An Interactive Game for HIV Prevention in Early Adolescents

June 26, 2017 updated by: Lynn E. Fiellin, Yale University

An Interactive Video Game for HIV Prevention in Early Adolescents

The purpose of this study is to evaluate, through a randomized clinical trial, the efficacy of an interactive video game the investigators are developing at reducing risk behaviors in at-risk teens.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

The purpose of this study is to evaluate, through a randomized clinical trial, the efficacy of an interactive video game the investigators are developing at reducing risk behaviors in at-risk teens. The investigators are using proven components of HIV prevention interventions, social cognitive theory, self-efficacy, prospect theory, message framing, and video gaming principles to develop and evaluate this interactive HIV prevention video game. In Phase 1 of this project, the investigators have been working with Schell Games of Pittsburgh, PA, Digitalmill of Portland, ME, and the Farnam Neighborhood House in New Haven, CT to develop our interactive video game with the input from our experts and focus groups and interviews with adolescents. Phase 1 has been a developmental iterative process in which the investigators have been building the software for the game for the purposes of targeting HIV prevention in our population of interest: young minority adolescents. Following development of the video game, the investigators will move to Phase 2 in which the investigators will enroll 330 minority adolescents who are attendees at one of several after-school programs in the greater New Haven area and assign them to play either the experimental game or a control game. In the experimental game, the player will be presented with a series of "risk challenges" thereby helping them to develop sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
333

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • Connecticut
      • New Haven, Connecticut, United States, 06510
        • Yale School of Medicine

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

11 years to 14 years (CHILD)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Ages 11-14 years
  2. Able to provide assent/parental/guardian consent
  3. Agree to participate in a computer-based videogame (willing to sit at a computer for 75 minutes twice weekly to play the game)
  4. English-speaking

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Not between the ages of 11-14 years
  2. Not able to provide assent/parental/guardian consent
  3. Not willing to sit at a computer for 75 minutes twice weekly to play the game
  4. Non-English speaking

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: PREVENTION
  • Allocation: RANDOMIZED
  • Interventional Model: PARALLEL
  • Masking: NONE

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
EXPERIMENTAL: Experimental Video Game
Participants will play the experimental videogame for 6 weeks. The intervention will be provided during 12 sessions, twice weekly for 6 weeks; each session will involve one and one-quarter hour of game play.
Behavioral: Experimental Video Game
Participants will play either the experimental or the control videogame for 6 weeks. Both interventions will be provided during 12 sessions, twice weekly for 6 weeks; each session will involve one and one-quarter hour of game play.
OTHER: Off the Shelf Video Game
Participants will play the off the shelf videogame for 6 weeks. The intervention be provided during 12 sessions, twice weekly for 6 weeks; each session will involve one and one-quarter hour of game play.
Behavioral: Off the Shelf Video Game
Participants will play either the experimental or the control videogame for 6 weeks. Both interventions will be provided during 12 sessions, twice weekly for 6 weeks; each session will involve one and one-quarter hour of game play.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Delay in the initiation of sexual activity
Time Frame: 3 weeks
The primary outcome measure will be delay in initiating sexual activity. Delay in initiation of sexual activity will be defined as individuals who report having never had voluntary sexual intercourse prior to the baseline assessment and continue to not initiate sexual activity. Those who report initiating sex between baseline and the follow-up period are defined as having initiated sexual activity.
3 weeks
Delay in the initiation of sexual activity
Time Frame: 6 weeks
The primary outcome measure will be delay in initiating sexual activity. Delay in initiation of sexual activity will be defined as individuals who report having never had voluntary sexual intercourse prior to the baseline assessment and continue to not initiate sexual activity. Those who report initiating sex between baseline and the follow-up period are defined as having initiated sexual activity.
6 weeks
Delay in the initiation of sexual activity
Time Frame: 3 months
The primary outcome measure will be delay in initiating sexual activity. Delay in initiation of sexual activity will be defined as individuals who report having never had voluntary sexual intercourse prior to the baseline assessment and continue to not initiate sexual activity. Those who report initiating sex between baseline and the follow-up period are defined as having initiated sexual activity.
3 months
Delay in the initiation of sexual activity
Time Frame: 6 months
The primary outcome measure will be delay in initiating sexual activity. Delay in initiation of sexual activity will be defined as individuals who report having never had voluntary sexual intercourse prior to the baseline assessment and continue to not initiate sexual activity. Those who report initiating sex between baseline and the follow-up period are defined as having initiated sexual activity.
6 months
Delay in the initiation of sexual activity
Time Frame: 12 months
The primary outcome measure will be delay in initiating sexual activity. Delay in initiation of sexual activity will be defined as individuals who report having never had voluntary sexual intercourse prior to the baseline assessment and continue to not initiate sexual activity. Those who report initiating sex between baseline and the follow-up period are defined as having initiated sexual activity.
12 months
Delay in the initiation of sexual activity
Time Frame: 24 months
The primary outcome measure will be delay in initiating sexual activity. Delay in initiation of sexual activity will be defined as individuals who report having never had voluntary sexual intercourse prior to the baseline assessment and continue to not initiate sexual activity. Those who report initiating sex between baseline and the follow-up period are defined as having initiated sexual activity.
24 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Knowledge about HIV/AIDS risk behaviors and transmission
Time Frame: 3 weeks
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases HIV risk knowledge in minority early adolescents.
3 weeks
Level of social competency in using negotiating and refusal skills in the virtual environment
Time Frame: 3 weeks
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases social competency in using negotiating and refusal skills in the virtual environment in minority early adolescents. Social competency is defined as skills that allow the individual to achieve personal goals in social interaction while maintaining positive relationships with others over time and across situations. This will be captured through data collected during the game play, including the participant's ability to negotiate social situations and successfully refuse risky situations.
3 weeks
Level of self-efficacy regarding negotiation around initiation of sexual activity
Time Frame: 3 weeks
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases self-efficacy regarding negotiation around initiation of sexual activity in minority adolescents.We will use 7 items to assess self-efficacy to refuse sexual behaviors. Participants will be presented with the situation "imagine you are alone with someone you like very much" and then asked to indicate how confident they are that they could stop the person if he or she wanted to (a) kiss them on the lips, (b) touch their chest or breasts, (c) touch their private parts below the waist, (d) have oral sex, or (e) have vaginal sex. Participants will report how confident they are that they could refuse sex if they had been drinking or had strong sexual feelings for someone. Self-efficacy for condom use will be measured using 5 items (e.g., "If you wanted to get a condom, how sure are you that you could go to the store and buy one?").
3 weeks
Drug and alcohol use behaviors
Time Frame: 3 weeks
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, decreases drug and alcohol use behaviors in minority early adolescents.
3 weeks
Level of self-efficacy in negotiating situations involving offers of drugs and alcohol
Time Frame: 3 weeks
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases self-efficacy in negotiating situations involving offers of drugs and alcohol in minority adolescents.To assess participants' self-efficacy to refuse drugs we will use 6 items adapted from the Drug Use Resistance Self-Efficacy (DURSE) Scale for Young Adolescents (Carpenter & Howard, 2009). We will administer 2 items each for cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana assessing participants' confidence to refuse the drug if it is offered by (a) a friend or (b) an older friend of family member.
3 weeks
Overall risk-taking behaviors
Time Frame: 3 weeks
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game,reduces overall risk-taking behaviors in minority early adolescents.
3 weeks
Knowledge about HIV/AIDS risk behaviors and transmission
Time Frame: 6 weeks
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases HIV risk knowledge in minority early adolescents.
6 weeks
Knowledge about HIV/AIDS risk behaviors and transmission
Time Frame: 3 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases HIV risk knowledge in minority early adolescents.
3 months
Knowledge about HIV/AIDS risk behaviors and transmission
Time Frame: 6 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases HIV risk knowledge in minority early adolescents.
6 months
Knowledge about HIV/AIDS risk behaviors and transmission
Time Frame: 12 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases HIV risk knowledge in minority early adolescents.
12 months
Knowledge about HIV/AIDS risk behaviors and transmission
Time Frame: 24 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases HIV risk knowledge in minority early adolescents.
24 months
Level of social competency in using negotiating and refusal skills in the virtual environment
Time Frame: 6 weeks
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases social competency in using negotiating and refusal skills in the virtual environment in minority early adolescents.Social competency is defined as skills that allow the individual to achieve personal goals in social interaction while maintaining positive relationships with others over time and across situations. This will be captured through data collected during the game play, including the participant's ability to negotiate social situations and successfully refuse risky situations.
6 weeks
Level of social competency in using negotiating and refusal skills in the virtual environment
Time Frame: 3 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases social competency in using negotiating and refusal skills in the virtual environment in minority early adolescents.Social competency is defined as skills that allow the individual to achieve personal goals in social interaction while maintaining positive relationships with others over time and across situations. This will be captured through data collected during the game play, including the participant's ability to negotiate social situations and successfully refuse risky situations.
3 months
Level of social competency in using negotiating and refusal skills in the virtual environment
Time Frame: 6 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases social competency in using negotiating and refusal skills in the virtual environment in minority early adolescents.Social competency is defined as skills that allow the individual to achieve personal goals in social interaction while maintaining positive relationships with others over time and across situations. This will be captured through data collected during the game play, including the participant's ability to negotiate social situations and successfully refuse risky situations.
6 months
Level of social competency in using negotiating and refusal skills in the virtual environment
Time Frame: 12 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases social competency in using negotiating and refusal skills in the virtual environment in minority early adolescents. Social competency is defined as skills that allow the individual to achieve personal goals in social interaction while maintaining positive relationships with others over time and across situations. This will be captured through data collected during the game play, including the participant's ability to negotiate social situations and successfully refuse risky situations.
12 months
Level of social competency in using negotiating and refusal skills in the virtual environment
Time Frame: 24 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases social competency in using negotiating and refusal skills in the virtual environment in minority early adolescents.Social competency is defined as skills that allow the individual to achieve personal goals in social interaction while maintaining positive relationships with others over time and across situations. This will be captured through data collected during the game play, including the participant's ability to negotiate social situations and successfully refuse risky situations.
24 months
Level of self-efficacy regarding negotiation around initiation of sexual activity
Time Frame: 6 weeks
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases self-efficacy regarding negotiation around initiation of sexual activity in minority adolescents.We will use 7 items to assess self-efficacy to refuse sexual behaviors. Participants will be presented with the situation "imagine you are alone with someone you like very much" and then asked to indicate how confident they are that they could stop the person if he or she wanted to (a) kiss them on the lips, (b) touch their chest or breasts, (c) touch their private parts below the waist, (d) have oral sex, or (e) have vaginal sex. Participants will report how confident they are that they could refuse sex if they had been drinking or had strong sexual feelings for someone. Self-efficacy for condom use will be measured using 5 items (e.g., "If you wanted to get a condom, how sure are you that you could go to the store and buy one?").
6 weeks
Level of self-efficacy regarding negotiation around initiation of sexual activity
Time Frame: 3 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases self-efficacy regarding negotiation around initiation of sexual activity in minority adolescents.We will use 7 items to assess self-efficacy to refuse sexual behaviors. Participants will be presented with the situation "imagine you are alone with someone you like very much" and then asked to indicate how confident they are that they could stop the person if he or she wanted to (a) kiss them on the lips, (b) touch their chest or breasts, (c) touch their private parts below the waist, (d) have oral sex, or (e) have vaginal sex. Participants will report how confident they are that they could refuse sex if they had been drinking or had strong sexual feelings for someone. Self-efficacy for condom use will be measured using 5 items (e.g., "If you wanted to get a condom, how sure are you that you could go to the store and buy one?").
3 months
Level of self-efficacy regarding negotiation around initiation of sexual activity
Time Frame: 6 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases self-efficacy regarding negotiation around initiation of sexual activity in minority adolescents.We will use 7 items to assess self-efficacy to refuse sexual behaviors. Participants will be presented with the situation "imagine you are alone with someone you like very much" and then asked to indicate how confident they are that they could stop the person if he or she wanted to (a) kiss them on the lips, (b) touch their chest or breasts, (c) touch their private parts below the waist, (d) have oral sex, or (e) have vaginal sex. Participants will report how confident they are that they could refuse sex if they had been drinking or had strong sexual feelings for someone. Self-efficacy for condom use will be measured using 5 items (e.g., "If you wanted to get a condom, how sure are you that you could go to the store and buy one?").
6 months
Level of self-efficacy regarding negotiation around initiation of sexual activity
Time Frame: 12 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases self-efficacy regarding negotiation around initiation of sexual activity in minority adolescents.We will use 7 items to assess self-efficacy to refuse sexual behaviors. Participants will be presented with the situation "imagine you are alone with someone you like very much" and then asked to indicate how confident they are that they could stop the person if he or she wanted to (a) kiss them on the lips, (b) touch their chest or breasts, (c) touch their private parts below the waist, (d) have oral sex, or (e) have vaginal sex. Participants will report how confident they are that they could refuse sex if they had been drinking or had strong sexual feelings for someone. Self-efficacy for condom use will be measured using 5 items (e.g., "If you wanted to get a condom, how sure are you that you could go to the store and buy one?").
12 months
Level of self-efficacy regarding negotiation around initiation of sexual activity
Time Frame: 24 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases self-efficacy regarding negotiation around initiation of sexual activity in minority adolescents.We will use 7 items to assess self-efficacy to refuse sexual behaviors. