HIV
Conditions
Keywords
HIV Prevention, Adolescent Men who Have Sex with Men (AMSM), Text-Messaging, Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills(IMB)Model
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to examine whether Guy2Guy (G2G), a text messaging-based healthy sexuality and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention program intervention for 14-18 year gay, bisexual and queer men, is associated with HIV preventive behavior (e.g., condom use) compared to an attention-matched control group.
Detailed description
Adolescent men who have sex with men (AMSM) are disproportionately affected by HIV. They account for almost 70% of HIV diagnoses among all young people and are the only risk group with an increasing number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses. Despite this disproportionate burden, current HIV prevention programs focus primarily on adults and heterosexual youth. As such, there is an urgent need for evidence-based HIV prevention programs targeting AMSM. Because issues affecting sexual health decisions among AMSM are unique, intervention programs cannot be translated from heterosexually focused interventions. Instead, they need to be designed from the ground up to ensure appropriately tailored content that resonates with the target population. Evidence-based HIV prevention programs targeting AMSM are urgently needed. The Guy2Guy (G2G) intervention is a text messaging-based HIV prevention program designed for the specific needs of adolescent males who self-identify as gay, bisexual, or queer (GBQ) and are between the ages of 14-18 years. The intervention will be tested in a randomized controlled trial against an attention-matched control group which receives text messages about healthy lifestyle (e.g., exercise, nutrition). A total of 300 GBQ adolescent males will be into the study using an online recruitment strategy. The study is being conducted by researchers at the Center for Innovative Public Health Research and Northwestern University. The primary efficacy outcome measures are unprotected sex acts and abstinence at 3-months follow-up. The investigators hypothesize that those in the G2G intervention will be significantly more likely to be engage in HIV preventive behavior (e.g., use condoms when having vaginal/anal sex) at 3-months follow-up compared to the attention-matched control group. Secondary efficacy outcomes include unprotected sex acts and abstinence at 3-month follow-up by sexual experience groups (i.e., ever had sex versus never had sex at baseline), HIV testing rates, and unprotected sex acts and abstinence at intervention end (5 weeks post enrollment) for those in the intervention versus control groups; and for participants who were sexually experienced and inexperienced at baseline, separately. If effective, G2G has promise to be quickly and cost-effectively implemented to scale to help to curb the spread of HIV infection among AMSM long into adulthood.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALGuy2Guy (G2G)
G2G is a text messaging-based healthy sexuality and HIV prevention program specifically for 14-18 year old GBQ adolescent males. Content is guided by the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills (IMB) model and focuses on: HIV information, motivations to engage in HIV preventive behavior, communication skills, behavioral skills (e.g., using a condom; HIV testing); and healthy/unhealthy relationships. Behavioral skills content is reinforced using brief online videos. The intervention is 5 weeks long. A booster is delivered 6-weeks post-intervention end and reviews the topics covered in the intervention. G2G content is tailored based upon whether one is abstinent or sexually active.
Sponsors
Northwestern University
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Center for Innovative Public Health Research
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
MALE
Age
14 Years to 18 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Self-identified as gay, bisexual, or queer * Male biological sex * Male gender * Between the ages of 14-18 * English speaking * Exclusive owners of a cell phone with an unlimited text messaging plan, have used text messaging for at least 6 months, and intend to have the same number for the next 6 months * Able to provide informed assent, including an acceptable score on the capacity to consent assessment
Exclusion criteria
* Female or Transgender * Participated in earlier study development activities
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| The Number of Condomless Sex Acts at 3-months Post-intervention | 3-months post-intervention | The relative difference of unprotected anal and/or vaginal sex acts in the intervention versus control group at 3-months post-intervention. The count was truncated at 10 or higher to correct for over-dispersion. |
| Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence at 3-months Post-intervention | 3-months post-intervention | At 3 months post intervention participants were asked whether or not they had had vaginal and anal sex in the past 90 days. Those who said no to both were coded as abstinent. The relative difference of abstinence (neither engaging in anal nor vaginal sex) was examined in the intervention versus control group. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence Among Sexually Experienced at 3-months Post-intervention | 3-months post-intervention | At 3 months post intervention participants were asked whether or not they had had vaginal and anal sex in the past 90 days. Those who said no to both were coded as abstinent. The relative difference of abstinence (neither engaging in anal nor vaginal sex) was examined among youth who have ever had sex at baseline in the intervention versus control groups. |
| Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence Among Sexually Inexperienced at 3-months Post-intervention | 3-months post-intervention | At 3 months post intervention participants were asked whether or not they had had vaginal and anal sex in the past 90 days. Those who said no to both were coded as abstinent. The relative difference of abstinence (neither engaging in anal nor vaginal sex) was examined among youth who have never had sex at baseline in the intervention versus control groups. |
| Percent of Sexually Active Boys Reporting an HIV Test in the Past 3 Months at 3-months Post-intervention | 3-months post-intervention | The relative difference of HIV testing over the past 3 months in the intervention versus control group at 3-months post-intervention among those who had ever vaginal or anal sex with a penis at baseline |
| Number of Condomless Sex Acts at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | Intervention end (5-weeks post enrollment) | Relative difference of unprotected sex acts at intervention end (5 weeks post enrollment) for those in the intervention versus control groups |
| Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | Intervention-end (5 weeks post-randomization) | The relative difference of abstinence (neither engaging in anal nor vaginal sex) in the intervention versus control group at intervention end (5 weeks post enrollment). |
| Number of Unprotected Sex Acts Among Sexually Experienced at 3-months Post-intervention | 3-months post-intervention | The relative difference of unprotected anal and/or vaginal sex acts in the intervention versus control group at 3-months post-intervention among youth who have ever had sex at baseline |
| Number of Unprotected Sex Acts Among Sexually Inexperienced Boys at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | Intervention end (5-weeks post enrollment) | The relative difference of unprotected anal and/or vaginal sex acts in the intervention versus control group at at intervention end (5 weeks post enrollment) among youth who have never had sex at baseline |
| Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence Among Sexually Experienced at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | Intervention end (5-weeks post enrollment) | At 5 weeks post-enrollment, participants were asked whether or not they had had vaginal and anal sex since the beginning of the program. Those who said no to both were coded as abstinent. The relative difference of abstinence (neither engaging in anal nor vaginal sex) was examined among youth who have ever had sex at baseline in the intervention versus control groups. |
| Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence Among Sexually Inexperienced at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | Intervention end (5 weeks post enrollment) | At 5 weeks post-enrollment, participants were asked whether or not they had had vaginal and anal sex since the beginning of the program. Those who said no to both were coded as abstinent. The relative difference of abstinence (neither engaging in anal nor vaginal sex) was examined among youth who have never had sex at baseline in the intervention versus control groups. |
| Percent of Sexually Experienced Boys Reporting Being Tested for HIV Since Program Start at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | Intervention end (5 weeks post enrollment) | The relative difference of HIV testing since the beginning of the program in the intervention versus control group at intervention end (5 weeks post enrollment) among those who ever had vaginal or anal sex with a penis at baseline |
| Number of Unprotected Sex Acts Among Sexually Experienced Boys at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | Intervention end (5-weeks post enrollment) | The relative difference of unprotected anal and/or vaginal sex acts in the intervention versus control group intervention end (5 weeks post enrollment) among youth who have ever had sex at baseline |
| Number of Unprotected Sex Acts Among Sexually Inexperienced at 3-months Post-intervention | 3-months post-intervention | The relative difference of unprotected anal and/or vaginal sex acts in the intervention versus control group at 3-months post-intervention among youth who have never had sex at baseline |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Recruitment details
All participants were recruited through national advertisements on Facebook. Multiple ad images and text were used. To ensure a demographically representative sample, targeted ads were also used to enroll individuals from particular subgroups who are typically more difficult to engage in research
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Guy2Guy (G2G) Guy2Guy (G2G) is a 6-week HIV prevention program delivered daily via text messaging to 14-18 year old males who self-identify as gay, bisexual, and/or queer. In addition to program content, participants were paired with another participant (i.e., a Text Buddy) with whom they can text throughout the program to provide support; and an on-demand advice line, G2Genie, which shares information about condoms, sex, relationships, and the LGBT community.
