HIV, Risk Reduction Behavior
Conditions
Keywords
Black adolescent girls
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to develop and evaluate an innovative behavioral HIV prevention videogame intervention to bolster motivation and provide skill-building opportunities to improve Black adolescent girls' ability to negotiate around risk including advocating for partner HIV/sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing, increasing their knowledge and awareness of HIV/STIs, and for reducing sexual risk-taking behaviors.
Detailed description
This study will develop and evaluate a multiplayer videogame aimed at Black adolescent girls with the intent of teaching the ability to negotiate around risk including advocating for partner HIV/STI testing, increasing their knowledge and awareness of HIV/STIs, and for reducing sexual risk-taking behaviors. The intervention will be developed and delivered as a social, multiplayer videogame, a compelling context for Black adolescent girls who constantly interact and seek counsel from their peers. To this end, the Specific Aims, focusing on Black adolescent girls aged 14-18 years, are to: 1. (Phase 1) Translate the culturally and socially-tailored card game One Night Stan to a multiplayer videogame called InvestiDate using game design and content experts and focus group input from 30 Black adolescent girls. 2. (Phase 2) Conduct a pilot randomized controlled trial comparing the multiplayer videogame InvestiDate (the new adaptation of the One Night Stan intervention) vs. an attention/control non-health-related multiplayer videogame with 80 participants collecting assessment data at baseline, one, and four months to: 1. Determine the intervention's acceptability and feasibility by collecting quantitative and qualitative data on Black adolescent girls' satisfaction and gameplay experience of the intervention. 2. Determine the preliminary impact of the intervention on knowledge (information), intentions/attitudes (motivation), social norms, and behavioral skills as related to: i) HIV/STI testing and partner testing and ii) condom use, and iii) sexual risk behavior reduction, such as alcohol and drug use.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALInvestiDate
Participants will be randomly assigned to play either InvestiDate (n=40), or the non-health related attention and time control condition multiplayer videogame (n=40).
OTHERNon-Health Related Video Game
Participants will be randomly assigned to play either InvestiDate (n=40), or the non-health related attention and time control condition multiplayer videogame (n=40).
Sponsors
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
Yale University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
14 Years to 18 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
Both phases (includes focus groups- Phase 1) * Black (race) * Heterosexual * Currently enrolled in high school Pilot Test (Phase 2) * Ability to participate in web-based videogame * Willing to sit for at least 60 minutes (to play the game) * No HIV testing in the last 12 months * Ability to provide assent or parental/guardian consent
Exclusion criteria
* Failure to meet inclusion criteria
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Feasibility Assessed Using Change in Retention Rates | Baseline, 1 month and 4 months | Feasibility of this intervention is assessed by the percent of total questionnaires returned out of all distributed at each time point to assess retention rates. Rates \>80% indicate high retention. |
| Acceptability Assessed Via Self-reported Survey | 1 month | Acceptability of the intervention condition is assessed via self-reported survey at the post gameplay time point using the game experience and satisfaction questionnaire, which is a 10-item scale with 4-point Likert-type responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Total score range 10-40. Data were collected from participants in the experimental group only. Higher scores indicate stronger agreement with the statement. |
| Acceptability Assessed by Favorite Investidate Activities | Month 4 | Participants were asked to indicate (from a list) their favorite activity in the game. The data presented here indicates the total number of participants in the experimental group that selected each activity as their favorite. |
| Total Time Playing | Month 4 | The mean total time spent playing the videogame |
| Change From Baseline at 4 Months: HIV/STI Testing- Self | Baseline, 1 month and 4 months | HIV/STI Testing- self will be used to determine if individuals who play InvestiDate will report more HIV/STI testing and partner testing in comparison to the control condition. Investigators will conduct a longitudinal analysis using a hierarchical linear mixed models approach to compare participants in the intervention group to participants in the control group on reported participant and partner HIV/STI testing from baseline across all follow-up assessments. Data presented here shows the number of participants who said YES they had been tested out of the total number of participants in each group that responded to the question. |
| Change From Baseline at 4 Months: HIV/STI Testing- Partner | Baseline, 1 month and 4 months | HIV/STI Testing- partner will be used to test the hypothesis that individuals who play InvestiDate will report more HIV/STI testing and partner testing in comparison to the control condition. The investigators will conduct a longitudinal analysis using a hierarchical linear mixed models approach to compare participants in the intervention group to participants in the control group on reported participant and partner HIV/STI testing from baseline across all follow-up assessments. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Attitudes About Condom Use (ACU) Assessed Using the ACU Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline, 1 month and 4 months | Attitudes about condom use were assessed using the ACU subscale of the SRBBS. This subscale includes three items scored from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree). A mean score was calculated for each participant with negative mean scores indicating negative (unhealthy) attitudes about condom use and positive scores indicating positive (healthy) attitudes about condom use. |
| Change in Attitudes About Sexual Intercourse (ASI) Were Assessed Using the ASI Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline, 1 month and 4 months | Attitudes about sexual intercourse were assessed using the ASI subscale of the SRBBS. This subscale includes three items scored from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree). A mean score was calculated for each participant with negative mean scores indicating negative (unhealthy) attitudes about condom use and positive scores indicating positive (healthy) attitudes about sexual intercourse. |
| Change in Intentions to Find a Clinic to Speak to a Doctor About PrEP | Baseline, 1 months and 4 months | Intentions were measured with one item (I intend to find a clinic in my community where I can speak to a doctor or health care provider about PrEP). A mean score for the three items was calculated for each participant with score ranging from 1-5. Higher scores indicating stronger intentions. |
| Change in Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI)/HIV Knowledge | Baseline, 1 months and 4 months | STI/HIV knowledge was assessed using 12 questions for which participants could answer true, false, or not sure. The answers were recoded as correct or incorrect, with not sure being coded as incorrect, and a sum was calculated for each participant. Scores range from 0 - 12 with higher scores indicating more STI-HIV knowledge. |
| Change in Norms About Condom Use (NCU) Assessed Using the NCU Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline, 1 months and 4 months | Norms about condom use were assessed using the NCU subscale of the SRBBS. This subscale includes three items scored from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree). A mean score was calculated for each participant with negative mean scores indicating negative (unhealthy) perceived about condom use and positive scores indicating positive (healthy) perceived norms about sexual intercourse. |
