Sexual Health Interventions for Sexual Health Outcomes in Black Adolescentsa
Table 3.  Weighted Mean Effect Sizes of Intervention for Abstinence and Condom Use
Weighted Mean Effect Sizes of Intervention for Abstinence and Condom Use
1.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Trends in Teen Pregnancy and Childbearing. 2016. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-development/reproductive-health-and-teen-pregnancy/teen-pregnancy-and-childbearing/trends/index.html
2.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities. 2018. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats17/minorities.htm
3.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About Teen Pregnancy. 2017. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/index.htm
4.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Evidence Summary: Prevent Unintended Pregnancy. 2015. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/sixeighteen/docs/6-18-evidence-summary-pregnancy.pdf
5.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Information for Teens: Staying Healthy and Preventing STDs. 2017. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/std/life-stages-populations/YouthandSTDs-Dec-2017.pdf
6.
Gause  NK, Brown  JL, Welge  J, Northern  N.  Meta-analyses of HIV prevention interventions targeting improved partner communication: effects on partner communication and condom use frequency outcomes.   J Behav Med. 2018;41(4):423-440. doi:10.1007/s10865-018-9916-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Goodman  M, Onwumere  O, Milam  L, Peipert  JF.  Reducing health disparities by removing cost, access, and knowledge barriers.   Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(4):382.e1-382.e5. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.12.015 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Bronfenbrenner  U. Ecological systems theory. In: Brofenbrenner  U, ed.  Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human Development. Sage Publications Ltd; 1995:106-173.
10.
Lanier  Y, Sommers  MS, Fletcher  J, Sutton  MY, Roberts  DD.  Examining racial discrimination frequency, racial discrimination stress, and psychological well-being among Black early adolescents.   J Black Psychol. 2017;43(3):219-229. doi:10.1177/0095798416638189 Google ScholarCrossref
11.
Jackson  JS, Caldwell  CH, Antonucci  TC, Oyserman  DR.  National Survey of American Life–Adolescent Supplement (NSAL-A), 2001-2004. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research; 2016.
12.
Leech  TGJ, Irby-Shasanmi  A, Mitchell  AL.  “Are you accepting new patients?” a pilot field experiment on telephone-based gatekeeping and Black patients’ access to pediatric care.   Health Serv Res. 2019;54(suppl 1):234-242. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.13089 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Parekh  N, Jarlenski  M, Kelley  D.  Disparities in access to primary care and emergency department utilization in a large Medicaid program.   J Health Dispar Res Pract. 2018;11(4):1-13.Google Scholar
14.
Adams  SH, Park  MJ, Twietmeyer  L, Brindis  CD, Irwin  CE  Jr.  Association between adolescent preventive care and the role of the Affordable Care Act.   JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(1):43-48. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.3140 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Haider  S, Stoffel  C, Donenberg  G, Geller  S.  Reproductive health disparities: a focus on family planning and prevention among minority women and adolescents.   Glob Adv Health Med. 2013;2(5):94-99. doi:10.7453/gahmj.2013.056 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Hall  WJ, Chapman  MV, Lee  KM,  et al.  Implicit racial/ethnic bias among health care professionals and its influence on health care outcomes: a systematic review.   Am J Public Health. 2015;105(12):e60-e76. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302903 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Benner  AD, Wang  Y, Shen  Y, Boyle  AE, Polk  R, Cheng  YP.  Racial/ethnic discrimination and well-being during adolescence: a meta-analytic review.   Am Psychol. 2018;73(7):855-883. doi:10.1037/amp0000204 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Crichton  J, Hickman  M, Campbell  R, Batista-Ferrer  H, Macleod  J.  Socioeconomic factors and other sources of variation in the prevalence of genital chlamydia infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):729. doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2069-7 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Penman-Aguilar  A, Carter  M, Snead  MC, Kourtis  AP.  Socioeconomic disadvantage as a social determinant of teen childbearing in the U.S.   Public Health Rep. 2013;128(suppl 1):5-22. doi:10.1177/00333549131282S102 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Markham  CM, Tortolero  SR, Peskin  MF,  et al.  Sexual risk avoidance and sexual risk reduction interventions for middle school youth: a randomized controlled trial.   J Adolesc Health. 2012;50(3):279-288. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.07.010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
DiIorio  C, McCarty  F, Resnicow  K, Lehr  S, Denzmore  P.  REAL men: a group-randomized trial of an HIV prevention intervention for adolescent boys.   Am J Public Health. 2007;97(6):1084-1089. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.073411PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Dilorio  C, Resnicow  K, McCarty  F,  et al.  Keepin’ it R.E.A.L.!: results of a mother-adolescent HIV prevention program.   Nurs Res. 2006;55(1):43-51. doi:10.1097/00006199-200601000-00006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Kogan  SM, Yu  T, Brody  GH,  et al.  Integrating condom skills into family-centered prevention: efficacy of the Strong African American Families-Teen program.   J Adolesc Health. 2012;51(2):164-170. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.11.022 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Sznitman  S, Stanton  BF, Vanable  PA,  et al.  Long term effects of community-based STI screening and mass media HIV prevention messages on sexual risk behaviors of African American adolescents.   AIDS Behav. 2011;15(8):1755-1763. doi:10.1007/s10461-011-9946-6 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Dancy  BL, Crittenden  KS, Talashek  ML.  Mothers’ effectiveness as HIV risk reduction educators for adolescent daughters.   J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2006;17(1):218-239. doi:10.1353/hpu.2006.0012 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Clark  LF, Miller  KS, Nagy  SS,  et al.  Adult identity mentoring: reducing sexual risk for African-American seventh grade students.   J Adolesc Health. 2005;37(4):337. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.09.024 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
DiClemente  RJ, Davis  TL, Swartzendruber  A,  et al.  Efficacy of an HIV/STI sexual risk-reduction intervention for African American adolescent girls in juvenile detention centers: a randomized controlled trial.   Women Health. 2014;54(8):726-749. doi:10.1080/03630242.2014.932893 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Harris  LW, Cheney  MK.  Positive youth development interventions impacting the sexual health of young minority adolescents: a systematic review.   J Early Adolesc. 2018;38(1):74-117. doi:10.1177/0272431615578693 Google ScholarCrossref
29.
Lauricella  M, Valdez  JK, Okamoto  SK, Helm  S, Zaremba  C.  Culturally grounded prevention for minority youth populations: a systematic review of the literature.   J Prim Prev. 2016;37(1):11-32. doi:10.1007/s10935-015-0414-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Lee  YM, Cintron  A, Kocher  S.  Factors related to risky sexual behaviors and effective STI/HIV and pregnancy intervention programs for African American adolescents.   Public Health Nurs. 2014;31(5):414-427. doi:10.1111/phn.12128 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Maness  SB, Buhi  ER.  A systematic review of pregnancy prevention programs for minority youth in the US: a critical analysis and recommendations for improvement.   J Health Dispar Res Pract. 2013;6(2):91-106.Google Scholar
32.
Mon Kyaw Soe  N, Bird  Y, Schwandt  M, Moraros  J.  STI health disparities: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of preventive interventions in educational settings.   Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(12):E2819. doi:10.3390/ijerph15122819 PubMedGoogle Scholar
33.
Mirzazadeh  A, Biggs  MA, Viitanen  A,  et al.  Do school-based programs prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted infections in adolescents? a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Prev Sci. 2018;19(4):490-506. doi:10.1007/s11121-017-0830-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Morales  A, Espada  JP, Orgilés  M, Escribano  S, Johnson  BT, Lightfoot  M.  Interventions to reduce risk for sexually transmitted infections in adolescents: a meta-analysis of trials, 2008-2016.   PLoS One. 2018;13(6):e0199421. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0199421 PubMedGoogle Scholar
35.
Jones  J, Salazar  LF, Crosby  R.  Contextual factors and sexual risk behaviors among young, black men.   Am J Mens Health. 2017;11(3):508-517. doi:10.1177/1557988315617525 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. How You Can Prevent Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2016. Accessed March 5, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/std/prevention/default.htm.
37.
Bandura  A. Social cognitive theory. In:  Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Sage Publishing; 2011:349-373.
38.
Fishbein  M, Ajzen  I.  Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. Taylor & Francis; 2011. doi:10.4324/9780203838020
39.
US Census Bureau. Race. 2018. Accessed March 5, 2020. https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html
40.
Cardoza  VJ, Documét  PI, Fryer  CS, Gold  MA, Butler  J  III.  Sexual health behavior interventions for U.S. Latino adolescents: a systematic review of the literature.   J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2012;25(2):136-149. doi:10.1016/j.jpag.2011.09.011 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Lee  YM, Dancy  B, Florez  E, Holm  K.  Factors related to sexual practices and successful sexually transmitted infection/HIV intervention programs for Latino adolescents.   Public Health Nurs. 2013;30(5):390-401. doi:10.1111/phn.12039 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Metzger  I, Cooper  SM, Zarrett  N, Flory  K.  Culturally sensitive risk behavior prevention programs for African American adolescents: a systematic analysis.   Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2013;16(2):187-212. doi:10.1007/s10567-013-0133-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Sutton  MY, Lasswell  SM, Lanier  Y, Miller  KS.  Impact of parent-child communication interventions on sex behaviors and cognitive outcomes for black/African-American and Hispanic/Latino youth: a systematic review, 1988-2012.   J Adolesc Health. 2014;54(4):369-384. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.11.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Thurman  AR, Holden  AE, Shain  RN, Perdue  S, Piper  JM.  Preventing recurrent sexually transmitted diseases in minority adolescents: a randomized controlled trial.   Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(6):1417-1425. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318177143a PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Smith  PB, Weinman  ML, Parrilli  J.  The role of condom motivation education in the reduction of new and reinfection rates of sexually transmitted diseases among inner-city female adolescents.   Patient Educ Couns. 1997;31(1):77-81. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(97)01009-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Peskin  MF, Shegog  R, Markham  CM,  et al.  Efficacy of It’s Your Game-Tech: a computer-based sexual health education program for middle school youth.   J Adolesc Health. 2015;56(5):515-521. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.01.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Stanton  BF, Li  X, Ricardo  I, Galbraith  J, Feigelman  S, Kaljee  L.  A randomized, controlled effectiveness trial of an AIDS prevention program for low-income African-American youths.   Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996;150(4):363-372. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1996.02170290029004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Sznitman  S, Vanable  PA, Carey  MP,  et al.  Using culturally sensitive media messages to reduce HIV-associated sexual behavior in high-risk African American adolescents: results from a randomized trial.   J Adolesc Health. 2011;49(3):244-251. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.12.007 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Higgins  JP, Altman  DG, Gøtzsche  PC,  et al; Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group.  The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.   BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Cohen  J.  A power primer.   Psychol Bull. 1992;112(1):155-159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Borenstein  M, Hedges  LV, Higgins  JPT, Rothstein  HR.  Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 2009. doi:10.1002/9780470743386
