Alcohol Abstinence, Alcohol Drinking, Alcohol; Harmful Use, Alcohol Impairment, Alcohol Intoxication, Alcohol Poison, Alcohol-Related Disorders, Alcohol Withdrawal, Relation, Interpersonal, Sex Behavior, Sexual Aggression, Sexual Harassment
Conditions
Brief summary
An online, interactive web-based program for older teens and their parents is designed to address teen alcohol use and teen relationships. The parent-teen dyad both participate in the web-based program and engage in off-line discussion activities. This intervention promotes communication skills, refusal skills, and helps teens consider how to make healthy choices. A total of 411 family dyads (one parent, one teen) were recruited.
Detailed description
This purpose of this study is to develop an interactive, web-based prevention program for parents and older teens that focuses on teen use of alcohol and teen relationships. The study is designed as a randomized controlled trial. Specific Aim 1: To adapt two parent-based prevention strategies (Family Matters and Parent Handbook) to provide a family-based approach for addressing older teen alcohol related risk behaviors and sexual risk behaviors and sex in combination with alcohol use (hereafter called alcohol and/or sexual risk behaviors) using the web as the program delivery mode. Specific Aim 2: To test whether exposure to the program leads to expected changes in targeted teen beliefs and behaviors, including reductions in alcohol and/or sexual risk behaviors. Specific Aim 3: To examine whether program effects on teen alcohol and/or sexual risk behaviors are mediated through changes in intermediate program targeted beliefs (parents and teen) and behaviors (e.g., parent-teen--communication). Program fidelity and process measures may also mediate these outcomes. Phase I integrates and adapts the two parent-based approaches and creates a web-based interactive delivery of materials. Expert panels, focus groups, and usability assessments will inform the process. Phase II is an RCT with 400 families with the web-based intervention. Surveys will be conducted at baseline, and for three follow-up periods (6, 12, & 18 months). Analyses will examine teen outcomes related to alcohol and/or sexual risk behaviors. Changes in mediators directly impacted by the program for both teens and parents will be examined. Process and fidelity information will be collected and assessed. A web-based prevention strategy supporting parents and teens, is significant and timely. Parents and teens will use the internet to make health decisions. This program is uniquely different from other programs be-cause it addresses teens at high risk for alcohol and/or sexual risk behaviors. Further, the strategy involves both parents and teens through an interactive framework. The approach utilizes the strengths of Family Matters which promotes specific exercises and activities between parents and teens and the strengths of the Parent Handbook which addresses issues of importance to this age range.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALSmart Choices 4 Teens
This is a web-based prevention program designed to convey information about alcohol and relationships and the types of choices that they are making regarding these topics. General communications was another core element of the program that provided parents and teens with some key elements of talking to each other.
Sponsors
Klein Buendel, Inc.
University of New Mexico
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Masking description
Parents and Teens were either assigned to the full intervention or provided with didactic materials available on the internet. Family is considered the level of participant
Intervention model description
Randomized Controlled Trial
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
16 Years to 17 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* One parent and the teen both had to enroll in the study.