Content is guided by the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills (IMB) model and focuses on: HIV information, motivations to engage in HIV preventive behavior, communication skills, behavioral skills (e.g., using a condom; HIV testing); and healthy/unhealthy relationships. Behavioral skills content was reinforced using brief online videos. The intervention is 5 weeks long. A booster is delivered 6-weeks post-intervention end and reviews the topics. Content is tailored based upon whether one is abstinent or sexually active. | 150 |
| Healthy Lifestyle Control The attention-matched control arm message content consists of information publicly available online related to living a healthy lifestyle. Content discussed includes: STD information, nutrition and sleep hygiene, self-esteem and body image, bullying, and drugs and alcohol. The control arm is 6-weeks in length (Week 6 is a review booster) and is delivered via text messaging. Messages are didactic and not tailored to user sexual experience. Additionally, the Text Buddy and G2Genie intervention program components are not available. | 152 |
| Total | 302 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 Month Post-intervention | Lost to Follow-up | 4 | 2 |
| Intervention End (5 Weeks Post Baseline) | Lost to Follow-up | 4 | 3 |
| Intervention End (5 Weeks Post Baseline) | Withdrawal by Subject | 5 | 1 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Healthy Lifestyle Control | Total | Guy2Guy (G2G) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Customized Age (y) 14 | 21 Participants | 44 Participants | 23 Participants |
| Age, Customized Age (y) 15 | 33 Participants | 70 Participants | 37 Participants |
| Age, Customized Age (y) 16 | 30 Participants | 63 Participants | 33 Participants |
| Age, Customized Age (y) 17 | 23 Participants | 59 Participants | 36 Participants |
| Age, Customized Age (y) 18 | 45 Participants | 66 Participants | 21 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 36 Participants | 67 Participants | 31 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 116 Participants | 235 Participants | 119 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Ever HIV Test | 14 Participants | 26 Participants | 12 Participants |
| Family Income High Income | 37 Participants | 66 Participants | 29 Participants |
| Family Income Low Income | 42 Participants | 75 Participants | 33 Participants |
| Family Income Middle Income | 73 Participants | 161 Participants | 88 Participants |
| Gay Identity | 105 Participants | 219 Participants | 114 Participants |
| Internalized stigma | 5.8 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.2 | 5.9 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.1 | 5.9 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 5 |
| Number of condomless sex acts | 2.7 number of condomless sex acts STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.9 | 2.02 number of condomless sex acts STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.6 | 1.3 number of condomless sex acts STANDARD_DEVIATION 7 |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race African American | 19 Participants | 43 Participants | 24 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race All other races | 33 Participants | 55 Participants | 22 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race White | 100 Participants | 204 Participants | 104 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 152 participants | 302 participants | 150 participants |
| Rural Setting | 35 Participants | 70 Participants | 35 Participants |
| Self-appraised greater than average or greater chances of getting HIV | 47 Participants | 94 Participants | 47 Participants |
| Self-esteem | 19.8 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.7 | 19.6 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.8 | 19.3 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.9 |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 152 Participants | 302 Participants | 150 Participants |
| Sexually Inexperienced | 76 Participants | 149 Participants | 73 Participants |
| Social Support | 27.9 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.2 | 27.9 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.3 | 27.8 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.4 |
| U.S. Region Midwest | 34 Participants | 73 Participants | 39 Participants |
| U.S. Region Northeast | 26 Participants | 46 Participants | 20 Participants |
| U.S. Region South | 53 Participants | 100 Participants | 47 Participants |
| U.S. Region West | 39 Participants | 83 Participants | 44 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 150 | 0 / 152 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 150 | 0 / 152 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 150 | 0 / 152 |
Outcome results
Primary
Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence at 3-months Post-intervention
At 3 months post intervention participants were asked whether or not they had had vaginal and anal sex in the past 90 days. Those who said no to both were coded as abstinent. The relative difference of abstinence (neither engaging in anal nor vaginal sex) was examined in the intervention versus control group.
Time frame: 3-months post-intervention
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Guy2Guy (G2G) | Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence at 3-months Post-intervention | 80 Participants |
| Healthy Lifestyle Control | Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence at 3-months Post-intervention | 94 Participants |
95% CI: [0.36, 1.12]Regression, Logistic
Primary
The Number of Condomless Sex Acts at 3-months Post-intervention
The relative difference of unprotected anal and/or vaginal sex acts in the intervention versus control group at 3-months post-intervention. The count was truncated at 10 or higher to correct for over-dispersion.