52.
Wilson  DB. Practical meta-analysis effect size calculator. 2018. Accessed March 5, 2020. https://campbellcollaboration.org/escalc/html/EffectSizeCalculator-SMD-main.php
53.
Lipsey  MW, Wilson  DB.  Practical Meta-analysis. Sage; 2001.
54.
DeLamater  J, Wagstaff  DA, Havens  KK.  The impact of a culturally appropriate STD/AIDS education intervention on black male adolescents’ sexual and condom use behavior.   Health Educ Behav. 2000;27(4):454-470. doi:10.1177/109019810002700408 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
DiClemente  RJ, Wingood  GM, Harrington  KF,  et al.  Efficacy of an HIV prevention intervention for African American adolescent girls: a randomized controlled trial.   JAMA. 2004;292(2):171-179. doi:10.1001/jama.292.2.171 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
DiClemente  RJ, Wingood  GM, Rose  ES,  et al.  Efficacy of sexually transmitted disease/human immunodeficiency virus sexual risk-reduction intervention for African American adolescent females seeking sexual health services: a randomized controlled trial.   Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163(12):1112-1121. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.205 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Dixon  AC, Schoonmaker  CT, Philliber  WW.  A journey toward womanhood: effects of an Afrocentric approach to pregnancy prevention among African-American adolescent females.   Adolescence. 2000;35(139):425-429. PubMedGoogle Scholar
58.
Fang  X, Stanton  B, Li  X, Feigelman  S, Baldwin  R.  Similarities in sexual activity and condom use among friends within groups before and after a risk-reduction intervention.   Youth Soc. 1998;29(4):431-450. doi:10.1177/0044118X98029004002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
Haggerty  KP, Skinner  ML, MacKenzie  EP, Catalano  RF.  A randomized trial of Parents Who Care: effects on key outcomes at 24-month follow-up.   Prev Sci. 2007;8(4):249-260. doi:10.1007/s11121-007-0077-2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
60.
Howard  M, McCabe  JB.  Helping teenagers postpone sexual involvement.   Fam Plann Perspect. 1990;22(1):21-26. doi:10.2307/2135434 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
61.
Howard  MN, Davis  JA, Mitchell  ME.  Improving low-income teen health behaviors with internet-linked clinic interventions.   Sex Res Soc Policy. 2011;8(1):50-57. doi:10.1007/s13178-011-0037-2 Google ScholarCrossref
62.
Jemmott  JB  III, Jemmott  LS, Fong  GT.  Reductions in HIV risk-associated sexual behaviors among black male adolescents: effects of an AIDS prevention intervention.   Am J Public Health. 1992;82(3):372-377. doi:10.2105/AJPH.82.3.372 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
63.
Jemmott  JB  III, Jemmott  LS, Fong  GT.  Abstinence and safer sex HIV risk-reduction interventions for African American adolescents: a randomized controlled trial.   JAMA. 1998;279(19):1529-1536. doi:10.1001/jama.279.19.1529 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
64.
Jemmott  JB  III, Jemmott  LS, Fong  GT.  Efficacy of a theory-based abstinence-only intervention over 24 months: a randomized controlled trial with young adolescents.   Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(2):152-159. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.267 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
65.
Klein  CH, Card  JJ.  Preliminary efficacy of a computer-delivered HIV prevention intervention for African American teenage females.   AIDS Educ Prev. 2011;23(6):564-576. doi:10.1521/aeap.2011.23.6.564 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
66.
Li  X, Stanton  B, Feigelman  S, Galbraith  J.  Unprotected sex among African-American adolescents: a three-year study.   J Natl Med Assoc. 2002;94(9):789-796. doi.PubMedGoogle Scholar
67.
Morrison  DM, Hoppe  MJ, Wells  EA,  et al.  Replicating a teen HIV/STD preventive intervention in a multicultural city.   AIDS Educ Prev. 2007;19(3):258-273. doi:10.1521/aeap.2007.19.3.258 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
68.
Murry  VM, Berkel  C, Chen  YF, Brody  GH, Gibbons  FX, Gerrard  M.  Intervention induced changes on parenting practices, youth self-pride and sexual norms to reduce HIV-related behaviors among rural African American youths.   J Youth Adolesc. 2011;40(9):1147-1163. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9642-x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
69.
Roye  C, Perlmutter Silverman  P, Krauss  B.  A brief, low-cost, theory-based intervention to promote dual method use by black and Latina female adolescents: a randomized clinical trial.   Health Educ Behav. 2007;34(4):608-621. doi:10.1177/1090198105284840PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
70.
Shepherd  LM, Sly  KF, Girard  JM.  Comparison of comprehensive and abstinence-only sexuality education in young African American adolescents.   J Adolesc. 2017;61:50-63. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.09.006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
71.
St Lawrence  JS, Brasfield  TL, Jefferson  KW, Alleyne  E, O’Bannon  RE  III, Shirley  A.  Cognitive-behavioral intervention to reduce African American adolescents’ risk for HIV infection.   J Consult Clin Psychol. 1995;63(2):221-237. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.63.2.221 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
72.
Stanton  B, Cole  M, Galbraith  J,  et al.  Randomized trial of a parent intervention: parents can make a difference in long-term adolescent risk behaviors, perceptions, and knowledge.   Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(10):947-955. doi:10.1001/archpedi.158.10.947 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
73.
Wechsberg  WM, Browne  FA, Zule  WA,  et al.  Efficacy of the Young Women’s CoOp: an HIV risk-reduction intervention for substance-using African-American female adolescents in the South.   J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse. 2017;26(3):205-218. doi:10.1080/1067828X.2016.1260511 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
74.
Hughes  D, Rodriguez  J, Smith  EP, Johnson  DJ, Stevenson  HC, Spicer  P.  Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: a review of research and directions for future study.   Dev Psychol. 2006;42(5):747-770. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
75.
Sheeran  P, Maki  A, Montanaro  E,  et al.  The impact of changing attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy on health-related intentions and behavior: a meta-analysis.   Health Psychol. 2016;35(11):1178-1188. doi:10.1037/hea0000387 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
76.
Juras  R, Tanner-Smith  E, Kelsey  M, Lipsey  M, Layzer  J.  Adolescent pregnancy prevention: meta-analysis of federally funded program evaluations.   Am J Public Health. 2019;109(4):e1-e8. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304925 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
77.
Office of Adolescent Health. A Day in the Life. 2018. Accessed March 5, 2020. https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/facts-and-stats/day-in-the-life/index.html
78.
Guttmacher Institute. Sex and HIV Education. 2019. Accessed March 5, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/sex-and-hiv-education
79.
Planned Parenthood. Parents and Teens Talk About Sexuality: A National Survey. 2014. Accessed March 5, 2020. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/2914/1322/5667/NationalPoll_09-14_V2_1.pdf
80.
Hall  KS, McDermott Sales  J, Komro  KA, Santelli  J.  The state of sex education in the United States.   J Adolesc Health. 2016;58(6):595-597. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.03.032 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
81.
Lindberg  LD, Santelli  JS, Desai  S.  Changing patterns of contraceptive use and the decline in rates of pregnancy and birth among U.S. adolescents, 2007-2014.   J Adolesc Health. 2018;63(2):253-256. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.05.017 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
82.
Ross  J, Stover  J.  Use of modern contraception increases when more methods become available: analysis of evidence from 1982-2009.   Glob Health Sci Pract. 2013;1(2):203-212. doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-13-00010 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
83.
Becker  NV, Polsky  D.  Women saw large decrease in out-of-pocket spending for contraceptives after ACA mandate removed cost sharing.   Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(7):1204-1211. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0127 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
84.
Steiner  RJ, Liddon  N, Swartzendruber  AL,  et al.  Long-acting reversible contraception and condom use among female US high school students: implications for sexually transmitted infection prevention.   JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(5):428-434. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.0007 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
85.
Brown  JL, Hennessy  M, Sales  JM,  et al.  Multiple method contraception use among African American adolescents in four US cities.   Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 2011;2011:765917. doi:10.1155/2011/765917 PubMedGoogle Scholar
86.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reproductive Health: Contraception. 2018. Accessed March 5, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/index.htm
87.
Causey  K, Zuniga  M, Bailer  B, Ring  L, Gil-Trejo  L.  Using theater arts to engage Latino families in dialogue about adolescent sexual health: the PATH -AT program.   J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2012;23(1):347-357. doi:10.1353/hpu.2012.0036PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
88.
Calderon  Y, Cowan  E, Leu  CS,  et al.  A human immunodeficiency virus posttest video to increase condom use among adolescent emergency department patients.   J Adolesc Health. 2013;53(1):79-84. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.01.028PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
89.
Proctor  E, Silmere  H, Raghavan  R,  et al.  Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda.   Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65-76. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
90.
Jemmott  JB  III, Jemmott  LS, Fong  GT, Morales  KH.  Effectiveness of an HIV/STD risk-reduction intervention for adolescents when implemented by community-based organizations: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.   Am J Public Health. 2010;100(4):720-726. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.140657 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
91.
Allison  S, Bauermeister  JA, Bull  S,  et al.  The intersection of youth, technology, and new media with sexual health: moving the research agenda forward.   J Adolesc Health. 2012;51(3):207-212. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.06.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
92.
Hightow-Weidman  LB, Muessig  KE, Bauermeister  J, Zhang  C, LeGrand  S.  Youth, technology, and HIV: Recent advances and future directions.   Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2015;12(4):500-515. doi:10.1007/s11904-015-0280-x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
93.
Rapoff  MA.  E-health interventions in pediatrics.   Clin Pract Pediatr Psychol. 2013;1(4):309-313. doi:10.1037/cpp0000038 Google ScholarCrossref
94.
Lightfoot  MA, Milburn  NG.  HIV prevention and African American youth: examination of individual-level behaviour is not the only answer.   Cult Health Sex. 2009;11(7):731-742. doi:10.1080/13691050903078824 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
95.
van de Bongardt  D, Reitz  E, Sandfort  T, Deković  M.  A meta-analysis of the relations between three types of peer norms and adolescent sexual behavior.   Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2015;19(3):203-234. doi:10.1177/1088868314544223 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
96.
Svanemyr  J, Amin  A, Robles  OJ, Greene  ME.  Creating an enabling environment for adolescent sexual and reproductive health: a framework and promising approaches.   J Adolesc Health. 2015;56(1)(suppl):S7-S14. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.09.011 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    April 20, 2020

