Table 3.

Study Characteristics for Articles Examining at Least One Relationship-Level Protective Factor and a Sexual Health Outcome Among Sexual Minority Youth

Authors (date)	Data source, country	Study design	Sampling strategy	Sample characteristics (n, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, age)	Type of relationship-level factor
Amirkhanian et al. (2006)23	Original data, Russia	Cross-sectional	Nonprobability, venue-based	n = 187 Male: 78.1%/n = 146; female: 21.9%/n = 41 Race/ethnicity not reported Of males: MSM: 95%/n = 139 Age: 22.1	Peers
Bakeman et al. (2007)24	CITY Study, Atlanta, GA, United States	Cross-sectional (subsample from a randomized, multisite controlled trial)	Probability, venue-based, time-space sampling	n = 849 Male: 100%/n = 849 Black: 100%/n = 849 Gay: 56%/n = 475.4; bisexual: 32%/n = 271.7; heterosexual: 1%/n = 8.5; undecided: 4%/n = 34.0; other: 8%/n = 67.9 Age: 18–25	Peers
Bird et al. (2012)25	Project Q, Chicago, IL, United States	Cross-sectional	Nonprobability, community-based sampling	n = 436 Male: 62%/n = 270.3; female: 29%/n = 126.4; transgender: 9%/n = 39.2 White: 34%/n = 148.2; Black: 28%/n = 122.1; Latino: 26%/n = 113.4 Gay/lesbian: 70%/n = 305.2; bisexual: 25%/n = 109; unsure/questioning: 2%/n = 8.7 Age: 20.0, 16–24	Trusted adults
Cohall et al. (2010)26	Original data source, New York, NY, United States	Cross-sectional	Nonprobability, venue-based sampling	n = 177 Male: 96%/n = 170; transgender: 4.0%/n = 7 Black: 64%/n = 112; Latino: 24.1%/n = 42; mixed race: 11.5%/n = 20 Gay: 59.5%/n = 103; bisexual: 26%/n = 45; down low: 3.5%/n = 6; straight: 5.2%/n = 9; other: 5.9%/n = 10 Age: 20.4 (2.15), 18–24	Romantic/sexual partners
Cook et al. (2015)27	Adolescent Trials Network, United States	Cross-sectional	Nonprobability, clinical sample	n = 991 Male: 94.5%/n = 936; transgender: 5.4%/n = 54 White: 14.2%/n = 140; Black: 63.6%/n = 628; Latino: 22.2%; n = 219; mixed race: 13.2%/n = 130; other: 9.0%/n = 89 Gay: 75.3%/n = 746; bisexual: 16.0%/n = 159; heterosexual: 4.5%/n = 45; other: 3.9%/n = 39 Age: 21.3 (2.0), 15–26	Peers; romantic/sexual partners; family
Dorell et al. (2011)28	Original data, Jackson, MS, United States	Unmatched case–control	Nonprobability, cases = local HIV/AIDS reporting system; controls = venue-based sampling	n = 125 Male: 100%/n = 125 Black: 100%/n = 125 Cases (N = 30): gay: 63%/n = 19; bisexual: 23%/n = 7; straight: 10%/n = 3; questioning: 3%/n = 1 Controls (n = 95): gay: 59%/n = 56; bisexual: 26%/n = 25; straight: 6%/n = 6; questioning: 4%/n = 4; none of these: 4%/n = 4 Age: cases: median 20.0, 16–25; controls: median 22, 16–25	Medical providers
Forney et al. (2012)29	CITY, United States	Randomized+multisite control trial	Probability, venue-based time-space sampling	n = 8235 Male: 100%/n = 8235 White: 22.4%/n = 1875; Black: 28.1%/n = 2351; Latino: 34.2%/n = 2867; other: 15.3%/n = 1282 Gay: 74.2%/n = 6211; bisexual: 19.9%/n = 1667; straight: 0.5%/n = 38; other: 5.4%/n = 459 Age: 21.5 (2.3), 15–25	Peers
Glick and Golden (2014)30	Development and Sexual Health (DASH) study, Seattle WA, United States	Longitudinal, prospective	Nonprobability, peer, online (Facebook), and venue-based recruitment (college organizations, STI clinic)	n = 94 Male: 100%, n = 94 White: 59.6%/n = 56; other— “Nonwhite race”: 40.4%/n = 38 Gay 84%/n = 79; other MSM (bisexual, queer, straight, and/or other): 16%/n = 15 Age: 21.0, 16–30	Peers; family
