IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i6p3305-d522366.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lessons Learned from Replicating a Randomized Control Trial Evaluation of an App-Based Sexual Health Program

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Manlove

    (Child Trends, 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1200W, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA)

  • Brooke Whitfield

    (Child Trends, 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1200W, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA)

  • Jane Finocharo

    (Child Trends, 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1200W, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA)

  • Elizabeth Cook

    (Child Trends, 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1200W, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA)

Abstract

This study presents findings from a randomized control trial replication evaluation of Pulse, an app-based pregnancy prevention program implemented with Black and Latinx women aged 18–20, a population with high rates of unplanned pregnancy. We used social media advertisements to enroll 1013 women online across the U.S. and automatically randomized participants to either the Pulse reproductive health app or a general health control app, stratifying by age and race/Latinx ethnicity. Participants received reminder text messages to view the app as well as text messages with app-related content throughout the intervention. Linear probability models were conducted on the analytic sample of 871 participants who completed the six-week survey and 798 who completed the six-month survey and adjusted for permuted block randomization and multiple hypothesis testing. Compared to the control group, intervention group participants had higher contraceptive knowledge ( p = 0.000), which replicates findings from an earlier evaluation. However, these impacts were not sustained at six-month follow-up ( p = 0.162). We found no other significant program impacts. This contrasts with an earlier evaluation that found intervention participants were less likely to have had sex without a hormonal or long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) method and had greater self-confidence to use contraception consistently than the control group. Different demographic characteristics, lower app usage, and more negative attitudes about and usage of hormonal/LARC contraception in the current sample may help to explain fewer impacts than the earlier evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Manlove & Brooke Whitfield & Jane Finocharo & Elizabeth Cook, 2021. "Lessons Learned from Replicating a Randomized Control Trial Evaluation of an App-Based Sexual Health Program," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-14, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:6:p:3305-:d:522366
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/6/3305/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/6/3305/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Downing, R.A. & LaVeist, T.A. & Bullock, H.E., 2007. "Intersections of ethnicity and social class in provider advice regarding reproductive health," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 97(10), pages 1803-1807.
    2. Higgins, J.A. & Kramer, R.D. & Ryder, K.M., 2016. "Provider bias in long-Acting reversible contraception (LARC) promotion and removal: Perceptions of young adult women," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 106(11), pages 1932-1937.
    3. repec:mpr:mprres:7624 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Brian Goesling & Julieta Lugo-Gil & Joanne Lee & Timothy Novak, 2015. "Updated Findings from the HHS Teen Pregnancy Prevention Evidence Review: April 2013 Through July 2014," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 9c416257fa8143be91c2e0035, Mathematica Policy Research.
    5. Kappeler, E., 2016. "Building the evidence to prevent adolescent pregnancy," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 106, pages 1-5.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kimport, Katrina, 2018. "Talking about male body-based contraceptives: The counseling visit and the feminization of contraception," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 201(C), pages 44-50.
    2. Manzer, Jamie L. & Bell, Ann V., 2022. "The limitations of patient-centered care: The case of early long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) removal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    3. Stevens, Lindsay M., 2015. "Planning parenthood: Health care providers' perspectives on pregnancy intention, readiness, and family planning," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 44-52.
    4. Emma Griffiths & Julia V Marley & David Atkinson, 2020. "Preconception Care in a Remote Aboriginal Community Context: What, When and by Whom?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-13, May.
    5. Wright, Kelsey Q., 2020. "Contraceptive selection and practice: Associations with self-identified race and socioeconomic disadvantage," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    6. Rosalind Waller & Michael Tholander & Doris Nilsson, 2017. "‘You Will Have These Ones!’: Six Women’s Experiences of Being Pressured to Make a Contraceptive Choice That Did Not Feel Right," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-14, September.
    7. C Geist & B G Everett & R G Simmons & J N Sanders & L M Gawron & K Myers & D K Turok, 2021. "Changing lives, dynamic plans: Prospective assessment of 12-month changes in pregnancy timing intentions and personal circumstances using data from HER Salt Lake," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-11, September.
    8. Samantha Auerbach & Kafuli Agbemenu & Rebecca Lorenz & Amy Hequembourg & Gretchen E. Ely, 2023. "Contraceptive Behavior in Appalachia: Exploring Use, Nonuse, and Contraceptive Attitudes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(19), pages 1-10, September.
    9. Mieke C. W. Eeckhaut & Michael S. Rendall, 2022. "Are Births More Likely to be Intended Following Use of Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives? An Analysis of U.S. Births in 2003–2015," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(3), pages 1085-1110, June.
    10. Andrew G. Corley & Andrea Sprockett & Dominic Montagu & Nirali M. Chakraborty, 2022. "Exploring and Monitoring Privacy, Confidentiality, and Provider Bias in Sexual and Reproductive Health Service Provision to Young People: A Narrative Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-22, May.
    11. Laura E. T. Swan & Lindsay M. Cannon, 2024. "Healthcare Provider-Based Contraceptive Coercion: Understanding U.S. Patient Experiences and Describing Implications for Measurement," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(6), pages 1-14, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:6:p:3305-:d:522366. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.