    Association of Sexual Health Interventions With Sexual Health Outcomes in Black Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
    JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(7):676-689. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0382
    Key Points

    Question  Are sexual health interventions associated with improved sexual health outcomes in black adolescents?

    Findings  In this systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing results of 29 studies of 11 918 black adolescents, sexual health interventions were significantly associated with improved abstinence, condom use, sexual health intentions, sexual health knowledge, and sexual health self-efficacy compared with control conditions.

    Meaning  The findings suggest that sexual health interventions are associated with improved sexual well-being among black adolescents.

    Abstract

    Importance  Black adolescents are at increased risk of contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and experiencing unplanned pregnancy. Although sexual health interventions aimed at decreasing these risks exist, evidence of the association between sexual health interventions and the sexual behavior of black adolescents has not been synthesized to our knowledge.

    Objective  To examine the associations between sexual health interventions and behavioral, biological, and psychological outcomes.

    Data Sources  For this systematic review and meta-analysis, a systematic search was conducted of studies published through January 31, 2019, using the PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases and relevant review articles. The following key words were used: youth, adolesc* or teen*; sexual health or safe* sex or sexually transmitted disease or sexually transmitted infection or STD or STI or HIV or AIDS or pregnancy or reproductive health or condom* or contracept* or unprotected sex or abstinence; intervention or program or education or prevention or promotion or trial; latino* or latina* or latinx* or minorit* or ethnic* or hispanic or african american* or black* or race or racial or biracial.

    Study Selection  Studies were included if they included a US-based sample of black adolescents, evaluated a sexual health intervention using experimental or quasi-experimental designs, included a behavioral outcome, and were published in English.

    Data Extraction and Synthesis  Standardized mean differences and 95% CIs were extracted and meta-analyzed using random-effects models.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Behavioral outcomes were abstinence, condom use, and number of sex partners. Biological outcomes were pregnancy and STI contraction. Psychological outcomes were sexual health intentions, knowledge, and self-efficacy.

    Results  Across 29 studies including 11 918 black adolescents (weighted mean age, 12.43 years), there was a significant weighted mean association of sexual health interventions with improvements in abstinence (Cohen d = 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.24) and condom use (Cohen d = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.11-0.39). No significant mean association of these interventions with number of sex partners, pregnancy, or STI contraction was found. Sexual health interventions were significantly associated with improvements in psychological outcomes: sexual health intentions (Cohen d = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05-0.30), knowledge (Cohen d = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.63), and self-efficacy (Cohen d = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09-0.28). Intervention effect sizes were consistent across factors, such as participant sex and age and intervention dose.

    Conclusions and Relevance  The findings suggest that sexual health interventions are associated with improvements in sexual well-being among black adolescents. There appears to be a need for wide-scale dissemination of these programs to address racial disparities in sexual health across the US.

    Introduction

    Black adolescents in the US are at increased risk for experiencing negative sexual health outcomes.1,2 Compared with white adolescents, black adolescents are twice as likely to become a parent before 20 years of age1 and more likely to contract sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV infection.2 Of importance, teen pregnancy is associated with negative life outcomes, such as high school dropout, incarceration, and unemployment,3 and costs approximately $21 billion each year in the US.4 In addition, long-term, untreated HIV infection and other STIs can result in infertility and death.5 With accurate information and skills and access to STI testing and birth control, black adolescents can be better equipped to avoid these negative outcomes.6,7

    Ecological systems theory suggests that black adolescents may experience interpersonal, community-level, and systemic barriers to practicing healthy sexual behavior.8 Poverty,9 stress from discrimination and racism,10,11 and lack of access to health care differentially affect black adolescents12-15 and may be associated with poor general and reproductive health outcomes.15-19 Thus, it is critical to examine the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing sexual health disparities among this racial group.