Time frame: 3-months post-intervention
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guy2Guy (G2G) | The Number of Condomless Sex Acts at 3-months Post-intervention | 2.85 number of unprotected sex acts | Standard Deviation 12.25 |
| Healthy Lifestyle Control | The Number of Condomless Sex Acts at 3-months Post-intervention | 2.73 number of unprotected sex acts | Standard Deviation 15.97 |
95% CI: [0.79, 2.57]Poisson regression
Secondary
Number of Condomless Sex Acts at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment
Relative difference of unprotected sex acts at intervention end (5 weeks post enrollment) for those in the intervention versus control groups
Time frame: Intervention end (5-weeks post enrollment)
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guy2Guy (G2G) | Number of Condomless Sex Acts at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | 1.81 unprotected sex acts | Standard Deviation 8.94 |
| Healthy Lifestyle Control | Number of Condomless Sex Acts at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | .89 unprotected sex acts | Standard Deviation 4.66 |
95% CI: [0.22, 1.5]Poisson
Secondary
Number of Unprotected Sex Acts Among Sexually Experienced at 3-months Post-intervention
The relative difference of unprotected anal and/or vaginal sex acts in the intervention versus control group at 3-months post-intervention among youth who have ever had sex at baseline
Time frame: 3-months post-intervention
Population: Youth who had ever had sex at baseline
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guy2Guy (G2G) | Number of Unprotected Sex Acts Among Sexually Experienced at 3-months Post-intervention | 5.48 unprotected sex acts | Standard Deviation 16.9 |
| Healthy Lifestyle Control | Number of Unprotected Sex Acts Among Sexually Experienced at 3-months Post-intervention | 5.28 unprotected sex acts | Standard Deviation 22.66 |
95% CI: [0.45, 2.02]Poisson
Secondary
Number of Unprotected Sex Acts Among Sexually Experienced Boys at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment
The relative difference of unprotected anal and/or vaginal sex acts in the intervention versus control group intervention end (5 weeks post enrollment) among youth who have ever had sex at baseline
Time frame: Intervention end (5-weeks post enrollment)
Population: Among the 144 youth who had ever had sex at baseline and completed the 5 week intervention end survey.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guy2Guy (G2G) | Number of Unprotected Sex Acts Among Sexually Experienced Boys at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | 3.49 unprotected sex acts | Standard Deviation 12.31 |
| Healthy Lifestyle Control | Number of Unprotected Sex Acts Among Sexually Experienced Boys at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | 1.76 unprotected sex acts | Standard Deviation 6.57 |
95% CI: [0.22, 1.68]
Secondary
Number of Unprotected Sex Acts Among Sexually Inexperienced at 3-months Post-intervention
The relative difference of unprotected anal and/or vaginal sex acts in the intervention versus control group at 3-months post-intervention among youth who have never had sex at baseline
Time frame: 3-months post-intervention
Population: Youth who had never had sex at baseline
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guy2Guy (G2G) | Number of Unprotected Sex Acts Among Sexually Inexperienced at 3-months Post-intervention | .19 unprotected sex acts | Standard Deviation 0.7 |
| Healthy Lifestyle Control | Number of Unprotected Sex Acts Among Sexually Inexperienced at 3-months Post-intervention | .31 unprotected sex acts | Standard Deviation 1.43 |
95% CI: [0.12, 3.18]Poisson
Secondary
Number of Unprotected Sex Acts Among Sexually Inexperienced Boys at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment
The relative difference of unprotected anal and/or vaginal sex acts in the intervention versus control group at at intervention end (5 weeks post enrollment) among youth who have never had sex at baseline
Time frame: Intervention end (5-weeks post enrollment)
Population: Among the 145 youth who had never had sex at baseline and completed the 5 week intervention end survey.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guy2Guy (G2G) | Number of Unprotected Sex Acts Among Sexually Inexperienced Boys at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | 0.6 unprotected sex acts | Standard Deviation 0.48 |
| Healthy Lifestyle Control | Number of Unprotected Sex Acts Among Sexually Inexperienced Boys at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | .05 unprotected sex acts | Standard Deviation 0.46 |
95% CI: [0.01, 92.03]
Secondary
Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence Among Sexually Experienced at 3-months Post-intervention
At 3 months post intervention participants were asked whether or not they had had vaginal and anal sex in the past 90 days. Those who said no to both were coded as abstinent. The relative difference of abstinence (neither engaging in anal nor vaginal sex) was examined among youth who have ever had sex at baseline in the intervention versus control groups.
