Assessing feasibility of an adolescent relationship abuse prevention program for girls

Abstract

Introduction Sexual violence and relationship abuse are prevalent among adolescents and programs promoting gender equity, reproductive justice, and healthy relationships are key strategies for prevention. While such “gender transformative” approaches appear promising for boys, they have not been evaluated among girls. This study assessed the feasibility of this community‐based program, called Sisterhood 2.0, among girls in socially disadvantaged urban neighborhoods in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Methods This quasi‐experimental trial examined feasibility of Sisterhood 2.0 (n = 246), delivered through 8 weekly sessions, assessed through attendance, retention and satisfaction. Participants completed surveys at baseline and end of program assessing other relevant measures. Generalized linear mixed models estimated changes from baseline to follow up comparing intervention to control participants. Results Eleven neighborhoods were assigned to Sisterhood 2.0 (n = 5 neighborhoods) or job‐readiness training (n = 6 neighborhoods). Girls were between the ages of 13 and 19, 8–10th graders (59%), and self‐identified as Black (69%). Participants most often attended because they thought the program would be interesting (74%) and returned because of the women teaching the program (71%). Girls reported experiences with physical adolescent relationship abuse (ARA) (30% in both arms), emotional ARA (66% intervention; 56% control), or sexual ARA (11% intervention; 12% control). Physical ARA perpetration was high in both arms (intervention: 47%; control: 46%). Significant intervention effects were observed in recognition of abuse (β = 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.03–0.78). No other significant intervention effects were observed. Conclusions Community‐based gender‐transformative programming for girls is feasible and may be a promising approach for addressing interpersonal violence and promoting sexual health.

Adolescent Relationship Abuse, Gender Equitable Attitudes, Condom and Contraception Use Self-Efficacy Among Adolescent Girls

“…The findings from the current study highlight that there are significant differences in experiences with ARA, gender attitudes, and condom and contraception self efficacy among girls living in poverty (reflected in the lower levels of parental education). Notably, high levels of experiences with ARA tended to cluster with lower gender equitable attitudes and poor condom and contraception self efficacy, suggesting that trauma-focused interventions for youth with prior experiences with partner or relationship violence that intentionally address gender norms within dating and sexual relationships may be especially relevant (“A Feasibility Trial of Sisterhood 2.0”(Clinical Trials Nct, 2020; HIll et al, 2022; Reidy et al, 2017).…”

“…Data were from the baseline assessment of a quasi-experimental pilot study examining the effectiveness of an ARA and SV prevention program for high school-aged adolescent girls (“A Feasibility Trial of Sisterhood 2.0”)(Clinical Trials Nct, 2020)(HIll et al, 2022). Participants were ages 13–19 years recruited between 2017–2019 through community organizations from neighborhoods in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Eugene et al, 2017).…”

Evaluation of community-based health promotion interventions in children and adolescents in high-income countries: a scoping review on strategies and methods used

“…Of the 44 articles included, nearly half of them aimed at evaluating outcomes only ( n = 20; 45.5%) [ 42 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 52 , 55 , 58 , 61 , 63 , 64 , 66 – 69 , 71 , 77 – 79 , 82 , 83 ], whereas 18 described outcome and process evaluation (40.9%) [ 41 , 43 – 46 , 49 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 57 , 59 , 62 , 70 , 72 – 74 , 81 , 84 ], and 6 focused on process evaluation solely ( n = 6; 13.6%) (56, 60, 65,75, 76, 80). However, only a few studies explicitly used the terms ‘process evaluation’ ( n = 14) and/or ‘outcome evaluation’ ( n = 4) to describe their evaluation strategies.…”

“…In terms of methods used, in 25 publications including 33 different study designs quantitative methods were reported ( n [ 41 , 46 – 50 , 54 , 55 , 58 , 61 , 64 , 66 – 69 , 71 , 75 – 79 , 81 – 84 ], 16 publications reported on 27 mixed method designs ( n ) [ 42 – 45 , 51 – 53 , 56 , 57 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 70 , 73 , 74 , 80 ] and 3 publications reported on 5 qualitative methods based designs [ 59 , 65 , 72 ] (Table 5 ).…”

“…[ 56 ] 2015 USA Observational b) Process evaluation b) Cohort study MA 8.7 Obesity prevention; Healthy nutrition promotion HILL ET AL. [ 57 ] 2022 USA Interventional a) Outcome evaluation b) Process evaluation a) Quasi-experimental b) Cohort study 13–19 Sexual violence and/or adolescent relationship abuse prevention; Sexual health promotion HOFFMAN ET AL. [ 58 ] 2014 USA Observational a) Outcome evaluation a) Cross-sectional (repeated) ≤ 18 Oral health promotion HOLLAND ET AL.…”