    The unique context of black adolescents’ sexual decision-making and experiences has guided the development of a number of interventions that have emerged during the past few decades. Many programs primarily target individual-level factors that affect black youth’s sexual health, such as knowledge, self-efficacy, and self-respect.20 A few programs target family-level factors, such as parental communication in black families.21-23 A community-level factor, cultural narratives on safe sex practices, was also the target for a sexual health program.24 Most of these programs have varied associations with sexual health outcomes. Intervention differences and other sources of clinical and methodologic heterogeneity may be responsible for these mixed results.21,25-27

    Given the heterogeneity and discrepancies in study findings, the purpose of the current study was to synthesize the association of sexual health programs with sexual health outcomes among black adolescents and examine which intervention strategies are most beneficial. For the purpose of this study, sexual health interventions were defined as primary prevention programs that included some component aimed directly at encouraging abstinence or safer sexual behavior (eg, condom use) to reduce the risk of HIV infection, other STIs, and unplanned pregnancy. Several systematic reviews of sexual health interventions for black adolescents have helped to identify available interventions and the need for culturally tailored and accessible programs.28-31 Although there are several meta-analyses that evaluate the association of adolescent sexual health interventions with health outcomes and a few meta-analyses that evaluate this association among black individuals without a focus on adolescents,32-34 the unique barriers experienced by black adolescents in the US warrant an analysis of how current programming functions for these adolescents in particular. To our knowledge, there is no recent meta-analysis on sexual health interventions for black adolescents. Because of the wide racial disparities in sexual well-being, we sought to understand why some interventions are beneficial whereas others are not among black adolescents.

    The first goal of this study was to systematically review the literature on sexual health interventions for black adolescents and conduct a meta-analysis of their overall association with 3 behavioral outcomes related to sexual health (abstinence, condom use, and number of sexual partners) and 2 biological outcomes (pregnancy and STI contraction).35,36 We also evaluated the association of interventions with 3 psychological outcomes related to sexual health behavior37,38 (sexual health intentions, sexual health knowledge, and sexual health self-efficacy).

    The second goal was to identify components that contribute to the success of sexual health interventions in decreasing sexual risk behavior among black adolescents. We considered potential moderating variables of associations, including demographic (eg, sex and age), intervention (eg, cultural tailoring and dose), and methodologic (eg, length of follow-up) characteristics.

    In this meta-analysis, we use the term black to refer to individuals in the US who are descendants of black racial/ethnicity groups of Africa, including descendants of enslaved Africans (although black is not capitalized throughout the manuscript, we are using this term as a proper noun to refer to a specific cultural group).39 When referring to specific empirical work, we use the terms of the original authors.

    Methods
    Search Strategy

    In January 2019, for this systematic review and meta-analysis, we conducted a comprehensive search of the PsycINFO, CINAHL, and PubMed databases to extract relevant studies published through January 31, 2019. We used the following keywords: youth, adolesc* or teen*; sexual health or safe* sex or sexually transmitted disease or sexually transmitted infection or STD or STI or HIV or AIDS or pregnancy or reproductive health or condom* or contracept* or unprotected sex or abstinence; intervention or program or education or prevention or promotion or trial; latino* or latina* or latinx* or minorit* or ethnic* or hispanic or african american* or black* or race or racial or biracial. Additional studies28-32,40-43 were located by examining prior reviews and meta-analyses and references of included articles. This initial search produced 3069 unique articles. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.

    Selection Criteria

    Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) included a US-based sample; (2) sampled black adolescents (ie, at least 95% of the sample was black; mean sample age ≤18 years and no participant >24 years); (3) evaluated the effects of a primary prevention, sexual health intervention (studies with already pregnant youths or STI-positive youths were excluded because of their focus on secondary prevention)44,45; (4) evaluated program effects using an experimental or quasi-experimental design; (5) included at least 1 of our behavioral or biological outcome measures; (6) were published in English; and (7) provided sufficient statistics to calculate effect sizes. When a study had a sample with multiple racial/ethnic groups but included subgroup analyses that evaluated intervention effects among only black participants, the results of the subgroup analyses were included.20,46 For studies with multiple follow-up points, we used the longest follow-up with adequate data to calculate effect sizes as the most conservative estimate of treatment effects. When multiple studies reported findings using the same data, the study that reported results for the longest follow-up with adequate data to calculate effect sizes was included. All other studies using the same data were excluded.47,48 For studies with more than 1 intervention group, we selected the sexual health intervention that was most comprehensive. When studies included more than 1 indicator for an outcome (eg, multiple indicators of condom use), we used a random number generator to select 1 indicator to reduce possible bias associated with outcome selection.

    These selection criteria resulted in a final sample of 29 articles (eFigure 1 in the Supplement). From these articles, we calculated 22 independent effect sizes for abstinence, 26 for condom use, 10 for number of sex partners, 4 for pregnancy, 4 for STI contraction, 14 for sexual health intentions, 11 for sexual health knowledge, and 15 for sexual health self-efficacy. More information about these outcome variables, including how they were evaluated in primary studies, is given in eTable 1 in the Supplement.

    Data Extraction

    Two of us (R.E., H.J., and/or M.N.S.) independently coded each of the primary studies. The following data were extracted: (1) demographic and sample characteristics, (2) intervention characteristics, and (3) methodologic characteristics. The mean percentage agreement across all coding categories was 92%. Discrepancies between coders were resolved through group discussion until a consensus was reached. Risk of bias was calculated for each primary study.49

    Calculation of Effect Sizes

    As the indicator of effect size, the standardized mean difference, Cohen d, was used. The Cohen d can be interpreted as small (0.20), medium (0.50), or large (0.80).50 When the Cohen d statistics and 95% CIs were not reported, other statistics that could be converted to Cohen d were calculated using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, version 351 and the Practical Meta-Analysis Effect Size Calculator.52 Study authors were contacted and data were requested when no statistics in the study could be converted to a Cohen d. Higher values indicate that the sexual health intervention group performed better than the control group for abstinence, condom use, sexual health intentions, sexual health knowledge, and sexual health self-efficacy. Lower values indicate that the sexual health intervention group performed better than the control group for number of sex partners, pregnancy, and STI contraction.

    Statistical Analysis

    Random-effects meta-analytic procedures were used for the primary analyses across all independent effect sizes to allow for the possibility of differing variances across studies.53 To examine whether significant heterogeneity existed among effect sizes, we used the Q statistic and I2. For hypothesized categorical moderators, effect sizes and 95% CIs were calculated and then compared using the Qb statistic. Groups for categorical moderator variables must have included at least 2 studies to be considered in analyses. For categorical moderation analyses, mixed-effects models were used to allow for the possibility of differing variances across subgroups. Random-effects meta-regression was used to test continuous moderators. The Q model statistic was used to determine whether there was significant moderation for these models. A 2-sided P < .05 was considered to be statistically significant. Analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, version 3.51

    Results
    Study Characteristics

    A summary of the studies included in this meta-analysis is presented in Table 1. A total of 11 918 black adolescents (weighted mean age, 12.43 years) were included across 29 studies.20-27,46,52,54-56,58-73 Studies identified participants as African American (26 studies) and black (3). Most studies targeted mixed-sex samples; however, 10 included only girls and 3 included only boys.

    Eighteen studies20,23-27,54-57,62,63,65,67-70,73 evaluated interventions with cultural tailoring. Twelve studies24,25,27,54-56,62,63,67-69,73 described using community-based participatory research methods to develop or adapt the programs. In addition, 9 programs included components aimed at promoting racial socialization (ie, messages about what it means to be black in today’s society).74 Only 1 program focused on abstinence only, whereas 27 programs were comprehensive. Intervention dose varied across studies, with 5 studies24,54,61,65,69 including less than 3 hours of training and 4 studies20,57,58,66 with more than 20 hours. Five studies54,61,65,69,71 specified that all participants received the full dose. Interventions were primarily delivered in schools (9 studies), community centers (11), or clinics (6). Many programs included partner sexual communication skills training (18) and condom use skills training (18). Eight programs included parents in intervention activities.