Time frame: 3-months post-intervention
Population: Youth who had ever had sex at baseline
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Guy2Guy (G2G) | Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence Among Sexually Experienced at 3-months Post-intervention | 23 Participants |
| Healthy Lifestyle Control | Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence Among Sexually Experienced at 3-months Post-intervention | 33 Participants |
95% CI: [0.23, 0.997]Regression, Logistic
Secondary
Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence Among Sexually Experienced at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment
At 5 weeks post-enrollment, participants were asked whether or not they had had vaginal and anal sex since the beginning of the program. Those who said no to both were coded as abstinent. The relative difference of abstinence (neither engaging in anal nor vaginal sex) was examined among youth who have ever had sex at baseline in the intervention versus control groups.
Time frame: Intervention end (5-weeks post enrollment)
Population: Among the 144 youth who had ever had sex at baseline and completed the 5 week intervention end survey.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Guy2Guy (G2G) | Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence Among Sexually Experienced at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | 37 Participants |
| Healthy Lifestyle Control | Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence Among Sexually Experienced at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | 36 Participants |
95% CI: [0.46, 1.88]Regression, Logistic
Secondary
Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence Among Sexually Inexperienced at 3-months Post-intervention
At 3 months post intervention participants were asked whether or not they had had vaginal and anal sex in the past 90 days. Those who said no to both were coded as abstinent. The relative difference of abstinence (neither engaging in anal nor vaginal sex) was examined among youth who have never had sex at baseline in the intervention versus control groups.
Time frame: 3-months post-intervention
Population: Youth who had never had sex at baseline
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Guy2Guy (G2G) | Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence Among Sexually Inexperienced at 3-months Post-intervention | 57 Participants |
| Healthy Lifestyle Control | Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence Among Sexually Inexperienced at 3-months Post-intervention | 61 Participants |
95% CI: [0.38, 2.53]Regression, Logistic
Secondary
Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence Among Sexually Inexperienced at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment
At 5 weeks post-enrollment, participants were asked whether or not they had had vaginal and anal sex since the beginning of the program. Those who said no to both were coded as abstinent. The relative difference of abstinence (neither engaging in anal nor vaginal sex) was examined among youth who have never had sex at baseline in the intervention versus control groups.
Time frame: Intervention end (5 weeks post enrollment)
Population: Among the 145 youth who had never had sex at baseline and completed the 5 week intervention end survey.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Guy2Guy (G2G) | Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence Among Sexually Inexperienced at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | 67 Participants |
| Healthy Lifestyle Control | Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence Among Sexually Inexperienced at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | 69 Participants |
95% CI: [0.88, 16.95]Regression, Logistic
Secondary
Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment
The relative difference of abstinence (neither engaging in anal nor vaginal sex) in the intervention versus control group at intervention end (5 weeks post enrollment).
Time frame: Intervention-end (5 weeks post-randomization)
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Guy2Guy (G2G) | Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | 104 Participants |
| Healthy Lifestyle Control | Percent of Boys Reporting Abstinence at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | 105 Participants |
95% CI: [0.6, 2.09]Regression, Logistic
Secondary
Percent of Sexually Active Boys Reporting an HIV Test in the Past 3 Months at 3-months Post-intervention
The relative difference of HIV testing over the past 3 months in the intervention versus control group at 3-months post-intervention among those who had ever vaginal or anal sex with a penis at baseline
Time frame: 3-months post-intervention
Population: Youth who have ever had vaginal or anal sex with a penis at baseline
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Guy2Guy (G2G) | Percent of Sexually Active Boys Reporting an HIV Test in the Past 3 Months at 3-months Post-intervention | 38 Participants |
| Healthy Lifestyle Control | Percent of Sexually Active Boys Reporting an HIV Test in the Past 3 Months at 3-months Post-intervention | 20 Participants |
95% CI: [1.65, 7.09]Regression, Logistic
Secondary
Percent of Sexually Experienced Boys Reporting Being Tested for HIV Since Program Start at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment
The relative difference of HIV testing since the beginning of the program in the intervention versus control group at intervention end (5 weeks post enrollment) among those who ever had vaginal or anal sex with a penis at baseline
Time frame: Intervention end (5 weeks post enrollment)
Population: Among the 144 youth who had ever had sex at baseline and completed the 5 week intervention end survey.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Guy2Guy (G2G) | Percent of Sexually Experienced Boys Reporting Being Tested for HIV Since Program Start at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | 28 Participants |
| Healthy Lifestyle Control | Percent of Sexually Experienced Boys Reporting Being Tested for HIV Since Program Start at 5 Weeks Post-enrollment | 13 Participants |
95% CI: [1.52, 7.58]Regression, Logistic