Exclusion criteria
* Non-English speaking
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Teens Using Any Alcohol During Past 6 Months | Measured at baseline, 6, 12, & 18 months | Have you had a drink of alcohol in the past 6 months? (A drink is a glass of wine, a can of beer, a wine cooler, a shot glass of liquor, or a mixed drink). (Response category yes=1/no=0). Range is 0-1. More frequent drinking is a worse outcome. |
| Frequency of Teen Alcohol Use Over Most Recent 30 Days Within Past 6 Months | Measured at 6, 12, & 18 months | Over the past 30 days, how many times have you had a drink of alcohol? (response categories: 0=none, 1=once, 2=2-3 times, 3= once a week, 4=2-3 times a week. Range is 0-4.Higher score is more frequent drinking and a worse outcome. |
| Quantity of Alcohol Consumed by Teens on Drinking Days for the Most Recent 30 Days Within the Past Six Months | Measured at baseline, 6, 12, & 18 months | Over the past 30 days, how many drinks did you usually have on days you drank? (response categories: 0= less than one, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7= more than six). Range is 0-7. Higher scores represent more drinking and worse outcome. |
| Count of Teens Who Were Drunk or Very, Very High During the Past 6 Months | Measured at 6, 12, & 18 months | Over the past 6 months, how many times have you gotten drunk or very, very high on alcohol? (Response categories: 0=none, 1=once a month, 2=2-3 times a month, 3=once a week, 4= 2-3 times a week, 5=daily or almost daily). Range is 0-5. Higher score represents more drunkenness and a worse outcome. |
| Frequency of Parental Approval for Teen Drinking (in Moderation) | Measured at baseline, 6, 12, & 18 months | How often have you and your parent talked about drinking in moderation is okay (Response categories 1=Never, 2=Occasionally, 3=Sometimes, 4= Often, 5 = Very often). Range is 1-5 and higher scores means more parental approval of teen drinking and is a worse outcome. |
| Frequency of Teen- Parent Communications Regarding Sex | Measured at baseline, 6, 12, & 18 months | Overall, how often you have talked to your parent about sex? (1=Never, 2=Occasionally, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5= Very often). Range 1-5. Higher scores represent a better outcome. |
| Frequency of Teen-parent Communications About Specific Sexual Topics | Measured at baseline, 6, 12, & 18 months | Average frequency created across 4 different sex topics (i. how being in a relationship might divert me from achieving my goals at school, ii. how embarrassing it would be if I caught an STI -sexually transmitted infection, iii. sexual relationships can impact health, iv. how pregnancy would be embarassing) with responses being never=1, occasionally=2, sometimes=3, often=4, very often=5 for a full range of 1-5. Across the 4 different sex topics the sums ranged from 4-20 and average was created by dividing the score by 4, with higher scores indicating more both topics and higher frequency of discussions taking place for a final full range of 1-5. |
| Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Delaying Sexual Activity | Measured at baseline, 6, 12, & 18 months | Communications regarding delaying sex based upon three questions with yes=1/no=0 responses summed: Have your parents told you that (i)you should not have sex, (ii)you should not be in a serious relationship while still in high school, (iii)you should not have sex because your religion or values forbid sex outside of marriage. Higher scores indicate more communications about delaying sex. Range is 0-3. Higher scores represent a better outcome. |
| Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Health Risks Associated With Sex | Past 6, 12, & 18 months | Parent-teen communications score regarding health risks with sex were based upon two items: discussion that sex can result in pregnancy (y=1/n=0) and sex can result in sexually transmitted infections (y=1/n=0). Range is 0-2. Higher scores represent a better outcome. |
| Count of Parental Dating Rules | Measured at baseline, 6, 12, & 18 months | Parental rules regarding dating were based upon summing the yes (=1) response to 15 possible rules: parents must meet date, check in/call during date, parents must know destination, parents must know change of plans, address and phone number needed for parties, no dates on school nights, no sex, no sigle dates, curfew, only agreed upon locations, use good judgment, be gentleman/lady, leave if uncomfortable (y=1/n=0). Range is 0-15. Higher scores represent better outcomes. |
| Count of Teens Who Have Ever Had Sex Over Their Lifetime | Measured at baseline, 6, 12, & 18 months | Have you ever had sex (vaginal, oral, or anal)? (responses were yes=1/no=0). Range was 0-1. Higher score is worse outcome risk. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Recruitment details
November 2014-November 2015 Recruited national sample from two panel vendors
Pre-assignment details
To be eligible, one teen and one parent had to be willing to participate. Enrollment was considered complete after the participants completed consent and baseline surveys. A total of 559 families were eligible and 148 of eligible families declined to participate, leaving a total of 411 families.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Smart Choices 4 Teens A web-based intervention consisting of 3 main components (Communication, Alcohol, Relationships) provided to both parents and teens was completed by parents and teens individually. At the end of each component, discussion guidelines were given to promote communications and to offer skill building practices between parent and teen regarding the component topic. Both the parent and teen were required to complete the component and discussion before moving to the next component.