    Risk of Bias

    Risk of bias was calculated for each primary study (eTable 2 in the Supplement). Most studies (26 [90%]) had low risk of bias for random sequence generation, and 19 (67%) had low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data. However, risk of bias pertaining to selective reporting was unclear for many studies.21-24,26,27,54,55,57-63,65-73

    Behavioral Outcomes
    Abstinence

    Individual study effect sizes (Cohen d) for abstinence ranged from −0.48 (95% CI, −1.77 to 0.81) to 0.71 (95% CI, −0.02 to 1.44), with an overall weighted mean effect size across studies of 0.14 (95% CI, 0.05-0.24; P = .004), which indicated that sexual health interventions had a statistically significant association with abstinence among black adolescents (Figure 1 and Table 2). There would have to be 60 additional studies that were not statistically significant for the combined P value to exceed .05 (fail-safe N = 60).

    There was significant heterogeneity among studies for the abstinence outcome (Q = 34.90, df = 21, P = .03, I2 = 39.83); thus, we examined moderators of intervention success (Table 3 and eTable 3 in the Supplement). Intervention setting and study publication year moderated the association between sexual health interventions and abstinence. School-based interventions (Cohen d = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.10-0.39; P = .001) had a stronger association with improvements in abstinence than interventions in community centers (Cohen d = 0.04; 95% CI, −0.07 to 0.16; P = .47). In addition, interventions reported in older studies had stronger associations with improvements in abstinence than interventions in studies published more recently (coefficient = −0.01; 95% CI, −0.03 to −0.001; P = .03).

    Condom Use

    Individual study effect sizes (Cohen d) for condom use ranged from −0.27 (95% CI, −1.04 to 0.51) to 0.82 (95% CI, 0.29-1.35), with an overall weighted mean effect size across studies of 0.25 (95% CI, 0.11-0.39; P < .001), which was statistically significant (Figure 2). On average, sexual health interventions had a statistically significant association with condom use among black adolescents (Table 2). There would have to be 292 additional studies that were not statistically significant for the combined P value to exceed .05 (fail-safe N = 292).

    There was significant heterogeneity among studies for the condom use outcome (Q = 104.14, df = 25, P < .001, I2 = 75.99); thus, we examined moderators of intervention success (Table 3 and eTable 3 in the Supplement). Publication year moderated the association such that interventions reported in older studies had stronger associations with improvements in condom use than those reported in studies published recently (coefficient = −0.02; 95% CI, −0.04 to −0.01; P = .01). No other statistically significant moderators were identified.

    Number of Sex Partners

    The overall weighted mean effect size (Cohen d) for number of sex partners across studies was −0.06 (95% CI, −0.25 to 0.13; P = .54), which was not statistically significant (Table 2 and eFigure 2 in the Supplement).

    Biological Outcomes

    Only 4 studies55,57,60,72 assessed pregnancy as intervention outcomes, and only 4 studies24,27,55,56 assessed STI contraction. The overall weighted mean effect size across studies was not statistically significant for both pregnancy (Cohen d = −0.16; 95% CI, −0.41 to 0.09; P = .20) and STI contraction (Cohen d = −0.07; 95% CI, −0.43 to 0.30; P = 73) (Table 2 and eFigure 3 and eFigure 4 in the Supplement).

    Psychological Outcomes

    Sexual health interventions were associated with improvement in 3 psychological outcomes: sexual health intentions (Cohen d = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05-0.30; P = .007), sexual health knowledge (Cohen d = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.63; P < .001), and sexual health self-efficacy (Cohen d = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09-0.28; P < .001). Effect sizes ranged from small to moderate.

    Discussion

    This meta-analysis synthesized almost 30 years of research on the effectiveness of sexual health interventions among black adolescents in the US. Overall, results from 29 studies of 11 918 black adolescents showed that these programs have been successful. Sexual health interventions were significantly associated with improvements in abstinence, condom use, sexual health intentions, sexual health knowledge, and sexual health self-efficacy. With rates of HIV infection, other STIs, and unplanned pregnancy especially high among black adolescents,1,2 there is an urgent need to address factors that may lead to improvements in sexual decision-making among this group. This meta-analysis shows that sexual health interventions are an important part of the solution to this health crisis because these programs can promote healthy sexual behavior and psychological outcomes among black adolescents. These findings were consistent across factors such as participant sex, age, and intervention dose.

    We found that sexual health interventions for black adolescents were associated with improvements in sexual health intentions, sexual health knowledge, and sexual health self-efficacy, which are psychological outcomes associated with positive behavior change.37,38,75 Most of the studies26,27,55,56,61 that we included assessed behavior change after only 12 months (at most), at which point many adolescents may not have become sexually active, making behavior change in sexual situations more difficult to detect. However, if this association of interventions with psychological outcomes persists, it is expected based on health behavior theory that when adolescents start to become sexually active, this association may lead to healthier sexual decision-making.38

    No significant association was found between sexual health interventions and pregnancy or STI contraction among black adolescents. However, with only 4 studies55,57,60,72 reporting on pregnancy as an outcome and only 4 studies24,27,55,56 reporting on STI contraction, caution is warranted in interpreting this finding. Although it is time and resource intensive to collect information on biological outcomes, such as pregnancy, HIV infection, and other STIs, additional work is needed to determine whether current intervention strategies are effective at preventing these outcomes.34,76 After more studies evaluate the effectiveness of interventions on biological outcomes, another meta-analysis will be warranted to evaluate the long-term success of primary prevention sexual health programs.

    Significant variability was found in the association between sexual health interventions and adolescent abstinence and condom use. Two significant moderators were identified: intervention setting and study publication year. Programs delivered in schools had a stronger association with abstinence than those delivered in community centers. Adolescents spend most of their waking hours at school77; thus, school-based sexual health education programs can reach a large number of teens. Only 24 states require sex education to be taught in schools despite 96% of parents in the US supporting school-based sex education.78,79 Implementing evidence-based (eg, comprehensive) sexual health programming in more schools may promote abstinence and be associated with reduced racial disparities in sexual health outcomes.80

    Interventions reported in older studies had a stronger association with improvements in condom use among black adolescents than those published in more recent years. It is possible that over time adolescents have become more likely to use forms of contraception other than condoms, particularly intrauterine devices, as their primary form of birth control.81,82 Alternate methods (eg, intrauterine devices, birth control pills, and injectables) have become more accessible and cost-effective within the past decade.83 Hormonal birth control use is effective at preventing pregnancy but associated with decreased condom use84,85—a behavior pattern that is problematic because hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine devices do not protect against HIV infection and other STIs.86 This finding suggests that future interventions should incorporate components aimed at increasing dual contraception use to prevent pregnancy as well as contraction of HIV infection and other STIs. In addition, future studies should consider evaluating the effect of hormonal contraceptive use on adolescents’ change in condom use in response to sexual health programming.

    Limitations

    This study has limitations. First, there was variability across studies in the measures used to evaluate sexual health outcomes. For example, in evaluating condom use, some studies55,56 asked about condom use exclusively during vaginal intercourse, whereas others24,55 asked about condom use during vaginal, oral, and anal sex. In addition, the time frame on which participants were asked to report varied. For example, in evaluating abstinence, some studies21,22 asked participants about lifetime sexual activity, whereas others26,58 asked whether participants had become sexually active after their participation in the intervention. Standardization of the methods used to assess adolescent sexual health outcomes may lead to more meaningful syntheses of research in the future.

    Second, we hoped to more thoroughly report and analyze the participant characteristics that could influence intervention effectiveness. However, inconsistent and brief reporting of participant characteristics (eg, socioeconomic status and sexual orientation) across studies made this difficult. In addition, many of the studies87,88 that we reviewed for inclusion reported race with large “other” categories with no explanation of who was included in this group; thus, the racial composition of samples was difficult to determine. We encourage researchers to use online supplemental materials or spaces such as the open science framework or ClinicalTrials.gov to provide additional detail about their study design and participants. This approach would assist with data reproducibility and ensure thorough and high-quality synthesis of study characteristics and findings in future meta-analyses.

