Fourth R: Skills for Youth Relationships

Categories

Categories associated with best practice:

  • Individual
  • PP-icon1
  • Teens (ages 13-18) icon
  • Canada
  • Preventing Violence Icon 1
  • Secondary School Icon 1

Determinants of Health: Social environments, Social relationships (including those that respect diversity), Gender

Overview

Objective: To reduce physical dating violence (PDV) through the implementation of an interactive curriculum that integrates dating violence prevention with lessons on healthy relationships, sexual health, and substance use. Population/Setting: Grade 9 health classes. A total of 1722 students aged 14-15 from 20 public schools (52.8% girls).
Methods: Cluster randomized trial with 2.5-year follow-up; pre-specified subgroup analyses by sex. The intervention was a 21-lesson curriculum delivered during 28 hours by teachers with additional training in the dynamics of dating violence and healthy relationships. Dating violence prevention was integrated with core lessons about healthy relationships, sexual health, and substance use prevention using interactive exercises. Relationship skills to promote safer decision-making with peers and dating partners were emphasized. Control schools targeted similar objectives without training or materials.
Key Results: The teaching of youths about healthy relationships as part of their required health curriculum reduced PDV 2.5 years later at a low per-student cost.

Primary Source Document

D Wolfe, C Crooks, P Jaffe, D Chiodo, R Hughes, W Ellis, L Stitt, A Donner, A school-based program to prevent adolescent dating violence Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 163(8), 692-699.

Contact information of developer(s) and/or implementer(s)

David A. Wolfe, PhD
CAMH Centre for Prevention Science
100 Collip Cir, Ste 100, London, ON N6G 4X8, Canada

Intervention Focus

Intervention Goal / ObjectiveLevel(s) TargetedEquity Focus
Reduce substance abuse
  • Individual level
People living in conditions of disadvantage are not explicitly stated to be a target population of the intervention.
Reduce peer violence
  • Interpersonal level
People living in conditions of disadvantage are not explicitly stated to be a target population of the intervention.
Reduce physical dating violence (PDV) more than two years after the intervention implementation
  • Interpersonal level
People living in conditions of disadvantage are not explicitly stated to be a target population of the intervention.
Reduce unsafe sex
  • Interpersonal level
People living in conditions of disadvantage are not explicitly stated to be a target population of the intervention.

Health Issue(s) that is/are addressed by the Intervention

Health Promotion

    Risk Reduction

    • Prevent violence

    Specific Activities of the Intervention

    • Curriculum changes in school
    • Information sessions offered about a risk factor or condition
    • Training offered to deliver the intervention
    • Group process/program

    Priority/Target Population for Intervention Delivery

    Life Stage

    • Youth (age 13-18 years)

    Settings

    Educational Settings

    • Secondary/Middle school

    Community Setting

      N/A

      Outcomes

      Outcomes and Impact Chart
      Level of ImpactDescription of OutcomeEquity Focus
      Interpersonal LevelCondom use among sexually active boys was greater in intervention schools (114 of 168 [67.9%]) than in control schools (65 of 111 [58.6%]; OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.10- 2.66). Condom use by partners was less for girls in the intervention group (86 of 196 [43.9%]) than in the control group (73 of 144 [50.7%]; OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.50- 1.16).Reported outcomes do not distinguish findings specific to people living in conditions of disadvantage.
      Interpersonal LevelPDV decreased significantly among the control group in comparison to the control group (9.8% vs 7.4%, respectively; adjusted OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.00-6.02; P = .05).
      Further analysis showed a significant difference between the boys of the intervention group and the control group (2.7% vs 7.1%; adjusted OR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.39-5.29), however this same difference was not found for the girls (11.9% vs 12.0% for the inter- vention and control, respectively; adjusted OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.61-1.72).
      Reported outcomes do not distinguish findings specific to people living in conditions of disadvantage.

      Adaptability

      Implementation History

      • Multiple implementations - Different settings/populations/providers - The intervention showed significant adaptability as it has been implemented in different settings or with different populations or by different provider(s). This can include multiple implementations during the same time period. Each implementation of the intervention must have been substantially the same and must have demonstrated positive results for the primary objectives of the intervention.

      Expertise Required for Implementation within the Context of the Intervention

      • Specialized skills training provided as part of the Intervention - The intervention does not require individuals or groups with highly specialized training, but requires that individuals or groups be trained as part of the implementation of the intervention.

      Are there supports available for implementation

      No.

      Are there resources and/or products associated with the interventions

      Yes. Curriculum, video resources, toolkit, implementation manual, lesson plans