Smart Choices 4 Teens: This is a web-based prevention program designed to convey information about alcohol and relationships and the types of choices that they are making regarding these topics. General communications was another core element of the program that provided parents and teens with some key elements of talking to each other. | 206 |
| Control Condition This group was provided with websites where information was available regarding the same topics. | 205 |
| Total | 411 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time 1 Survey (6 Months Post Baseline) | Lost to Follow-up | 56 | 40 |
| Time 2 Survey (12 Months Post Baseline) | Lost to Follow-up | 3 | 1 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Control Condition | Smart Choices 4 Teens | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous parent age | 43.75 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.385 | 43.73 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.039 | 43.74 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.711 |
| Age, Continuous teen age | 16.34 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.474 | 16.40 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.492 | 16.37 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.483 |
| Any Alcohol Use | 26 Participants | 21 Participants | 47 Participants |
| Communication regarding health risks | 1.81 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.53 | 1.85 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.46 | 1.83 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.5 |
| Communications regarding delaying sex | 1.33 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.1 | 1.23 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.03 | 1.28 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.07 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Parent Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino | 14 Participants | 16 Participants | 30 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Parent Ethnicity Not Hispanic or Latino | 190 Participants | 190 Participants | 380 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Parent Ethnicity Unknown or Not Reported | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Teen Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino | 14 Participants | 21 Participants | 35 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Teen Ethnicity Not Hispanic or Latino | 190 Participants | 179 Participants | 369 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Teen Ethnicity Unknown or Not Reported | 1 Participants | 6 Participants | 7 Participants |
| Ever had sex | 48 Participants | 55 Participants | 103 Participants |
| Frequency for Topic Specific sexual activity | 2.62 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.09 | 2.68 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.06 | 2.62 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.09 |
| Frequency of Alcohol Use | .17 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.54 | .21 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.59 | .19 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.57 |
| Number of Dating rules | 11.32 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.1 | 11.19 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.16 | 11.26 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.12 |
| Number of times drunk or very, very high | .24 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.74 | .29 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.89 | .26 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.82 |
| Overall communication about sex | 2.55 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.11 | 2.65 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.05 | 2.60 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.08 |
| Parental approval of teen drinking (in moderation) | 2.08 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.3 | 2.05 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.36 | 2.07 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.33 |
| Quantity of alcohol consumed on drinking days | .26 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.05 | .27 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.93 | .27 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.99 |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 1 Participants | 2 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 4 Participants | 4 Participants | 8 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 24 Participants | 24 Participants | 48 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 11 Participants | 13 Participants | 24 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 7 Participants | 2 Participants | 9 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 157 Participants | 161 Participants | 318 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 205 participants | 206 participants | 411 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Parent Gender Female | 175 Participants | 173 Participants | 348 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Parent Gender Male | 30 Participants | 33 Participants | 63 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Teen Gender Female | 117 Participants | 109 Participants | 226 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Teen Gender Male | 87 Participants | 96 Participants | 183 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 206 | 0 / 205 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 206 | 0 / 205 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 206 | 0 / 205 |
Outcome results
Primary
Count of Parental Dating Rules
Parental rules regarding dating were based upon summing the yes (=1) response to 15 possible rules: parents must meet date, check in/call during date, parents must know destination, parents must know change of plans, address and phone number needed for parties, no dates on school nights, no sex, no sigle dates, curfew, only agreed upon locations, use good judgment, be gentleman/lady, leave if uncomfortable (y=1/n=0). Range is 0-15. Higher scores represent better outcomes.
Time frame: Measured at baseline, 6, 12, & 18 months
Population: There are 3 follow-up periods and the numbers analyzed vary across these follow-up periods
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Count of Parental Dating Rules | Dating rules, teen report, 12 month follow-up | 11.04 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.47 |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Count of Parental Dating Rules | Dating Rules-Teen report 6 month follow-up | 11.48 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.97 |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Count of Parental Dating Rules | Dating rules, teen report, 18 month follow-up | 11.01 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.29 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Count of Parental Dating Rules | Dating rules, teen report, 12 month follow-up | 10.42 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.57 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Count of Parental Dating Rules | Dating Rules-Teen report 6 month follow-up | 10.18 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.91 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Count of Parental Dating Rules | Dating rules, teen report, 18 month follow-up | 9.53 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.59 |
| Control Condition | Count of Parental Dating Rules | Dating Rules-Teen report 6 month follow-up | 10.77 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.57 |
| Control Condition | Count of Parental Dating Rules | Dating rules, teen report, 18 month follow-up | 10.08 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.09 |
| Control Condition | Count of Parental Dating Rules | Dating rules, teen report, 12 month follow-up | 10.72 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.44 |
Comparison: Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: <0.05generalized estimating equations
Primary
Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Delaying Sexual Activity
Communications regarding delaying sex based upon three questions with yes=1/no=0 responses summed: Have your parents told you that (i)you should not have sex, (ii)you should not be in a serious relationship while still in high school, (iii)you should not have sex because your religion or values forbid sex outside of marriage. Higher scores indicate more communications about delaying sex. Range is 0-3. Higher scores represent a better outcome.