    Third, many of the sexual health programs evaluated in this study demand adolescents’ time and resources; thus, only 5 of 29 evaluations reported that all adolescents received the full program dose. Emerging literature on intervention science highlights the importance of evaluating the appropriateness and feasibility of health programming to maximize the sustained success of evidence-based interventions.89 Although some studies included in this review evaluated fidelity,23,55,56,63 participant satisfaction,55,56,62,63,71 session attendance,21,46,67,90 and/or attrition,23,25,27,55,63,90 more comprehensive intervention evaluations are needed to understand why black adolescents may not receive the full program dose. We believe that researchers developing or implementing sexual health interventions for black adolescents should reduce barriers to activity or session attendance.

    Fourth, technology-based interventions may aid in improving the accessibility and fidelity of sexual health programming.91-93 However, almost all of the interventions included in this meta-analysis were delivered primarily in person, with only 3 reaching adolescents through computer-based programming.46,61,65 This finding highlights an important avenue for future program development. If technology-based programs are developed, adolescents may be able to complete effective sexual health interventions on demand and at their convenience.

    Fifth, although risk factors that affect health in black populations exist at all levels of the socioecological model,8,94 most interventions identified in this meta-analysis focused on affecting adolescent sexual health at the individual level. Individual-level variables (ie, knowledge, self-efficacy, and intentions) are important to the promotion of safer sexual decision-making; however, interpersonal,95 community-level,12,13,15 institutional,10,11 and structural9 barriers to the sexual health of black adolescents must also be addressed. Some studies had components aimed at increasing parental communication25,72 and challenging cultural narratives,24 which may be especially helpful.96 A few of the interventions in this meta-analysis were conducted with adolescents attending a clinic,54-56,61,69,71 and 2 programs provided short-term sexual health services (eg, an STI test)27,56; however, none of the interventions that we identified evaluated a component that facilitated adolescent access to long-term sexual health care services (eg, birth control counseling and regular STI testing). Programs that connect black adolescents to accessible sexual health services appear to be needed.

    Conclusions

    Results from this meta-analysis suggest that sexual health interventions are associated with increases in abstinence and condom use and improved sexual health knowledge, self-efficacy, and intentions. More thorough reporting of participant characteristics and details regarding intervention design and implementation may facilitate future research synthesis. These findings may inform important future directions for researchers, practitioners, and community members invested in improving the sexual health and well-being of black adolescents.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: December 3, 2019.

    Corresponding Author: Reina Evans, BS, Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University, 640 Poe Hall, Raleigh, NC 27695 (revans4@ncsu.edu).

    Published Online: April 20, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0382

    Author Contributions: Ms Evans 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.

    Concept and design: Evans, Widman, Hope.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Evans, Widman, Stokes, Javidi, Brasileiro.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Evans, Widman, Javidi, Hope.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

    Statistical analysis: Evans, Widman, Stokes, Javidi, Brasileiro.

    Obtained funding: Evans.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Evans, Widman.

    Supervision: Widman, Hope.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Ms Evans reported receiving grants from the Rural Center for AIDS/STD Prevention, Indiana University School of Public Health–Bloomington (Doug Kirby Adolescent Sexual Health Research Grant), and grants from North Carolina State University Department of Psychology and Center for Family and Community Engagement during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

    Funding/Support: This study was supported in part by the Doug Kirby Adolescent Sexual Health Research Grant from the Rural Center for AIDS/STD Prevention, Indiana University School of Public Health–Bloomington, and by the Center for Family and Community Engagement, North Carolina State University.

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders provided support for the design and conduct of the study and the collection, management, and analysis.