Hart et al. (2004)31	CITY—Atlanta Sample, United States	Cross-sectional (subsample from a randomized, multisite controlled trial)	Probability, venue-based time-space sampling	n = 758 Male: 100%/n = 758 Black: 100%/n = 758 Gay: 53.4%/n = 405; bisexual: 32.6%/n = 247; heterosexual: 0.8%/n = 5; other: 13.4%/n = 101 Age: 21.6 (2.1), 18–25	Peers
Hays et al. (1997a)32	San Francisco Young Men’s Health Study—Wave 1, United States	Cross-sectional	Probability, multistage sample of households from the 21 census tracts in San Francisco with the highest cumulative number of AIDS cases in 1992	n = 372 Male: 100%/n = 372 White: 77%/n = 286.4; Black: 5%/n = 18.6; Latino: 8%/n = 29.8; Asian/Pacific Islander: 7%/n = 26.0; other: 4%/n = 14.9 Gay: 84%/n = 312.5; bisexual: 14%/n = 52.1; heterosexual: 2%/n = 7.4 Age: 25.8 (2.5), 18–29	Peers; romantic/sexual partners
Hays et al. (1997b)33	Young Men’s Survey, Wave 2, United States	Cross-sectional (longitudinal survey, but these data are only from wave 2)	Nonprobability, venue-based sampling	n = 416 Male: 100%/n = 416 White: 83%/n = 345.3; Black: 2%/n = 8.32; Latino: 6%/n = 25.0; Asian/Pacific Islander: 7%/n = 29.1; other: Native American: 2%/n = 8.3 Gay: 82%/n = 314.1; bisexual: 18%/n = 74.9 Age: 24.0 (2.7), 18–27	Romantic/sexual partners
Hightow-Weidman et al. (2013)34	YMSM of Color Initiative, United States	Longitudinal	Nonprobability, different recruitment strategies in each of the eight cities	n = 362 Male: 100%/n = 362 Black: 66.6%/n = 241; Latino: 21.5%/n = 78; mixed: 11.9%/n = 43 Gay: 63.8%/n = 231; bisexual: 19.9%/n = 72; other: 16.3%/n = 59 Age: 20.4 (1.9), 15–24	Romantic/sexual partners
Jones et al. (2008)35	Original data, Raleigh, Greens-boro, and Charlotte, NC, United States	Cross-sectional	Nonprobability, venue-based sampling	n = 308 Male: 100%/n = 308 Black: 100%/n = 308 Gay: 53.6%/n = 165.1; other “Nongay Identified” MSM: 46.4%/n = 142.39 Age: 23.0 (3.1), 18–30	Family; peers; trusted adults
Kelly et al. (2001)36	Original data, Russia	Cross-sectional	Nonprobability, event-based recruitment	n = 422 Male: 100%/n = 422 Race not reported MSM: 100%/n = 422; sexual identity not reported Age: with a history of exchanging sex for money or valuables: 23.8 (6.5), 18+; with no history of exchanging sex for money or valuables: 27.3 (7.7), 18+	Peers
Leonard et al. (2014)37	Original data (baseline data from longitudinal study), Bronx, United States	Cross-sectional	Nonprobability, venue-based and snowball recruitment	n = 80 Male: 100%/n = 80 Black: 39.5%/n = 31.6; Latino: 38.2%/n = 30.6; mixed race: 10.5%/n = 8.4; other: 11.8%/n = 9.4 Gay: 60.0%/n = 48; bisexual: 29.1%/n = 23.8; other: 11.4%/n = 9.1 Age: 19.0 (2.0), 16–21	Medical providers; romantic/sexual partners
Lorente et al. (2012)38	Original data collected by Alternatives-Cameroun NGO, Cameroon	Cross-sectional	Nonprobability, snowball recruitment	n = 165 Male: 100%/n = 165 Race not reported Check all that apply: gay: 40%/n = 66; bisexual: 50%/n = 82.5; other: 31%/n = 51.2 Age: median: 25, 18–44	Peers
Mashburn et al. (2004)39	CITY—African American only samples (Atlanta, Birmingham, Chicago), United States	Cross-sectional (subsample from a randomized, multisite controlled trial)	Probability, venue-based time-space sampling	n = 551 Male: 100%/n = 551 Black: 100%/n = 551 Gay: 47%/n = 259; bisexual: 42%/n = 231; straight: 1%/n = 6; other 11%/n = 61 Age: 21.4 (2.14), 16–25	Peers
Meanley et al. (2015)40	Original data, Detroit, MI, United States	Cross-sectional observational	Nonprobability, web-based survey	n = 304 Male: 100%/n = 304 White: 24.8%/n = 92; Black: 51.2%/n = 190; Hispanic/Latino: 14.8%/n = 55; other, not specified: 9.2%/n = 34 Gay: 85.2%/n = 259; bisexual: 8.6%/n = 26; other (e.g., same gender loving, queer): 6.3%/n = 19 Age: 22.9 (2.9), 18–29	Medical providers