Time frame: Measured at baseline, 6, 12, & 18 months
Population: The three rows represent different follow-up periods and there are different response rates across follow-up periods.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Delaying Sexual Activity | Communication regarding delay sex at 12 month follow-up | 1.09 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.11 |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Delaying Sexual Activity | Communication regarding delay sex at 6 month follow-up | 1.13 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.09 |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Delaying Sexual Activity | Communication regarding delay sex at 18 month follow-up | 0.98 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.04 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Delaying Sexual Activity | Communication regarding delay sex at 12 month follow-up | 1.02 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.08 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Delaying Sexual Activity | Communication regarding delay sex at 6 month follow-up | 0.85 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.98 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Delaying Sexual Activity | Communication regarding delay sex at 18 month follow-up | 0.75 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
| Control Condition | Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Delaying Sexual Activity | Communication regarding delay sex at 6 month follow-up | 0.98 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.04 |
| Control Condition | Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Delaying Sexual Activity | Communication regarding delay sex at 18 month follow-up | 0.95 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.11 |
| Control Condition | Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Delaying Sexual Activity | Communication regarding delay sex at 12 month follow-up | 1.07 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.1 |
Comparison: Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: >0.1generalized estimating equations
Primary
Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Health Risks Associated With Sex
Parent-teen communications score regarding health risks with sex were based upon two items: discussion that sex can result in pregnancy (y=1/n=0) and sex can result in sexually transmitted infections (y=1/n=0). Range is 0-2. Higher scores represent a better outcome.
Time frame: Past 6, 12, & 18 months
Population: Each row represents a different follow-up time period and the number of respondents varied across the time periods.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Health Risks Associated With Sex | Communications on Health Risks at 12 month Follow-up | 1.53 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.77 |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Health Risks Associated With Sex | Communications on Health Risks at 6 month follow-up | 1.63 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.71 |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Health Risks Associated With Sex | Communications on Health Risk at 18 month follow-up | 1.49 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.83 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Health Risks Associated With Sex | Communications on Health Risks at 12 month Follow-up | 1.40 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.86 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Health Risks Associated With Sex | Communications on Health Risks at 6 month follow-up | 1.35 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.89 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Health Risks Associated With Sex | Communications on Health Risk at 18 month follow-up | 1.27 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| Control Condition | Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Health Risks Associated With Sex | Communications on Health Risks at 6 month follow-up | 1.51 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.77 |
| Control Condition | Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Health Risks Associated With Sex | Communications on Health Risk at 18 month follow-up | 1.38 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.86 |
| Control Condition | Count of Teen-parent Communications Regarding Health Risks Associated With Sex | Communications on Health Risks at 12 month Follow-up | 1.54 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.79 |
Comparison: Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: >0.1generalized estimating equations
Primary
Count of Teens Who Have Ever Had Sex Over Their Lifetime
Have you ever had sex (vaginal, oral, or anal)? (responses were yes=1/no=0). Range was 0-1. Higher score is worse outcome risk.
Time frame: Measured at baseline, 6, 12, & 18 months
Population: The three rows reflect different follow-up periods, teens were lost to follow-up in subsequent waves
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Count of Teens Who Have Ever Had Sex Over Their Lifetime | ever had sex at 12 month follow-up | 17 Participants |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Count of Teens Who Have Ever Had Sex Over Their Lifetime | ever had sex at 6 month follow-up | 17 Participants |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Count of Teens Who Have Ever Had Sex Over Their Lifetime | ever had sex at 18 month follow-up | 19 Participants |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Count of Teens Who Have Ever Had Sex Over Their Lifetime | ever had sex at 12 month follow-up | 20 Participants |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Count of Teens Who Have Ever Had Sex Over Their Lifetime | ever had sex at 6 month follow-up | 15 Participants |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Count of Teens Who Have Ever Had Sex Over Their Lifetime | ever had sex at 18 month follow-up | 21 Participants |
| Control Condition | Count of Teens Who Have Ever Had Sex Over Their Lifetime | ever had sex at 6 month follow-up | 37 Participants |
| Control Condition | Count of Teens Who Have Ever Had Sex Over Their Lifetime | ever had sex at 18 month follow-up | 46 Participants |
| Control Condition | Count of Teens Who Have Ever Had Sex Over Their Lifetime | ever had sex at 12 month follow-up | 39 Participants |
Comparison: Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: >0.1Chi-squared
Primary
Count of Teens Who Were Drunk or Very, Very High During the Past 6 Months
Over the past 6 months, how many times have you gotten drunk or very, very high on alcohol? (Response categories: 0=none, 1=once a month, 2=2-3 times a month, 3=once a week, 4= 2-3 times a week, 5=daily or almost daily). Range is 0-5. Higher score represents more drunkenness and a worse outcome.