| Change in Norms About Intercourse (NSI) Assessed Using the NSI Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline, 1 months and 4 months | Norms about sexual intercourse were assessed using the NSI subscale of the SRBBS. This subscale includes three items scored from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree). A mean score was calculated for each participant with negative mean scores indicating negative (unhealthy) perceived about condom use and positive scores indicating positive (healthy) perceived norms about sexual intercourse. |
| Change in Perceived Norms About PrEP | Baseline, 1 months and 4 months | Perceived norms about the use of PrEP were assessed using a 2 item survey. Both items were rated from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a lot). A mean of the two items was calculated for each participant with score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores indicate more positive perceived norms about the use of PrEP. |
| Change in Barriers to Condom Use (BCU) Assessed Using the BCU Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline, 1 months and 4 months | The BCU subscale includes six items assessed on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A mean score was calculated for each participant with score ranging from 1-5. Higher scores indicating more perceived barriers to condom use. |
| Change in Behavior of Purchasing Condoms | Baseline, 1 month and 4 months | Participants reported on whether they had purchased condoms ever (baseline) or since they first played the videogame over zoom as part of this research study (1 month, 4 months). The response options were yes or no. Data presented here shows the number of participants who answered YES out of the number of people in each group that responded to the question. |
| Change in Use of Condoms | Baseline, 1 month and 4 months | At each time point, participants responded to the item Did you use a condom the last time you had sex? Response options were yes, no, and I have never had sex. Data presented here shows the number of participants who answered YES out of the number of people in each group that responded to the question. |
| Change in Behavior of Having Talked With Partner About Getting Tested for HIV or STI | Baseline, 1 month and 4 months | Participants reported on whether they had talked with a partner about getting tested for HIV or STIs ever (baseline) or since they first played the videogame over zoom as part of this research study (1 month, 4 months). The response options were yes or no. Data presented here shows the number of participants who answered YES out of the number of people in each group that responded to the question. |
| Change in Birth Control Use | Baseline, 1 month and 4 months | Participants were asked to indicate if they used birth control last time they had sex. The response options were yes, no, and I have never had sex. Data presented here shows the number of participants who answered YES out of the number of people in each group that responded to the question. |
| Change in Behavior Regarding Refusal to Have Sex | 1 month and 4 months | At 1 month and 4 months, participants were asked if they had refused to have sex with a partner because he would not use a condom in the time since they first played the videogame over zoom as part of this research study. The response options were yes or no. |
| Number of Participants Refusal to Have Sex | Baseline | At baseline participants were asked to indicate if they had refused to have sex with a partner because he would not use a condom ever. Response options were always, most of the time, about half the time, sometimes, and never. |
| Number of Participants That Asked Partner About Previous Condom Use | Baseline | At baseline participants were asked how often they ask their sexual partners whether or not they have used a condom in previous sexual encounters? Response options were always, most of the time, about half the time, sometimes, and never. |
| Number of Times Participants Asked Partner About Previous Condom Use | 1 month and 4 months | At 1 month and 4 months, participants were asked how many times they discussed condom use with a sexual partner since first playing the videogame on zoom as part of this research study. |
| Number of Times Participants Talked to Family or Adults About HIV | baseline, 1 month and 4 months | Participants were asked how many times they had talked with their family or other adults about HIV ever (baseline) or since they played the videogame on zoom as part of this research study (1 month, 4 months). |
| Number of Times Participants Engaged in Sexual Intercourse | baseline, 1 month and 4 months | Participants were asked how many times they had engaged in sexual intercourse ever (baseline, post-intervention) or since playing the videogame on zoom as part of this research study (1 month, 4 months). |
| Number of Times Participants Engaged in Anal Sex | baseline, 1 month and 4 months | Participants were asked how many times they had engaged in anal sex ever (baseline) or since playing the videogame on zoom as part of this research study (1 month, 4 months). |
| Change in Behavior of Having Looked up a Place to Get HIV or STI Testing | Baseline, 1 month and 4 months | Participants reported on whether they had looked up a place to get HIV or STI testing ever (baseline) or since they first played the videogame over zoom as part of this research study (1 month, 4 months). The response options were yes or no. Data presented here shows the number of participants who answered YES out of the number of people in each group that responded to the question. |
| Change in Self-Efficacy to Use Condoms (SECU) Using the Condom Use Self-Efficacy Scale (CUSES) | Baseline, 1 month, 4 months | The CUSES is a 28 item self-report questionnaire which elicits responses using a five-point Likert scale format, ranging from 'strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree'. 10 of the 28 items were administered and scores were summed for each item for each participant. Each of the responses is scored as follows: 'strongly disagree' = 0, 'disagree' = 1, 'undecided' = 2, 'agree' = 3 and 'strongly agree' = 4. The possible range of scores is 0-40, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy. |
| Change in SECU Using Sexual Risk Behavior Beliefs and Self-efficacy (SRBBS) | Baseline, 1 month, 4 months | The SRBBS measure includes 3 items (e.g., How sure ate you that you could use a condom correctly or explain to your partner how to use a condom correctly?) measured on a scale from 1 (not sure at all) to 5 (extremely sure). For each participant a mean of the 3 items was calculated. Scores range from 1-5 with higher scores indicating higher levels of self-efficacy. |
| Change in Self-efficacy in Refusing Sex (SER) Using the SER Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline, 1 month and 4 months | This subscale includes three items (e.g., Imagine that you met someone at a party. He or she wants to have sex with you. Even though you are very attracted to each other, you're not ready to have sex. How sure are you that you could keep from having sex) rated on a scale ranging from 1 (not sure at all) to 5 (extremely sure). A mean score for the three items was calculated for each participant with score ranging from 1-5. Higher scores indicating higher levels of self-efficacy for refusing sex. |
| Change in Self-efficacy in Communication Using the Self-efficacy for Communication (SECM) Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline, 1 month and 4 months | Self-efficacy for communication was assessed using the SECM subscale of the SRBBS. This subscale includes three items (e.g., Imagine that you and your partner have been having sex but have not used condoms. You really want to start using condoms. How sure are you that you could tell that person that you want to use condoms) rated on a scale ranging from 1 (not sure at all) to 5 (extremely sure). A mean score for the three items was calculated for each participant with score ranging from 1-5. Higher scores indicating higher levels of communication. |
| Change in Self-efficacy for PrEP | Baseline, 1 month and 4 months | Self-Efficacy for using PrEP was assessed with a 4 item survey. Each item was measured on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A mean score for the three items was calculated for each participant with score ranging from 1-5. Higher scores indicating higher levels of self-efficacy. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention One Night Stan will be adapted as a multiplayer videogame called InvestiDate based on the card game prototype with a focus on a slightly younger age group.
