Koniak‐Griffin 2008.
Methods |
Study design: control before‐after study Sampling frame: adolescent Latino couples in Los Angeles, CA Sampling method: non‐random assignment Collection method: self report questionnaire (n = 49) Description of the community coalition: University of California Los Angeles School of Nursing, in collaboration with a community–based organization (CBO) already successful in providing innovative services to adolescent fathers (the Bienvenidos Family Services National Latino Fatherhood and Family Institute (NLFFI)), developed and pilot–tested a culturally based HIV prevention program for young couples; funded by the California Collaborative Research Initiative of the University‐wide AIDS Research Program |
|
Participants |
Communities: Los Angeles Country: USA Ages included in assessment: 14 to 23 years old Reasons provided for selection of intervention community: high proportion of Latino couples at risk for HIV/AIDS Intervention community (population size): unknown Comparison community (population size): unknown |
|
Interventions |
Name of intervention: HIV Risk Reduction for Latino Adolescents Theory: Healing the Wounded Spirit (Tello 1998) and Gender and Power (Amaro 1995) Aim: to reduce unprotected sex among adolescent Latino couples Description of costs and resources: unknown Components of the intervention: small group sessions with HIV/AIDS education and counseling Start date: unknown Duration: 12 hours of content provided in 6 sessions |
|
Outcomes |
Outcomes and measures: self report of rate of unprotected sex (questionnaire) Time points: baseline, follow‐up at 3 months and 6 months post intervention |
|
Notes | Funding source: University of California | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | High risk | Non‐random assignment |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | Non‐random assignment |
Baseline outcome measurement similar | High risk | Baseline risk among females lower in control group |
Baseline characteristics similar | High risk | Differences in sociodemographic characteristics at baseline |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | No blinding |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | High number of participants not included in follow‐up data analysis |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | No blinding |
Protection against contamination | Low risk | Intervention offered in small groups |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Outcomes of interest described |