Time frame: Measured at 6, 12, & 18 months
Population: Within the experimental group, 49.5% completed the alcohol component of the intervention
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Count of Teens Who Were Drunk or Very, Very High During the Past 6 Months | 12 month follow-up | .08 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.35 |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Count of Teens Who Were Drunk or Very, Very High During the Past 6 Months | 6 month follow-up | .10 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.4 |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Count of Teens Who Were Drunk or Very, Very High During the Past 6 Months | 18 month follow-up | .21 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.61 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Count of Teens Who Were Drunk or Very, Very High During the Past 6 Months | 12 month follow-up | .44 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.46 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Count of Teens Who Were Drunk or Very, Very High During the Past 6 Months | 6 month follow-up | .26 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.96 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Count of Teens Who Were Drunk or Very, Very High During the Past 6 Months | 18 month follow-up | .26 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
| Control Condition | Count of Teens Who Were Drunk or Very, Very High During the Past 6 Months | 6 month follow-up | .23 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.91 |
| Control Condition | Count of Teens Who Were Drunk or Very, Very High During the Past 6 Months | 18 month follow-up | .45 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.3 |
| Control Condition | Count of Teens Who Were Drunk or Very, Very High During the Past 6 Months | 12 month follow-up | .39 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.2 |
Comparison: 6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: <0.1Regression, Linear
Comparison: 12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
Comparison: 18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: >0.1ANOVA
Primary
Frequency of Parental Approval for Teen Drinking (in Moderation)
How often have you and your parent talked about drinking in moderation is okay (Response categories 1=Never, 2=Occasionally, 3=Sometimes, 4= Often, 5 = Very often). Range is 1-5 and higher scores means more parental approval of teen drinking and is a worse outcome.
Time frame: Measured at baseline, 6, 12, & 18 months
Population: Across time, there was loss of sample at follow-up
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Frequency of Parental Approval for Teen Drinking (in Moderation) | 12 month follow-up | 2.16 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.29 |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Frequency of Parental Approval for Teen Drinking (in Moderation) | 6 month follow-up | 1.99 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.31 |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Frequency of Parental Approval for Teen Drinking (in Moderation) | 18 month follow-up | 2.12 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.4 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Frequency of Parental Approval for Teen Drinking (in Moderation) | 12 month follow-up | 2.66 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.55 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Frequency of Parental Approval for Teen Drinking (in Moderation) | 6 month follow-up | 2.59 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.4 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Frequency of Parental Approval for Teen Drinking (in Moderation) | 18 month follow-up | 2.57 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.31 |
| Control Condition | Frequency of Parental Approval for Teen Drinking (in Moderation) | 6 month follow-up | 2.26 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.35 |
| Control Condition | Frequency of Parental Approval for Teen Drinking (in Moderation) | 18 month follow-up | 2.13 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.28 |
| Control Condition | Frequency of Parental Approval for Teen Drinking (in Moderation) | 12 month follow-up | 2.19 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.27 |
Comparison: 6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
Comparison: 12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: >0.1Regression, Linear
Primary
Frequency of Teen Alcohol Use Over Most Recent 30 Days Within Past 6 Months
Over the past 30 days, how many times have you had a drink of alcohol? (response categories: 0=none, 1=once, 2=2-3 times, 3= once a week, 4=2-3 times a week. Range is 0-4.Higher score is more frequent drinking and a worse outcome.