InvestiDate: Participants will be randomly assigned to play either InvestiDate (n=40), or the non-health related attention and time control condition multiplayer videogame (n=40). | 40 |
| Non-Health Related Game Participants in the non-health related game group will play a multiplayer game unrelated to the content of InvestiDate.
Non-Health Related Video Game: Participants will be randomly assigned to play either InvestiDate (n=40), or the non-health related attention and time control condition multiplayer videogame (n=40). | 39 |
| Total | 79 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | InvestiDate Intervention | Non-Health Related Game | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Customized 14 | 3 Participants | 4 Participants | 7 Participants |
| Age, Customized 15 | 7 Participants | 3 Participants | 10 Participants |
| Age, Customized 16 | 11 Participants | 14 Participants | 25 Participants |
| Age, Customized 17 | 14 Participants | 6 Participants | 20 Participants |
| Age, Customized 18 | 4 Participants | 12 Participants | 16 Participants |
| Age, Customized 19 | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Black or African American | 37 Participants | 35 Participants | 72 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Hispanic or Latino | 3 Participants | 3 Participants | 6 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Multi-Racial | 3 Participants | 4 Participants | 7 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Not Hispanic or Latino | 37 Participants | 36 Participants | 73 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 40 participants | 39 participants | 79 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 40 Participants | 39 Participants | 79 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Sexual Orientation Asexual | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Sexual Orientation Bisexual | 14 Participants | 11 Participants | 25 Participants |
| Sexual Orientation Queer | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Sexual Orientation Questioning or unsure | 5 Participants | 3 Participants | 8 Participants |
| Sexual Orientation Straight or heterosexual | 19 Participants | 25 Participants | 44 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 40 | 0 / 39 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 40 | 0 / 39 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 40 | 0 / 39 |
Outcome results
Primary
Acceptability Assessed by Favorite Investidate Activities
Participants were asked to indicate (from a list) their favorite activity in the game. The data presented here indicates the total number of participants in the experimental group that selected each activity as their favorite.
Time frame: Month 4
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Acceptability Assessed by Favorite Investidate Activities | Investigate a guy | 21 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Acceptability Assessed by Favorite Investidate Activities | Trivia | 11 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Acceptability Assessed by Favorite Investidate Activities | Presentation | 3 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Acceptability Assessed by Favorite Investidate Activities | Chat with a guy | 3 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Acceptability Assessed by Favorite Investidate Activities | Chat with a doctor | 0 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Acceptability Assessed by Favorite Investidate Activities | Chat with a friend | 0 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Acceptability Assessed by Favorite Investidate Activities | Videos with advice from Chelsea and Brandon | 1 Participants |
Primary
Acceptability Assessed Via Self-reported Survey
Acceptability of the intervention condition is assessed via self-reported survey at the post gameplay time point using the game experience and satisfaction questionnaire, which is a 10-item scale with 4-point Likert-type responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Total score range 10-40. Data were collected from participants in the experimental group only. Higher scores indicate stronger agreement with the statement.
Time frame: 1 month
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Acceptability Assessed Via Self-reported Survey | I would play this game again | 3.64 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.54 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Acceptability Assessed Via Self-reported Survey | I was frustrated with this game | 1.54 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.56 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Acceptability Assessed Via Self-reported Survey | I would make decisions in real life like I made them in the game | 3.44 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.75 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Acceptability Assessed Via Self-reported Survey | I liked the way the game looked | 3.51 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.68 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Acceptability Assessed Via Self-reported Survey | I felt connected to the characters in the game | 3.03 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.67 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Acceptability Assessed Via Self-reported Survey | I felt responsible for the choices I made in the game | 3.54 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.51 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Acceptability Assessed Via Self-reported Survey | I liked talking with other players about what was happening in the game | 3.51 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.56 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Acceptability Assessed Via Self-reported Survey | I enjoyed playing the game agree | 3.75 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.44 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Acceptability Assessed Via Self-reported Survey | The game was challenging | 1.97 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.81 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Acceptability Assessed Via Self-reported Survey | I would tell my friends to play this game | 3.44 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.64 |
Primary
Change From Baseline at 4 Months: HIV/STI Testing- Partner
HIV/STI Testing- partner will be used to test the hypothesis that individuals who play InvestiDate will report more HIV/STI testing and partner testing in comparison to the control condition. The investigators will conduct a longitudinal analysis using a hierarchical linear mixed models approach to compare participants in the intervention group to participants in the control group on reported participant and partner HIV/STI testing from baseline across all follow-up assessments.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month and 4 months
Population: The data represented shows the number of participants that reported testing of the total number of participants in each group that responded to the question.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change From Baseline at 4 Months: HIV/STI Testing- Partner | Baseline | 8 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change From Baseline at 4 Months: HIV/STI Testing- Partner | 1 month | 8 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change From Baseline at 4 Months: HIV/STI Testing- Partner | 4 months | 4 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change From Baseline at 4 Months: HIV/STI Testing- Partner | Baseline | 10 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change From Baseline at 4 Months: HIV/STI Testing- Partner | 1 month | 11 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change From Baseline at 4 Months: HIV/STI Testing- Partner | 4 months | 8 Participants |
Comparison: P value at 4 monthsp-value: 0.246Chi-squared
Comparison: P value at 1 monthp-value: 0.467Chi-squared
Comparison: P value at baselinep-value: 0.55Chi-squared
Primary
Change From Baseline at 4 Months: HIV/STI Testing- Self
HIV/STI Testing- self will be used to determine if individuals who play InvestiDate will report more HIV/STI testing and partner testing in comparison to the control condition. Investigators will conduct a longitudinal analysis using a hierarchical linear mixed models approach to compare participants in the intervention group to participants in the control group on reported participant and partner HIV/STI testing from baseline across all follow-up assessments. Data presented here shows the number of participants who said YES they had been tested out of the total number of participants in each group that responded to the question.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month and 4 months