Molitor et al. (1999)41	Original data, City of Long Beach and the counties of Riverside, Sonoma, and Sacramento, CA, United States	Cross-sectional	Nonprobability, venue-based recruitment	n = 834 Male: 100%/n = 834 White: 63.3%/n = 528; Black: 11.1%/n = 93; Latino: 15.8%/n = 132; API: 4.8%/n = 40; other: 5%, n = 42 MSM: 100%/n = 834; sexual identity not reported Age: 21.9 (2.4), 17–25	Peers; romantic/sexual partners
Mutchler et al. (2011)42	Original data, Los Angeles, CA, New York, NY, United States	Cross-sectional	Probability, venue-based time-space sampling	n = 416 Male: 100%/n = 416 Black: 40.1%/n = 167; Latino: 47.1%/n = 196; mixed race: 12.8%/n = 53 Gay: 74%/n = 308; bisexual: 22%/n = 92; other: 4%/n = 17 Age: 20.7, 18–24	Peers
Nyoni and Ross (2013)43	Original data, Tanzania	Cross-sectional (baseline interview of longitudinal survey)	Nonprobability, respondent driven sampling	n = 271 Male: 100%/n = 271 Race/ethnicity not reported MSM: 100%/n = 271; sexual identity not reported Age: 24.0 (6.2)	Peers; romantic/sexual partners
O’Donnell et al. (2002)44	CITY project— Hermanos Jóvenes, Latino sample in NYC, United States	Cross-sectional (subsample from a randomized, multisite controlled trial)	Probability, venue-based time-space sampling	n = 465 Male: 100%/n = 465 Latino: 100%/n = 465 Gay: 74%/n = 341; bisexual: 22%/n = 102; other: 4%/n = 19 Age: 21.4 (2.4), 15–25	Peers; family
Peterson et al. (2009)45	Original data, United States	Cross-sectional	Nonprobability, target sampling, referrals	n = 158 Male: 100%/n = 158 Black: 100%/n = 158 MSM: 100%/n = 158; sexual identity not reported Age: 23.0, 19–29	Peers
Rhodes et al. (2003)46	Original data, Birmingham, AL, United States	Cross-sectional	Nonprobability, venue-based (one bar)	n = 107 Male: 100%/n = 107 Black: 100%/n = 107 MSM 100%; sexual identity not reported Age: 24.8 (6.0), 18–50	Medical providers
Ryan et al. (2009)47	Family Acceptance Project, San Francisco Bay Area, United States	Cross-sectional	Nonprobability; venue-based sampling	n = 224 Male: 51%/n = 114; female: 49%/n = 110 White: 48%/n = 107; Latino: 52%/n = 117 Gay: 42%/n = 94.1; lesbian: 28%/n = 62.7; bisexual: 13%/n = 29.1; other: 17%/n = 38.1 Age: 22.8, 21–25	Family
Ryan et al. (2010)48	Family Acceptance Project, San Francisco Bay Area, United States	Cross-sectional	Nonprobability, venue-based sampling	n = 224 Male: 51%/n = 114; female: 49%/n = 110 White: 48%/n = 107; Latino: 52%/n = 117 Gay: 42%/n = 94.1; lesbian: 28%/n = 62.7; bisexual: 13%/n = 29.1; other: 17%/n = 38.1 Age: 22.8, 21–25	Family
Scott et al. (2014)49	Original data (baseline data from an intervention trial), TX, United States	Cross-sectional	Probability, venue-based, time location sampling (modeled after NHBS)	n = 813 Male: 100%/n = 813 Black: 100%/n = 813 MSM: 100%/n = 813; sexual identity not reported Age: median: 23, 18–29	Peers
Shapiro and Vives (1999)50	Original data, San Francisco, CA, United States	Cross-sectional	Nonprobability, community venue-based sampling	n = 60 Male: 100%/n = 60 Asian: 100%/n = 60; Chinese: 31.7%; Filipino: 30.0%; other Asian: 38.3% MSM: 100%/n = 60; sexual identity not reported Age: 23.7, 18–39	Romantic/sexual partners
Shilo and Mor (2014)51	Original data, Israel (also used in Shilo and Mor52)	Cross-sectional	Nonprobability, online recruitment (Facebook and other web groups)	n = 952 Male: 53.4%/n = 508; female: 46.6%/n = 444 Race/ethnicity not reported Gay: 41%/n = 390; lesbian: 15%/n = 142; bisexual: 16%/n = 153; heterosexual: 28%/n = 267 Age: 22.1 (4.7), 12–30	Peers; family