Time frame: Measured at 6, 12, & 18 months
Population: Missing responses and teens lost at follow-up
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Frequency of Teen Alcohol Use Over Most Recent 30 Days Within Past 6 Months | 12 month follow-up | .09 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.36 |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Frequency of Teen Alcohol Use Over Most Recent 30 Days Within Past 6 Months | 6 month follow-up | .16 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.56 |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Frequency of Teen Alcohol Use Over Most Recent 30 Days Within Past 6 Months | 18 month follow-up | .31 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.69 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Frequency of Teen Alcohol Use Over Most Recent 30 Days Within Past 6 Months | 12 month follow-up | .48 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.99 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Frequency of Teen Alcohol Use Over Most Recent 30 Days Within Past 6 Months | 6 month follow-up | .43 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.95 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Frequency of Teen Alcohol Use Over Most Recent 30 Days Within Past 6 Months | 18 month follow-up | .29 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.64 |
| Control Condition | Frequency of Teen Alcohol Use Over Most Recent 30 Days Within Past 6 Months | 6 month follow-up | .21 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.62 |
| Control Condition | Frequency of Teen Alcohol Use Over Most Recent 30 Days Within Past 6 Months | 18 month follow-up | .43 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.93 |
| Control Condition | Frequency of Teen Alcohol Use Over Most Recent 30 Days Within Past 6 Months | 12 month follow-up | .30 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.82 |
Comparison: 6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
Comparison: 12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: <0.01Regression, Linear
Comparison: 18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: >0.1ANOVA
Primary
Frequency of Teen-parent Communications About Specific Sexual Topics
Average frequency created across 4 different sex topics (i. how being in a relationship might divert me from achieving my goals at school, ii. how embarrassing it would be if I caught an STI -sexually transmitted infection, iii. sexual relationships can impact health, iv. how pregnancy would be embarassing) with responses being never=1, occasionally=2, sometimes=3, often=4, very often=5 for a full range of 1-5. Across the 4 different sex topics the sums ranged from 4-20 and average was created by dividing the score by 4, with higher scores indicating more both topics and higher frequency of discussions taking place for a final full range of 1-5.
Time frame: Measured at baseline, 6, 12, & 18 months
Population: The number analyzed varies across rows because the rows represent different follow-up periods and participation varied across follow-ups.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Frequency of Teen-parent Communications About Specific Sexual Topics | Frequency of sexual communication at 12 month follow-up | 2.50 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.12 |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Frequency of Teen-parent Communications About Specific Sexual Topics | Frequency of sexual communication at 6 month follow-up | 2.60 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.11 |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Frequency of Teen-parent Communications About Specific Sexual Topics | Frequency of sexual communication at 18 month follow-up | 2.47 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.1 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Frequency of Teen-parent Communications About Specific Sexual Topics | Frequency of sexual communication at 12 month follow-up | 2.03 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.93 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Frequency of Teen-parent Communications About Specific Sexual Topics | Frequency of sexual communication at 6 month follow-up | 2.23 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.06 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Frequency of Teen-parent Communications About Specific Sexual Topics | Frequency of sexual communication at 18 month follow-up | 2.50 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.12 |
| Control Condition | Frequency of Teen-parent Communications About Specific Sexual Topics | Frequency of sexual communication at 6 month follow-up | 2.27 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.1 |
| Control Condition | Frequency of Teen-parent Communications About Specific Sexual Topics | Frequency of sexual communication at 18 month follow-up | 2.23 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.06 |
| Control Condition | Frequency of Teen-parent Communications About Specific Sexual Topics | Frequency of sexual communication at 12 month follow-up | 2.36 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.11 |
Comparison: Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: <0.03generalized estimating equations
Primary
Frequency of Teen- Parent Communications Regarding Sex
Overall, how often you have talked to your parent about sex? (1=Never, 2=Occasionally, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5= Very often). Range 1-5. Higher scores represent a better outcome.