Population: The data represented shows the number of participants that reported testing of the total number of participants in each group that responded to the question.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change From Baseline at 4 Months: HIV/STI Testing- Self | Baseline | 4 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change From Baseline at 4 Months: HIV/STI Testing- Self | 1 month | 2 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change From Baseline at 4 Months: HIV/STI Testing- Self | 4 months | 4 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change From Baseline at 4 Months: HIV/STI Testing- Self | 1 month | 9 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change From Baseline at 4 Months: HIV/STI Testing- Self | Baseline | 8 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change From Baseline at 4 Months: HIV/STI Testing- Self | 4 months | 8 Participants |
Comparison: P value at 4 monthsp-value: 0.248Chi-squared
Comparison: P value at 1 monthp-value: 0.022Chi-squared
Comparison: P value at baselinep-value: 0.193Chi-squared
Primary
Feasibility Assessed Using Change in Retention Rates
Feasibility of this intervention is assessed by the percent of total questionnaires returned out of all distributed at each time point to assess retention rates. Rates \>80% indicate high retention.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month and 4 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Feasibility Assessed Using Change in Retention Rates | Baseline | 97.5 percentage of questionnaires returned |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Feasibility Assessed Using Change in Retention Rates | 1 month | 97.5 percentage of questionnaires returned |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Feasibility Assessed Using Change in Retention Rates | 4 months | 92.5 percentage of questionnaires returned |
| Non-Health Related Game | Feasibility Assessed Using Change in Retention Rates | Baseline | 97.4 percentage of questionnaires returned |
| Non-Health Related Game | Feasibility Assessed Using Change in Retention Rates | 1 month | 100 percentage of questionnaires returned |
| Non-Health Related Game | Feasibility Assessed Using Change in Retention Rates | 4 months | 100 percentage of questionnaires returned |
Primary
Total Time Playing
The mean total time spent playing the videogame
Time frame: Month 4
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Total Time Playing | 105.56 minutes | Standard Deviation 12.92 |
Secondary
Change in Attitudes About Condom Use (ACU) Assessed Using the ACU Subscale of the SRBBS
Attitudes about condom use were assessed using the ACU subscale of the SRBBS. This subscale includes three items scored from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree). A mean score was calculated for each participant with negative mean scores indicating negative (unhealthy) attitudes about condom use and positive scores indicating positive (healthy) attitudes about condom use.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month and 4 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Attitudes About Condom Use (ACU) Assessed Using the ACU Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline | 1.64 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.54 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Attitudes About Condom Use (ACU) Assessed Using the ACU Subscale of the SRBBS | 1 month | 1.72 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.56 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Attitudes About Condom Use (ACU) Assessed Using the ACU Subscale of the SRBBS | 4 months | 1.56 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.67 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Attitudes About Condom Use (ACU) Assessed Using the ACU Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline | 1.57 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.75 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Attitudes About Condom Use (ACU) Assessed Using the ACU Subscale of the SRBBS | 1 month | 1.54 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.71 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Attitudes About Condom Use (ACU) Assessed Using the ACU Subscale of the SRBBS | 4 months | 1.61 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.61 |
Comparison: Test for the interaction between treatment and time.p-value: 0.392ANOVA
Secondary
Change in Attitudes About Sexual Intercourse (ASI) Were Assessed Using the ASI Subscale of the SRBBS
Attitudes about sexual intercourse were assessed using the ASI subscale of the SRBBS. This subscale includes three items scored from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree). A mean score was calculated for each participant with negative mean scores indicating negative (unhealthy) attitudes about condom use and positive scores indicating positive (healthy) attitudes about sexual intercourse.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month and 4 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Attitudes About Sexual Intercourse (ASI) Were Assessed Using the ASI Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline | -0.05 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.43 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Attitudes About Sexual Intercourse (ASI) Were Assessed Using the ASI Subscale of the SRBBS | 1 month | 0.09 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.5 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Attitudes About Sexual Intercourse (ASI) Were Assessed Using the ASI Subscale of the SRBBS | 4 months | -0.05 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.51 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Attitudes About Sexual Intercourse (ASI) Were Assessed Using the ASI Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline | -0.06 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.57 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Attitudes About Sexual Intercourse (ASI) Were Assessed Using the ASI Subscale of the SRBBS | 1 month | 0.08 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.58 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Attitudes About Sexual Intercourse (ASI) Were Assessed Using the ASI Subscale of the SRBBS | 4 months | 0.11 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.51 |
Comparison: Test for the interaction between treatment and time.p-value: 0.411ANOVA
Secondary
Change in Barriers to Condom Use (BCU) Assessed Using the BCU Subscale of the SRBBS
The BCU subscale includes six items assessed on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A mean score was calculated for each participant with score ranging from 1-5. Higher scores indicating more perceived barriers to condom use.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 months and 4 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Barriers to Condom Use (BCU) Assessed Using the BCU Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline | 2.53 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.77 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Barriers to Condom Use (BCU) Assessed Using the BCU Subscale of the SRBBS | 1 month | 2.32 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.87 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Barriers to Condom Use (BCU) Assessed Using the BCU Subscale of the SRBBS | 4 months | 2.33 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.74 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Barriers to Condom Use (BCU) Assessed Using the BCU Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline | 2.59 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.86 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Barriers to Condom Use (BCU) Assessed Using the BCU Subscale of the SRBBS | 1 month | 2.49 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.84 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Barriers to Condom Use (BCU) Assessed Using the BCU Subscale of the SRBBS | 4 months | 2.37 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.77 |
Comparison: Test for the interaction between treatment and time.p-value: 0.667ANOVA
Secondary
Change in Behavior of Having Looked up a Place to Get HIV or STI Testing
Participants reported on whether they had looked up a place to get HIV or STI testing ever (baseline) or since they first played the videogame over zoom as part of this research study (1 month, 4 months). The response options were yes or no. Data presented here shows the number of participants who answered YES out of the number of people in each group that responded to the question.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month and 4 months
