Live or Virtual? Comparing Two Versions of AMP!, A Theater-Based Sexual Health Intervention for Adolescents

African American Adolescents and Young Adults, New Media, and Sexual Health: Scoping Review

“…Any attempt to make this type of comparison may be difficult due to the wide variation of core components utilized by each intervention. Studies comparing one sexual health intervention that was implemented using various new media and traditional delivery mechanisms found no difference in outcomes [ 47 , 48 ]. This suggests that mode of delivery does not affect intervention efficacy, but rather, it is a mechanism used to reach a target population.…”

Assessing the effectiveness of school-based sex education in sexual health behaviours: A systematic review

“…Of the 27 studies that were included in this review, twelve were conducted in the United States (Berglas et al, 2016;Denny & Young, 2016;LaChausse, 2006;Daley et al, 2019;Gelfond et al, 2016;Lan et al, 2019;Rohrbach et al, 2015;Markham et al, 2014;Markham et al, 2012;Rohrbach et al, 2019;Tortolero et al, 2010;Peskin et al, 2015), three in South Africa (James et al, 2006;Mason-Jones et al, 2013;Taylor et al, 2014), two in Nigeria (Esere, 2008;Mba et al, 2007), and each remaining study was conducted in Mexico (Walker et al, 2006), China (Li et al, 2011), Northern Ireland (Lohan et al, 2018), Scotland (Tucker at al., 2007), Ethiopia (Menna et al, 2015), Uganda (Musiimenta, 2012), Bangkok (Thato et al, 2008), Swaziland (Burnett et al, 2011), Northern Malawi (Mwale & Muula, 2019), and Mongolia (Cartagena et al, 2006).…”

“…Studies that receive one weak rating is considered moderate and those that receive two or more weak ratings are considered weak. For the present review, the quality appraisal of the included studies using these rating criteria provided no studies that scored a rating of strong, 21 studies scored a rating of moderate and six studies scored a rating of weak (Cartagena et al, 2006;Denny & Young, 2016;Gelfond et al, 2016;Lan et al, 2019;Mason-Jones et al, 2013;Mba et al, 2007). The main reasons for the weak quality rating were selection bias, failure to mention whether the researcher or participants were blind to the study aims, lack of control for possible confounding variables and failure to report reliabilities and validities on outcome measures.…”

“…For the studies that reported a significant impact of the intervention on condom use, five found an increase in the likelihood to use a condom when engaging in sexual activity (Esere, 2008;Markham et al, 2012;Markham et al, 2014;Menna et al, 2015;Taylor et al, 2014), one found an increase in condom use at sexual debut (Mwale & Muula, 2019) and one found an increase in condom use when engaging in anal sex only (Rohrbach et al, 2019) after the delivery of the intervention. The remaining studies that did not report any effects for the measure of condom use were seven studies reporting no increase of condom use at last sex (Burnett et al, 2011;James et al, 2006;La Chausse et al, 2006;Lan et al, 2019;Mason-Jones et al, 2013;Musilimen et al, 2012;Peskin et al, 2015;Thato et al, 2008), three studies reporting no increase in condom use when engaging in sexual activity in the past 3 months (Cartagena et al, 2006;Daley et a l., 2019;Gelfond et al, 2016), one study reporting no increase of condom use at last vaginal and/or anal sex (Berglas et al, 2016) and one study reporting no condom use at sexual debut (Walker et al, 2006) after the delivery of the intervention.…”

“…Of those that did, the most frequently reported framework was the Social Cognitive Learning Theory (n=7) (LaChausse, 2006;Li et al, 2011;Markham et al, 2014;Peskin et al, 2015;Rohrbach et al, 2019;Thato et al, 2008;Tortolero et al, 2010). Three studies were underpinned by multiple theoretical frameworks, including Social Cognitive Theory, Theory of Planned Behaviour, Sociocultural Learning Theory, Health Belief Model and Theory of Reasoned Action (Lan et al, 2019;Markham et al, 2012;Mwale & Muula, 2019).…”