    References
    1.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. Trends in Teen Pregnancy and Childbearing. 2016. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-development/reproductive-health-and-teen-pregnancy/teen-pregnancy-and-childbearing/trends/index.html
    2.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities. 2018. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats17/minorities.htm
    3.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About Teen Pregnancy. 2017. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/index.htm
    4.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Evidence Summary: Prevent Unintended Pregnancy. 2015. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/sixeighteen/docs/6-18-evidence-summary-pregnancy.pdf
    5.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Information for Teens: Staying Healthy and Preventing STDs. 2017. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/std/life-stages-populations/YouthandSTDs-Dec-2017.pdf
    6.
    Gause  NK, Brown  JL, Welge  J, Northern  N.  Meta-analyses of HIV prevention interventions targeting improved partner communication: effects on partner communication and condom use frequency outcomes.   J Behav Med. 2018;41(4):423-440. doi:10.1007/s10865-018-9916-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Goodman  M, Onwumere  O, Milam  L, Peipert  JF.  Reducing health disparities by removing cost, access, and knowledge barriers.   Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(4):382.e1-382.e5. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.12.015 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Bronfenbrenner  U. Ecological systems theory. In: Brofenbrenner  U, ed.  Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human Development. Sage Publications Ltd; 1995:106-173.
    10.
    Lanier  Y, Sommers  MS, Fletcher  J, Sutton  MY, Roberts  DD.  Examining racial discrimination frequency, racial discrimination stress, and psychological well-being among Black early adolescents.   J Black Psychol. 2017;43(3):219-229. doi:10.1177/0095798416638189 Google ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Jackson  JS, Caldwell  CH, Antonucci  TC, Oyserman  DR.  National Survey of American Life–Adolescent Supplement (NSAL-A), 2001-2004. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research; 2016.
    12.
    Leech  TGJ, Irby-Shasanmi  A, Mitchell  AL.  “Are you accepting new patients?” a pilot field experiment on telephone-based gatekeeping and Black patients’ access to pediatric care.   Health Serv Res. 2019;54(suppl 1):234-242. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.13089 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Parekh  N, Jarlenski  M, Kelley  D.  Disparities in access to primary care and emergency department utilization in a large Medicaid program.   J Health Dispar Res Pract. 2018;11(4):1-13.Google Scholar
    14.
    Adams  SH, Park  MJ, Twietmeyer  L, Brindis  CD, Irwin  CE  Jr.  Association between adolescent preventive care and the role of the Affordable Care Act.   JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(1):43-48. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.3140 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Haider  S, Stoffel  C, Donenberg  G, Geller  S.  Reproductive health disparities: a focus on family planning and prevention among minority women and adolescents.   Glob Adv Health Med. 2013;2(5):94-99. doi:10.7453/gahmj.2013.056 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Hall  WJ, Chapman  MV, Lee  KM,  et al.  Implicit racial/ethnic bias among health care professionals and its influence on health care outcomes: a systematic review.   Am J Public Health. 2015;105(12):e60-e76. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302903 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Benner  AD, Wang  Y, Shen  Y, Boyle  AE, Polk  R, Cheng  YP.  Racial/ethnic discrimination and well-being during adolescence: a meta-analytic review.   Am Psychol. 2018;73(7):855-883. doi:10.1037/amp0000204 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Crichton  J, Hickman  M, Campbell  R, Batista-Ferrer  H, Macleod  J.  Socioeconomic factors and other sources of variation in the prevalence of genital chlamydia infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):729. doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2069-7 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Penman-Aguilar  A, Carter  M, Snead  MC, Kourtis  AP.  Socioeconomic disadvantage as a social determinant of teen childbearing in the U.S.   Public Health Rep. 2013;128(suppl 1):5-22. doi:10.1177/00333549131282S102 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Markham  CM, Tortolero  SR, Peskin  MF,  et al.  Sexual risk avoidance and sexual risk reduction interventions for middle school youth: a randomized controlled trial.   J Adolesc Health. 2012;50(3):279-288. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.07.010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    DiIorio  C, McCarty  F, Resnicow  K, Lehr  S, Denzmore  P.  REAL men: a group-randomized trial of an HIV prevention intervention for adolescent boys.   Am J Public Health. 2007;97(6):1084-1089. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.073411PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Dilorio  C, Resnicow  K, McCarty  F,  et al.  Keepin’ it R.E.A.L.!: results of a mother-adolescent HIV prevention program.   Nurs Res. 2006;55(1):43-51. doi:10.1097/00006199-200601000-00006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    Kogan  SM, Yu  T, Brody  GH,  et al.  Integrating condom skills into family-centered prevention: efficacy of the Strong African American Families-Teen program.   J Adolesc Health. 2012;51(2):164-170. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.11.022 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Sznitman  S, Stanton  BF, Vanable  PA,  et al.  Long term effects of community-based STI screening and mass media HIV prevention messages on sexual risk behaviors of African American adolescents.   AIDS Behav. 2011;15(8):1755-1763. doi:10.1007/s10461-011-9946-6 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Dancy  BL, Crittenden  KS, Talashek  ML.  Mothers’ effectiveness as HIV risk reduction educators for adolescent daughters.   J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2006;17(1):218-239. doi:10.1353/hpu.2006.0012 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    Clark  LF, Miller  KS, Nagy  SS,  et al.  Adult identity mentoring: reducing sexual risk for African-American seventh grade students.   J Adolesc Health. 2005;37(4):337. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.09.024 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    DiClemente  RJ, Davis  TL, Swartzendruber  A,  et al.  Efficacy of an HIV/STI sexual risk-reduction intervention for African American adolescent girls in juvenile detention centers: a randomized controlled trial.   Women Health. 2014;54(8):726-749. doi:10.1080/03630242.2014.932893 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Harris  LW, Cheney  MK.  Positive youth development interventions impacting the sexual health of young minority adolescents: a systematic review.   J Early Adolesc. 2018;38(1):74-117. doi:10.1177/0272431615578693 Google ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Lauricella  M, Valdez  JK, Okamoto  SK, Helm  S, Zaremba  C.  Culturally grounded prevention for minority youth populations: a systematic review of the literature.   J Prim Prev. 2016;37(1):11-32. doi:10.1007/s10935-015-0414-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Lee  YM, Cintron  A, Kocher  S.  Factors related to risky sexual behaviors and effective STI/HIV and pregnancy intervention programs for African American adolescents.   Public Health Nurs. 2014;31(5):414-427. doi:10.1111/phn.12128 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Maness  SB, Buhi  ER.  A systematic review of pregnancy prevention programs for minority youth in the US: a critical analysis and recommendations for improvement.   J Health Dispar Res Pract. 2013;6(2):91-106.Google Scholar
    32.
    Mon Kyaw Soe  N, Bird  Y, Schwandt  M, Moraros  J.  STI health disparities: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of preventive interventions in educational settings.   Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(12):E2819. doi:10.3390/ijerph15122819 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    33.
    Mirzazadeh  A, Biggs  MA, Viitanen  A,  et al.  Do school-based programs prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted infections in adolescents? a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Prev Sci. 2018;19(4):490-506. doi:10.1007/s11121-017-0830-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Morales  A, Espada  JP, Orgilés  M, Escribano  S, Johnson  BT, Lightfoot  M.  Interventions to reduce risk for sexually transmitted infections in adolescents: a meta-analysis of trials, 2008-2016.   PLoS One. 2018;13(6):e0199421. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0199421 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    35.
    Jones  J, Salazar  LF, Crosby  R.  Contextual factors and sexual risk behaviors among young, black men.   Am J Mens Health. 2017;11(3):508-517. doi:10.1177/1557988315617525 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. How You Can Prevent Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2016. Accessed March 5, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/std/prevention/default.htm.
    37.
    Bandura  A. Social cognitive theory. In:  Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Sage Publishing; 2011:349-373.
    38.
    Fishbein  M, Ajzen  I.  Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. Taylor & Francis; 2011. doi:10.4324/9780203838020
    39.
    US Census Bureau. Race. 2018. Accessed March 5, 2020. https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html
    40.
    Cardoza  VJ, Documét  PI, Fryer  CS, Gold  MA, Butler  J  III.  Sexual health behavior interventions for U.S. Latino adolescents: a systematic review of the literature.   J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2012;25(2):136-149. doi:10.1016/j.jpag.2011.09.011 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    41.
    Lee  YM, Dancy  B, Florez  E, Holm  K.  Factors related to sexual practices and successful sexually transmitted infection/HIV intervention programs for Latino adolescents.   Public Health Nurs. 2013;30(5):390-401. doi:10.1111/phn.12039 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    42.
    Metzger  I, Cooper  SM, Zarrett  N, Flory  K.  Culturally sensitive risk behavior prevention programs for African American adolescents: a systematic analysis.   Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2013;16(2):187-212. doi:10.1007/s10567-013-0133-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    43.
    Sutton  MY, Lasswell  SM, Lanier  Y, Miller  KS.  Impact of parent-child communication interventions on sex behaviors and cognitive outcomes for black/African-American and Hispanic/Latino youth: a systematic review, 1988-2012.   J Adolesc Health. 2014;54(4):369-384. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.11.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    44.
    Thurman  AR, Holden  AE, Shain  RN, Perdue  S, Piper  JM.  Preventing recurrent sexually transmitted diseases in minority adolescents: a randomized controlled trial.   Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(6):1417-1425. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318177143a PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    45.
    Smith  PB, Weinman  ML, Parrilli  J.  The role of condom motivation education in the reduction of new and reinfection rates of sexually transmitted diseases among inner-city female adolescents.   Patient Educ Couns. 1997;31(1):77-81. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(97)01009-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    46.
    Peskin  MF, Shegog  R, Markham  CM,  et al.  Efficacy of It’s Your Game-Tech: a computer-based sexual health education program for middle school youth.   J Adolesc Health. 2015;56(5):515-521. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.01.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    47.
    Stanton  BF, Li  X, Ricardo  I, Galbraith  J, Feigelman  S, Kaljee  L.  A randomized, controlled effectiveness trial of an AIDS prevention program for low-income African-American youths.   Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996;150(4):363-372. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1996.02170290029004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    48.
    Sznitman  S, Vanable  PA, Carey  MP,  et al.  Using culturally sensitive media messages to reduce HIV-associated sexual behavior in high-risk African American adolescents: results from a randomized trial.   J Adolesc Health. 2011;49(3):244-251. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.12.007 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    49.