Population: Data was analyzed from all participants that responded to the question at each time point.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Behavior of Having Looked up a Place to Get HIV or STI Testing | Baseline | 8 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Behavior of Having Looked up a Place to Get HIV or STI Testing | 1 month | 16 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Behavior of Having Looked up a Place to Get HIV or STI Testing | 4 months | 9 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Behavior of Having Looked up a Place to Get HIV or STI Testing | Baseline | 16 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Behavior of Having Looked up a Place to Get HIV or STI Testing | 1 month | 21 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Behavior of Having Looked up a Place to Get HIV or STI Testing | 4 months | 12 Participants |
Comparison: P value at month 4p-value: 0.53Chi-squared
Comparison: P value at month 1p-value: 0.303Chi-squared
Comparison: P value at baseline.p-value: 0.042Chi-squared
Secondary
Change in Behavior of Having Talked With Partner About Getting Tested for HIV or STI
Participants reported on whether they had talked with a partner about getting tested for HIV or STIs ever (baseline) or since they first played the videogame over zoom as part of this research study (1 month, 4 months). The response options were yes or no. Data presented here shows the number of participants who answered YES out of the number of people in each group that responded to the question.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month and 4 months
Population: Data was analyzed from all participants that responded to the question at each time point.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Behavior of Having Talked With Partner About Getting Tested for HIV or STI | Baseline | 8 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Behavior of Having Talked With Partner About Getting Tested for HIV or STI | 1 month | 8 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Behavior of Having Talked With Partner About Getting Tested for HIV or STI | 4 months | 4 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Behavior of Having Talked With Partner About Getting Tested for HIV or STI | Baseline | 10 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Behavior of Having Talked With Partner About Getting Tested for HIV or STI | 1 month | 11 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Behavior of Having Talked With Partner About Getting Tested for HIV or STI | 4 months | 8 Participants |
Comparison: P value at month 4.p-value: 0.246Chi-squared
Comparison: P value at month 1.p-value: 0.467Chi-squared
Comparison: P value at baseline.p-value: 0.55Chi-squared
Secondary
Change in Behavior of Purchasing Condoms
Participants reported on whether they had purchased condoms ever (baseline) or since they first played the videogame over zoom as part of this research study (1 month, 4 months). The response options were yes or no. Data presented here shows the number of participants who answered YES out of the number of people in each group that responded to the question.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month and 4 months
Population: Data was analyzed from all participants that responded to the question at each time point.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Behavior of Purchasing Condoms | Baseline | 5 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Behavior of Purchasing Condoms | 1 month | 7 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Behavior of Purchasing Condoms | 4 months | 2 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Behavior of Purchasing Condoms | Baseline | 5 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Behavior of Purchasing Condoms | 1 month | 6 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Behavior of Purchasing Condoms | 4 months | 7 Participants |
Comparison: P value at month 4p-value: 0.09Chi-squared
Comparison: P value 1 monthp-value: 0.72Chi-squared
Comparison: P value at baselinep-value: 0.97Chi-squared
Secondary
Change in Behavior Regarding Refusal to Have Sex
At 1 month and 4 months, participants were asked if they had refused to have sex with a partner because he would not use a condom in the time since they first played the videogame over zoom as part of this research study. The response options were yes or no.
Time frame: 1 month and 4 months
Population: Data was analyzed from all participants that responded to the question at each time point.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Behavior Regarding Refusal to Have Sex | 1 month | yes | 11 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Behavior Regarding Refusal to Have Sex | 1 month | no | 27 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Behavior Regarding Refusal to Have Sex | 4 months | yes | 7 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Behavior Regarding Refusal to Have Sex | 4 months | no | 30 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Behavior Regarding Refusal to Have Sex | 4 months | no | 36 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Behavior Regarding Refusal to Have Sex | 1 month | yes | 9 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Behavior Regarding Refusal to Have Sex | 4 months | yes | 3 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Behavior Regarding Refusal to Have Sex | 1 month | no | 30 Participants |
Comparison: P value at month 4.p-value: 0.148Chi-squared
Comparison: P value at month 1.p-value: 0.557Chi-squared
Secondary
Change in Birth Control Use
Participants were asked to indicate if they used birth control last time they had sex. The response options were yes, no, and I have never had sex. Data presented here shows the number of participants who answered YES out of the number of people in each group that responded to the question.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month and 4 months
Population: Data was analyzed from all participants that responded to the question at each time point.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Birth Control Use | Baseline | 9 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Birth Control Use | 1 month | 4 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Birth Control Use | 4 months | 5 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Birth Control Use | Baseline | 5 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Birth Control Use | 1 month | 3 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Birth Control Use | 4 months | 5 Participants |
Comparison: P value at month 4.p-value: 0.987Chi-squared
Comparison: P value at month 1.p-value: 0.898Chi-squared
Comparison: P value at baseline.p-value: 0.238Chi-squared
Secondary
Change in Intentions to Find a Clinic to Speak to a Doctor About PrEP
Intentions were measured with one item (I intend to find a clinic in my community where I can speak to a doctor or health care provider about PrEP). A mean score for the three items was calculated for each participant with score ranging from 1-5. Higher scores indicating stronger intentions.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 months and 4 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Intentions to Find a Clinic to Speak to a Doctor About PrEP | Baseline | 2.58 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.81 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Intentions to Find a Clinic to Speak to a Doctor About PrEP | 1 month | 3.22 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.15 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Intentions to Find a Clinic to Speak to a Doctor About PrEP | 4 months | 3.06 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.29 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Intentions to Find a Clinic to Speak to a Doctor About PrEP | Baseline | 2.58 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.89 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Intentions to Find a Clinic to Speak to a Doctor About PrEP | 1 month | 3.08 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.19 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Intentions to Find a Clinic to Speak to a Doctor About PrEP | 4 months | 3.34 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.05 |
Comparison: Test for the interaction between treatment and time.p-value: 0.294ANOVA
Secondary
Change in Norms About Condom Use (NCU) Assessed Using the NCU Subscale of the SRBBS