Time frame: Measured at baseline, 6, 12, & 18 months
Population: The rows represent 3 different follow-up periods and the number of cases analyzed varied because the responses at follow-up varied.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Frequency of Teen- Parent Communications Regarding Sex | 18 month follow-up | 2.46 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.17 |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Frequency of Teen- Parent Communications Regarding Sex | 6 month follow | 2.46 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.99 |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Frequency of Teen- Parent Communications Regarding Sex | 12 month follow up | 2.45 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.17 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Frequency of Teen- Parent Communications Regarding Sex | 18 month follow-up | 1.97 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.08 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Frequency of Teen- Parent Communications Regarding Sex | 6 month follow | 2.18 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.28 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Frequency of Teen- Parent Communications Regarding Sex | 12 month follow up | 2.02 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.09 |
| Control Condition | Frequency of Teen- Parent Communications Regarding Sex | 18 month follow-up | 2.07 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.04 |
| Control Condition | Frequency of Teen- Parent Communications Regarding Sex | 6 month follow | 2.19 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.2 |
| Control Condition | Frequency of Teen- Parent Communications Regarding Sex | 12 month follow up | 2.23 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.16 |
Comparison: Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: <0.01generalized estimating equations
Primary
Number of Teens Using Any Alcohol During Past 6 Months
Have you had a drink of alcohol in the past 6 months? (A drink is a glass of wine, a can of beer, a wine cooler, a shot glass of liquor, or a mixed drink). (Response category yes=1/no=0). Range is 0-1. More frequent drinking is a worse outcome.
Time frame: Measured at baseline, 6, 12, & 18 months
Population: Some teens were lost at follow-up
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Number of Teens Using Any Alcohol During Past 6 Months | at 12 month follow-up | 14 Participants |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Number of Teens Using Any Alcohol During Past 6 Months | at 6 month follow-up | 16 Participants |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Number of Teens Using Any Alcohol During Past 6 Months | at 18 month follow-up | 26 Participants |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Number of Teens Using Any Alcohol During Past 6 Months | at 12 month follow-up | 23 Participants |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Number of Teens Using Any Alcohol During Past 6 Months | at 6 month follow-up | 20 Participants |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Number of Teens Using Any Alcohol During Past 6 Months | at 18 month follow-up | 24 Participants |
| Control Condition | Number of Teens Using Any Alcohol During Past 6 Months | at 6 month follow-up | 38 Participants |
| Control Condition | Number of Teens Using Any Alcohol During Past 6 Months | at 18 month follow-up | 47 Participants |
| Control Condition | Number of Teens Using Any Alcohol During Past 6 Months | at 12 month follow-up | 43 Participants |
Comparison: 6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: <0.01Regression, Logistic
Comparison: 12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: <0.1Regression, Logistic
Comparison: 18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: 0.077Chi-squared
Primary
Quantity of Alcohol Consumed by Teens on Drinking Days for the Most Recent 30 Days Within the Past Six Months
Over the past 30 days, how many drinks did you usually have on days you drank? (response categories: 0= less than one, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7= more than six). Range is 0-7. Higher scores represent more drinking and worse outcome.
Time frame: Measured at baseline, 6, 12, & 18 months
Population: Cases lost to follow-up and for missing data.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Quantity of Alcohol Consumed by Teens on Drinking Days for the Most Recent 30 Days Within the Past Six Months | 12 month follow-up | .13 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.64 |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Quantity of Alcohol Consumed by Teens on Drinking Days for the Most Recent 30 Days Within the Past Six Months | 6 month follow-up | .16 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.64 |
| Smart Choices 4 Teens | Quantity of Alcohol Consumed by Teens on Drinking Days for the Most Recent 30 Days Within the Past Six Months | 18 month follow-up | .46 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.18 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Quantity of Alcohol Consumed by Teens on Drinking Days for the Most Recent 30 Days Within the Past Six Months | 12 month follow-up | .61 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.28 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Quantity of Alcohol Consumed by Teens on Drinking Days for the Most Recent 30 Days Within the Past Six Months | 6 month follow-up | .46 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.22 |
| Assigned Intervention, no Exposures | Quantity of Alcohol Consumed by Teens on Drinking Days for the Most Recent 30 Days Within the Past Six Months | 18 month follow-up | .45 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.26 |
| Control Condition | Quantity of Alcohol Consumed by Teens on Drinking Days for the Most Recent 30 Days Within the Past Six Months | 6 month follow-up | .32 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.13 |
| Control Condition | Quantity of Alcohol Consumed by Teens on Drinking Days for the Most Recent 30 Days Within the Past Six Months | 18 month follow-up | .60 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.48 |
| Control Condition | Quantity of Alcohol Consumed by Teens on Drinking Days for the Most Recent 30 Days Within the Past Six Months | 12 month follow-up | .40 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.13 |
Comparison: 6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: <0.1Regression, Linear
Comparison: 12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: <0.05Regression, Linear
Comparison: 18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.p-value: >0.1ANOVA