Shilo and Mor (2015)52	Original data, Israel (also used in Shilo and Mor51)	Cross-sectional	Nonprobability	n = 445 Male: 100%/n = 445 Race/ethnicity not reported Gay: 87.6%/n = 390; bisexual: 8.8%/n = 39; questioning: 3.4%/n = 16 Age: 22.5 (4.7), 12–30	Peers; family
Siconolfi et al. (2013)53	Project 18, New York City, NY, United States	Cross-sectional (baseline data of a longitudinal survey)	Nonprobability, venue-based, and online recruitment	n = 590 Male: 100%/n = 590 White: 29.3%/n = 173; Black: 14.7%/n = 87; Hispanic/Latino: 38.3%/n = 226; Asian/Pacific Islander: 4.7%/n = 28; other: 12.9%/n = 76 Exclusively gay: 58.6%/n = 346; not exclusively gay: 41.4%/n = 244 Age: 18–29	Peers
Sumartojo et al. (2008)54	CITY Study, baseline data, 13 sites (Atlanta; Birmingham; Chicago; Washington Heights/South Bronx; Jackson Heights; San Gabriel Valley; Orange County; Seattle; San Diego; Milwaukee; West Hollywood; Detroit; Minneapolis), United States	Cross-sectional (baseline data from a randomized, multisite controlled trial)	Probability, venue-based time-space sampling	n = 2621 Male: 100%/n = 2621 Check all that apply: White: 25%/n = 653; Black: 29%/n = 762; Latino: 34%/n = 886; Asian/Pacific Islander: 13%/n = 329; other: 2%/n = 58 Gay: 67%/n = 1761; other MSM: 33%/n = 848 Age: median: 21, 15–25	Peers
Thoma and Huebner (2014)55	Diverse Adolescents Sexual Health Philadelphia, Boston, Oakland, Indianapolis, United States	Cross-sectional	Nonprobability, venue-based sampling through local CBOs, community fliers, online recruitment, peer word of mouth	n = 257 Male: 100%/n = 257 White: 22%/n = 56.5; Black: 35%/n = 90; mixed race: 30%/n = 77.1; other (including Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American): 13%/n = 33.4 Gay 67%/n = 172; bisexual 25%/n = 64.3; queer or other 8%/n = 20.6 Age: 17.4 (1.3), 14–19	Family
Waldo et al. (2000)56	San Francisco Bay Area Young Men’s Survey II, San Francisco, CA, United States	Cross-sectional	Probability, venue-based time-space sampling	n = 719 Male: 100%/n = 719 White: 30.7%/n = 221; Black: 18.9%/n = 136; Latino: 29.5%/n = 212; Asian/Pacific Islander: 16.3%/n = 117; other: 4.6%/n = 33 Gay: 63.3%/n = 455; bisexual: 36.0%/n = 259; heterosexual: 3.4%/n = 24 Age: 15–22	Peers
Xiao et al. (2013)57	Original data, China	Cross-sectional	Nonprobability sample, multiple means (venue-based, peer outreach, snowballing, Internet outreach)	n = 307 Male: 100%/n = 307 Han ethnicity: 92%/n = 282 Gay: 59.9%/n = 184; bisexual: 30.9%/n = 95; heterosexual: 1.3%/n = 4; uncertain: 7.8%/n = 24 Age: 23.7 (2.9), 18–29	Romantic/sexual partners
Xu et al. (2011)58	Original data, China	Cross-sectional	Nonprobability	n = 436 Male: 100%/n = 436 Han ethnicity: 88.5%/n = 386; non-Han 11.5%/n = 50 Homosexual: 57.8%/n = 252; bisexual: 35.6%/n = 155; heterosexual: 0.9%/n = 4; other, sexual orientation undetermined: 5.7%/n = 25 Age: under 20: 54.4%; over 20: 45.6%	Family; medical providers

Where exact n’s were not provided for sample characteristics, we estimated based on reported percentages and vice versa. Age is reported as mean (standard deviation), range; however, if any of this information was not included in an article it was omitted.

CBOs, community based organizations; CITY, Community Intervention Trial for Youth; NHBS, National HIV Behavioral Surveillance Systems; STI, sexually transmitted infection; YMSM, young men who have sex with men.