Norms about condom use were assessed using the NCU subscale of the SRBBS. This subscale includes three items scored from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree). A mean score was calculated for each participant with negative mean scores indicating negative (unhealthy) perceived about condom use and positive scores indicating positive (healthy) perceived norms about sexual intercourse.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 months and 4 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Norms About Condom Use (NCU) Assessed Using the NCU Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline | 0.93 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.07 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Norms About Condom Use (NCU) Assessed Using the NCU Subscale of the SRBBS | 1 month | 1.29 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.99 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Norms About Condom Use (NCU) Assessed Using the NCU Subscale of the SRBBS | 4 months | 1.17 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.96 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Norms About Condom Use (NCU) Assessed Using the NCU Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline | 0.98 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.88 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Norms About Condom Use (NCU) Assessed Using the NCU Subscale of the SRBBS | 1 month | 1.03 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.98 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Norms About Condom Use (NCU) Assessed Using the NCU Subscale of the SRBBS | 4 months | 1.05 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.91 |
Comparison: Test of interaction with treatment and time.p-value: 0.262ANOVA
Secondary
Change in Norms About Intercourse (NSI) Assessed Using the NSI Subscale of the SRBBS
Norms about sexual intercourse were assessed using the NSI subscale of the SRBBS. This subscale includes three items scored from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree). A mean score was calculated for each participant with negative mean scores indicating negative (unhealthy) perceived about condom use and positive scores indicating positive (healthy) perceived norms about sexual intercourse.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 months and 4 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Norms About Intercourse (NSI) Assessed Using the NSI Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline | 0.05 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.54 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Norms About Intercourse (NSI) Assessed Using the NSI Subscale of the SRBBS | 1 month | 0.19 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.54 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Norms About Intercourse (NSI) Assessed Using the NSI Subscale of the SRBBS | 4 months | -0.04 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.54 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Norms About Intercourse (NSI) Assessed Using the NSI Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline | 0.01 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.47 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Norms About Intercourse (NSI) Assessed Using the NSI Subscale of the SRBBS | 1 month | 0.22 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.73 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Norms About Intercourse (NSI) Assessed Using the NSI Subscale of the SRBBS | 4 months | 0.25 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.53 |
Comparison: Test for the interaction between treatment and time.p-value: 0.116ANOVA
Secondary
Change in Perceived Norms About PrEP
Perceived norms about the use of PrEP were assessed using a 2 item survey. Both items were rated from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a lot). A mean of the two items was calculated for each participant with score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores indicate more positive perceived norms about the use of PrEP.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 months and 4 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Perceived Norms About PrEP | Baseline | 3.21 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.68 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Perceived Norms About PrEP | 1 month | 3.33 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.71 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Perceived Norms About PrEP | 4 months | 3.33 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.64 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Perceived Norms About PrEP | Baseline | 3.08 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.82 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Perceived Norms About PrEP | 1 month | 3.51 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.54 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Perceived Norms About PrEP | 4 months | 3.42 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.56 |
Comparison: Test for the interaction between treatment and time.p-value: 0.016ANOVA
Secondary
Change in SECU Using Sexual Risk Behavior Beliefs and Self-efficacy (SRBBS)
The SRBBS measure includes 3 items (e.g., How sure ate you that you could use a condom correctly or explain to your partner how to use a condom correctly?) measured on a scale from 1 (not sure at all) to 5 (extremely sure). For each participant a mean of the 3 items was calculated. Scores range from 1-5 with higher scores indicating higher levels of self-efficacy.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month, 4 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in SECU Using Sexual Risk Behavior Beliefs and Self-efficacy (SRBBS) | Baseline | 2.87 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.99 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in SECU Using Sexual Risk Behavior Beliefs and Self-efficacy (SRBBS) | 1 month | 3.71 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.13 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in SECU Using Sexual Risk Behavior Beliefs and Self-efficacy (SRBBS) | 4 months | 3.62 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.06 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in SECU Using Sexual Risk Behavior Beliefs and Self-efficacy (SRBBS) | Baseline | 3.02 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.07 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in SECU Using Sexual Risk Behavior Beliefs and Self-efficacy (SRBBS) | 1 month | 3.33 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.09 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in SECU Using Sexual Risk Behavior Beliefs and Self-efficacy (SRBBS) | 4 months | 3.57 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.74 |
Comparison: Test for the interaction between treatment and time.p-value: 0.095ANOVA
Secondary
Change in Self-efficacy for PrEP
Self-Efficacy for using PrEP was assessed with a 4 item survey. Each item was measured on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A mean score for the three items was calculated for each participant with score ranging from 1-5. Higher scores indicating higher levels of self-efficacy.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month and 4 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Self-efficacy for PrEP | Baseline | 4.16 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.78 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Self-efficacy for PrEP | 1 month | 4.51 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.57 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Self-efficacy for PrEP | 4 months | 4.42 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.82 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Self-efficacy for PrEP | Baseline | 4.13 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.75 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Self-efficacy for PrEP | 1 month | 4.16 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.71 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Self-efficacy for PrEP | 4 months | 4.32 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.69 |
Comparison: Test for the interaction between treatment and time.p-value: 0.21ANOVA
Secondary
Change in Self-efficacy in Communication Using the Self-efficacy for Communication (SECM) Subscale of the SRBBS