    Higgins  JP, Altman  DG, Gøtzsche  PC,  et al; Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group.  The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.   BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    50.
    Cohen  J.  A power primer.   Psychol Bull. 1992;112(1):155-159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    51.
    Borenstein  M, Hedges  LV, Higgins  JPT, Rothstein  HR.  Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 2009. doi:10.1002/9780470743386
    52.
    Wilson  DB. Practical meta-analysis effect size calculator. 2018. Accessed March 5, 2020. https://campbellcollaboration.org/escalc/html/EffectSizeCalculator-SMD-main.php
    53.
    Lipsey  MW, Wilson  DB.  Practical Meta-analysis. Sage; 2001.
    54.
    DeLamater  J, Wagstaff  DA, Havens  KK.  The impact of a culturally appropriate STD/AIDS education intervention on black male adolescents’ sexual and condom use behavior.   Health Educ Behav. 2000;27(4):454-470. doi:10.1177/109019810002700408 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    55.
    DiClemente  RJ, Wingood  GM, Harrington  KF,  et al.  Efficacy of an HIV prevention intervention for African American adolescent girls: a randomized controlled trial.   JAMA. 2004;292(2):171-179. doi:10.1001/jama.292.2.171 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    56.
    DiClemente  RJ, Wingood  GM, Rose  ES,  et al.  Efficacy of sexually transmitted disease/human immunodeficiency virus sexual risk-reduction intervention for African American adolescent females seeking sexual health services: a randomized controlled trial.   Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163(12):1112-1121. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.205 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    57.
    Dixon  AC, Schoonmaker  CT, Philliber  WW.  A journey toward womanhood: effects of an Afrocentric approach to pregnancy prevention among African-American adolescent females.   Adolescence. 2000;35(139):425-429. PubMedGoogle Scholar
    58.
    Fang  X, Stanton  B, Li  X, Feigelman  S, Baldwin  R.  Similarities in sexual activity and condom use among friends within groups before and after a risk-reduction intervention.   Youth Soc. 1998;29(4):431-450. doi:10.1177/0044118X98029004002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    59.
    Haggerty  KP, Skinner  ML, MacKenzie  EP, Catalano  RF.  A randomized trial of Parents Who Care: effects on key outcomes at 24-month follow-up.   Prev Sci. 2007;8(4):249-260. doi:10.1007/s11121-007-0077-2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    60.
    Howard  M, McCabe  JB.  Helping teenagers postpone sexual involvement.   Fam Plann Perspect. 1990;22(1):21-26. doi:10.2307/2135434 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    61.
    Howard  MN, Davis  JA, Mitchell  ME.  Improving low-income teen health behaviors with internet-linked clinic interventions.   Sex Res Soc Policy. 2011;8(1):50-57. doi:10.1007/s13178-011-0037-2 Google ScholarCrossref
    62.
    Jemmott  JB  III, Jemmott  LS, Fong  GT.  Reductions in HIV risk-associated sexual behaviors among black male adolescents: effects of an AIDS prevention intervention.   Am J Public Health. 1992;82(3):372-377. doi:10.2105/AJPH.82.3.372 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    63.
    Jemmott  JB  III, Jemmott  LS, Fong  GT.  Abstinence and safer sex HIV risk-reduction interventions for African American adolescents: a randomized controlled trial.   JAMA. 1998;279(19):1529-1536. doi:10.1001/jama.279.19.1529 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    64.
    Jemmott  JB  III, Jemmott  LS, Fong  GT.  Efficacy of a theory-based abstinence-only intervention over 24 months: a randomized controlled trial with young adolescents.   Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(2):152-159. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.267 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    65.
    Klein  CH, Card  JJ.  Preliminary efficacy of a computer-delivered HIV prevention intervention for African American teenage females.   AIDS Educ Prev. 2011;23(6):564-576. doi:10.1521/aeap.2011.23.6.564 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    66.
    Li  X, Stanton  B, Feigelman  S, Galbraith  J.  Unprotected sex among African-American adolescents: a three-year study.   J Natl Med Assoc. 2002;94(9):789-796. doi.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    67.
    Morrison  DM, Hoppe  MJ, Wells  EA,  et al.  Replicating a teen HIV/STD preventive intervention in a multicultural city.   AIDS Educ Prev. 2007;19(3):258-273. doi:10.1521/aeap.2007.19.3.258 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    68.
    Murry  VM, Berkel  C, Chen  YF, Brody  GH, Gibbons  FX, Gerrard  M.  Intervention induced changes on parenting practices, youth self-pride and sexual norms to reduce HIV-related behaviors among rural African American youths.   J Youth Adolesc. 2011;40(9):1147-1163. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9642-x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    69.
    Roye  C, Perlmutter Silverman  P, Krauss  B.  A brief, low-cost, theory-based intervention to promote dual method use by black and Latina female adolescents: a randomized clinical trial.   Health Educ Behav. 2007;34(4):608-621. doi:10.1177/1090198105284840PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    70.
    Shepherd  LM, Sly  KF, Girard  JM.  Comparison of comprehensive and abstinence-only sexuality education in young African American adolescents.   J Adolesc. 2017;61:50-63. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.09.006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    71.
    St Lawrence  JS, Brasfield  TL, Jefferson  KW, Alleyne  E, O’Bannon  RE  III, Shirley  A.  Cognitive-behavioral intervention to reduce African American adolescents’ risk for HIV infection.   J Consult Clin Psychol. 1995;63(2):221-237. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.63.2.221 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    72.
    Stanton  B, Cole  M, Galbraith  J,  et al.  Randomized trial of a parent intervention: parents can make a difference in long-term adolescent risk behaviors, perceptions, and knowledge.   Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(10):947-955. doi:10.1001/archpedi.158.10.947 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    73.
    Wechsberg  WM, Browne  FA, Zule  WA,  et al.  Efficacy of the Young Women’s CoOp: an HIV risk-reduction intervention for substance-using African-American female adolescents in the South.   J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse. 2017;26(3):205-218. doi:10.1080/1067828X.2016.1260511 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    74.
    Hughes  D, Rodriguez  J, Smith  EP, Johnson  DJ, Stevenson  HC, Spicer  P.  Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: a review of research and directions for future study.   Dev Psychol. 2006;42(5):747-770. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    75.
    Sheeran  P, Maki  A, Montanaro  E,  et al.  The impact of changing attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy on health-related intentions and behavior: a meta-analysis.   Health Psychol. 2016;35(11):1178-1188. doi:10.1037/hea0000387 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    76.
    Juras  R, Tanner-Smith  E, Kelsey  M, Lipsey  M, Layzer  J.  Adolescent pregnancy prevention: meta-analysis of federally funded program evaluations.   Am J Public Health. 2019;109(4):e1-e8. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304925 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    77.
    Office of Adolescent Health. A Day in the Life. 2018. Accessed March 5, 2020. https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/facts-and-stats/day-in-the-life/index.html
    78.
    Guttmacher Institute. Sex and HIV Education. 2019. Accessed March 5, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/sex-and-hiv-education
    79.
    Planned Parenthood. Parents and Teens Talk About Sexuality: A National Survey. 2014. Accessed March 5, 2020. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/2914/1322/5667/NationalPoll_09-14_V2_1.pdf
    80.
    Hall  KS, McDermott Sales  J, Komro  KA, Santelli  J.  The state of sex education in the United States.   J Adolesc Health. 2016;58(6):595-597. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.03.032 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    81.
    Lindberg  LD, Santelli  JS, Desai  S.  Changing patterns of contraceptive use and the decline in rates of pregnancy and birth among U.S. adolescents, 2007-2014.   J Adolesc Health. 2018;63(2):253-256. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.05.017 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    82.
    Ross  J, Stover  J.  Use of modern contraception increases when more methods become available: analysis of evidence from 1982-2009.   Glob Health Sci Pract. 2013;1(2):203-212. doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-13-00010 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    83.
    Becker  NV, Polsky  D.  Women saw large decrease in out-of-pocket spending for contraceptives after ACA mandate removed cost sharing.   Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(7):1204-1211. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0127 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    84.
    Steiner  RJ, Liddon  N, Swartzendruber  AL,  et al.  Long-acting reversible contraception and condom use among female US high school students: implications for sexually transmitted infection prevention.   JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(5):428-434. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.0007 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    85.
    Brown  JL, Hennessy  M, Sales  JM,  et al.  Multiple method contraception use among African American adolescents in four US cities.   Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 2011;2011:765917. doi:10.1155/2011/765917 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    86.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reproductive Health: Contraception. 2018. Accessed March 5, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/index.htm
    87.
    Causey  K, Zuniga  M, Bailer  B, Ring  L, Gil-Trejo  L.  Using theater arts to engage Latino families in dialogue about adolescent sexual health: the PATH -AT program.   J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2012;23(1):347-357. doi:10.1353/hpu.2012.0036PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    88.
    Calderon  Y, Cowan  E, Leu  CS,  et al.  A human immunodeficiency virus posttest video to increase condom use among adolescent emergency department patients.   J Adolesc Health. 2013;53(1):79-84. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.01.028PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    89.
    Proctor  E, Silmere  H, Raghavan  R,  et al.  Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda.   Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65-76. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    90.
    Jemmott  JB  III, Jemmott  LS, Fong  GT, Morales  KH.  Effectiveness of an HIV/STD risk-reduction intervention for adolescents when implemented by community-based organizations: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.   Am J Public Health. 2010;100(4):720-726. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.140657 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    91.
    Allison  S, Bauermeister  JA, Bull  S,  et al.  The intersection of youth, technology, and new media with sexual health: moving the research agenda forward.   J Adolesc Health. 2012;51(3):207-212. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.06.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    92.
    Hightow-Weidman  LB, Muessig  KE, Bauermeister  J, Zhang  C, LeGrand  S.  Youth, technology, and HIV: Recent advances and future directions.   Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2015;12(4):500-515. doi:10.1007/s11904-015-0280-x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    93.
    Rapoff  MA.  E-health interventions in pediatrics.   Clin Pract Pediatr Psychol. 2013;1(4):309-313. doi:10.1037/cpp0000038 Google ScholarCrossref
    94.
    Lightfoot  MA, Milburn  NG.  HIV prevention and African American youth: examination of individual-level behaviour is not the only answer.   Cult Health Sex. 2009;11(7):731-742. doi:10.1080/13691050903078824 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    95.
    van de Bongardt  D, Reitz  E, Sandfort  T, Deković  M.  A meta-analysis of the relations between three types of peer norms and adolescent sexual behavior.   Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2015;19(3):203-234. doi:10.1177/1088868314544223 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    96.
    Svanemyr  J, Amin  A, Robles  OJ, Greene  ME.  Creating an enabling environment for adolescent sexual and reproductive health: a framework and promising approaches.   J Adolesc Health. 2015;56(1)(suppl):S7-S14. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.09.011 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×