Self-efficacy for communication was assessed using the SECM subscale of the SRBBS. This subscale includes three items (e.g., Imagine that you and your partner have been having sex but have not used condoms. You really want to start using condoms. How sure are you that you could tell that person that you want to use condoms) rated on a scale ranging from 1 (not sure at all) to 5 (extremely sure). A mean score for the three items was calculated for each participant with score ranging from 1-5. Higher scores indicating higher levels of communication.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month and 4 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Self-efficacy in Communication Using the Self-efficacy for Communication (SECM) Subscale of the SRBBS | 4 months | 4.37 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.74 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Self-efficacy in Communication Using the Self-efficacy for Communication (SECM) Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline | 4.14 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.67 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Self-efficacy in Communication Using the Self-efficacy for Communication (SECM) Subscale of the SRBBS | 1 month | 4.45 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.62 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Self-efficacy in Communication Using the Self-efficacy for Communication (SECM) Subscale of the SRBBS | 4 months | 4.05 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.87 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Self-efficacy in Communication Using the Self-efficacy for Communication (SECM) Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline | 4.13 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.77 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Self-efficacy in Communication Using the Self-efficacy for Communication (SECM) Subscale of the SRBBS | 1 month | 4.06 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.87 |
Comparison: Test for the interaction between treatment and time.p-value: 0.133ANOVA
Secondary
Change in Self-efficacy in Refusing Sex (SER) Using the SER Subscale of the SRBBS
This subscale includes three items (e.g., Imagine that you met someone at a party. He or she wants to have sex with you. Even though you are very attracted to each other, you're not ready to have sex. How sure are you that you could keep from having sex) rated on a scale ranging from 1 (not sure at all) to 5 (extremely sure). A mean score for the three items was calculated for each participant with score ranging from 1-5. Higher scores indicating higher levels of self-efficacy for refusing sex.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month and 4 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Self-efficacy in Refusing Sex (SER) Using the SER Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline | 4.03 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.81 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Self-efficacy in Refusing Sex (SER) Using the SER Subscale of the SRBBS | 1 month | 4.4 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.75 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Self-efficacy in Refusing Sex (SER) Using the SER Subscale of the SRBBS | 4 months | 4.4 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.83 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Self-efficacy in Refusing Sex (SER) Using the SER Subscale of the SRBBS | Baseline | 3.98 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.87 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Self-efficacy in Refusing Sex (SER) Using the SER Subscale of the SRBBS | 1 month | 3.88 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.94 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Self-efficacy in Refusing Sex (SER) Using the SER Subscale of the SRBBS | 4 months | 4.07 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.88 |
Comparison: Test for the interaction between treatment and time.p-value: 0.136ANOVA
Secondary
Change in Self-Efficacy to Use Condoms (SECU) Using the Condom Use Self-Efficacy Scale (CUSES)
The CUSES is a 28 item self-report questionnaire which elicits responses using a five-point Likert scale format, ranging from 'strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree'. 10 of the 28 items were administered and scores were summed for each item for each participant. Each of the responses is scored as follows: 'strongly disagree' = 0, 'disagree' = 1, 'undecided' = 2, 'agree' = 3 and 'strongly agree' = 4. The possible range of scores is 0-40, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month, 4 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Self-Efficacy to Use Condoms (SECU) Using the Condom Use Self-Efficacy Scale (CUSES) | Baseline | 24.5 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.35 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Self-Efficacy to Use Condoms (SECU) Using the Condom Use Self-Efficacy Scale (CUSES) | 1 month | 29.3 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.46 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Self-Efficacy to Use Condoms (SECU) Using the Condom Use Self-Efficacy Scale (CUSES) | 4 months | 28.3 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.07 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Self-Efficacy to Use Condoms (SECU) Using the Condom Use Self-Efficacy Scale (CUSES) | Baseline | 27.52 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.7 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Self-Efficacy to Use Condoms (SECU) Using the Condom Use Self-Efficacy Scale (CUSES) | 1 month | 26.61 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.56 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Self-Efficacy to Use Condoms (SECU) Using the Condom Use Self-Efficacy Scale (CUSES) | 4 months | 28.09 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.64 |
Comparison: Test for the interaction between treatment and time.p-value: 0.089ANOVA
Secondary
Change in Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI)/HIV Knowledge
STI/HIV knowledge was assessed using 12 questions for which participants could answer true, false, or not sure. The answers were recoded as correct or incorrect, with not sure being coded as incorrect, and a sum was calculated for each participant. Scores range from 0 - 12 with higher scores indicating more STI-HIV knowledge.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 months and 4 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI)/HIV Knowledge | Baseline | 7.76 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.36 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI)/HIV Knowledge | 1 month | 9.06 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.59 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI)/HIV Knowledge | 4 months | 9.06 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.5 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI)/HIV Knowledge | Baseline | 8.41 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.05 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI)/HIV Knowledge | 1 month | 8.73 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.59 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI)/HIV Knowledge | 4 months | 8.43 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.92 |
Comparison: Test for the interaction between treatment and time.p-value: 0.031ANOVA
Secondary
Change in Use of Condoms
At each time point, participants responded to the item Did you use a condom the last time you had sex? Response options were yes, no, and I have never had sex. Data presented here shows the number of participants who answered YES out of the number of people in each group that responded to the question.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month and 4 months
Population: Not all participants responded to the question at each time point.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Use of Condoms | Baseline | 11 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Use of Condoms | 1 month | 7 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Change in Use of Condoms | 4 months | 4 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Use of Condoms | Baseline | 9 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Use of Condoms | 1 month | 8 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Change in Use of Condoms | 4 months | 7 Participants |
Comparison: P value at month 4p-value: 0.596Chi-squared
Comparison: P value at 1 monthp-value: 0.974Chi-squared
Comparison: P value at baseline.p-value: 0.651Chi-squared
Secondary
Number of Participants Refusal to Have Sex
At baseline participants were asked to indicate if they had refused to have sex with a partner because he would not use a condom ever. Response options were always, most of the time, about half the time, sometimes, and never.
Time frame: Baseline
Population: Data was analyzed from all participants that responded to the question at each time point.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Number of Participants Refusal to Have Sex | Always | 6 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Number of Participants Refusal to Have Sex | Sometimes | 5 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Number of Participants Refusal to Have Sex | Most of the time | 1 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Number of Participants Refusal to Have Sex | Never | 26 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Number of Participants Refusal to Have Sex | Never | 21 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Number of Participants Refusal to Have Sex | Sometimes | 5 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Number of Participants Refusal to Have Sex | Always | 9 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Number of Participants Refusal to Have Sex | Most of the time | 3 Participants |
p-value: 0.653Chi-squared
Secondary
Number of Participants That Asked Partner About Previous Condom Use
At baseline participants were asked how often they ask their sexual partners whether or not they have used a condom in previous sexual encounters? Response options were always, most of the time, about half the time, sometimes, and never.
Time frame: Baseline
Population: Data was analyzed from all participants that responded to the question at each time point.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Number of Participants That Asked Partner About Previous Condom Use | Always | 9 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Number of Participants That Asked Partner About Previous Condom Use | Most of the time | 3 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Number of Participants That Asked Partner About Previous Condom Use | Sometimes | 4 Participants |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Number of Participants That Asked Partner About Previous Condom Use | Never | 22 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Number of Participants That Asked Partner About Previous Condom Use | Never | 24 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Number of Participants That Asked Partner About Previous Condom Use | Always | 7 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Number of Participants That Asked Partner About Previous Condom Use | Sometimes | 3 Participants |
| Non-Health Related Game | Number of Participants That Asked Partner About Previous Condom Use | Most of the time | 3 Participants |
p-value: 0.977Chi-squared
Secondary
Number of Times Participants Asked Partner About Previous Condom Use
At 1 month and 4 months, participants were asked how many times they discussed condom use with a sexual partner since first playing the videogame on zoom as part of this research study.
Time frame: 1 month and 4 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Number of Times Participants Asked Partner About Previous Condom Use | 1 month | 1.29 number of times asked partner | Standard Deviation 2.75 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Number of Times Participants Asked Partner About Previous Condom Use | 4 months | 0.92 number of times asked partner | Standard Deviation 2.43 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Number of Times Participants Asked Partner About Previous Condom Use | 1 month | 0.59 number of times asked partner | Standard Deviation 1.25 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Number of Times Participants Asked Partner About Previous Condom Use | 4 months | 1.13 number of times asked partner | Standard Deviation 2.9 |
Comparison: P value at month 4.p-value: 0.735t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: P value at month 1.p-value: 0.159t-test, 2 sided
Secondary
Number of Times Participants Engaged in Anal Sex
Participants were asked how many times they had engaged in anal sex ever (baseline) or since playing the videogame on zoom as part of this research study (1 month, 4 months).
Time frame: baseline, 1 month and 4 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Number of Times Participants Engaged in Anal Sex | baseline | 0.28 number of times had sex | Standard Deviation 1.59 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Number of Times Participants Engaged in Anal Sex | 1 month | 0.55 number of times had sex | Standard Deviation 3.24 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Number of Times Participants Engaged in Anal Sex | 4 months | 0.03 number of times had sex | Standard Deviation 0.16 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Number of Times Participants Engaged in Anal Sex | baseline | 0.08 number of times had sex | Standard Deviation 0.27 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Number of Times Participants Engaged in Anal Sex | 1 month | 0.03 number of times had sex | Standard Deviation 0.16 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Number of Times Participants Engaged in Anal Sex | 4 months | 0.18 number of times had sex | Standard Deviation 0.6 |
Comparison: P value at month 4.p-value: 0.141t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: P value at month 1.p-value: 0.314t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: P value at baseline.p-value: 0.444t-test, 2 sided
Secondary
Number of Times Participants Engaged in Sexual Intercourse
Participants were asked how many times they had engaged in sexual intercourse ever (baseline, post-intervention) or since playing the videogame on zoom as part of this research study (1 month, 4 months).
Time frame: baseline, 1 month and 4 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Number of Times Participants Engaged in Sexual Intercourse | baseline | 14.78 number of times had sex | Standard Deviation 79.26 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Number of Times Participants Engaged in Sexual Intercourse | 1 month | 1.58 number of times had sex | Standard Deviation 6.48 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Number of Times Participants Engaged in Sexual Intercourse | 4 months | 3.24 number of times had sex | Standard Deviation 16.41 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Number of Times Participants Engaged in Sexual Intercourse | baseline | 6.64 number of times had sex | Standard Deviation 8.77 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Number of Times Participants Engaged in Sexual Intercourse | 1 month | 0.50 number of times had sex | Standard Deviation 0.98 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Number of Times Participants Engaged in Sexual Intercourse | 4 months | 1.26 number of times had sex | Standard Deviation 3.01 |
Comparison: P value at month 4.p-value: 0.473t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: P value at month 1.p-value: 0.316t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: P value at baseline.p-value: 0.345t-test, 2 sided
Secondary
Number of Times Participants Talked to Family or Adults About HIV
Participants were asked how many times they had talked with their family or other adults about HIV ever (baseline) or since they played the videogame on zoom as part of this research study (1 month, 4 months).
Time frame: baseline, 1 month and 4 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InvestiDate Intervention | Number of Times Participants Talked to Family or Adults About HIV | baseline | 1.60 number of times talked to family/adults | Standard Deviation 2.62 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Number of Times Participants Talked to Family or Adults About HIV | 1 month | 3.68 number of times talked to family/adults | Standard Deviation 16.12 |
| InvestiDate Intervention | Number of Times Participants Talked to Family or Adults About HIV | 4 months | 1.3 number of times talked to family/adults | Standard Deviation 6.6 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Number of Times Participants Talked to Family or Adults About HIV | baseline | 6.64 number of times talked to family/adults | Standard Deviation 22.08 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Number of Times Participants Talked to Family or Adults About HIV | 1 month | 1.82 number of times talked to family/adults | Standard Deviation 3 |
| Non-Health Related Game | Number of Times Participants Talked to Family or Adults About HIV | 4 months | 259.95 number of times talked to family/adults | Standard Deviation 1600.78 |
Comparison: P value at month 4.p-value: 3.19t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: P value at month 1.p-value: 0.487t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: P value at baseline.p-value: 0.165t-test, 2 sided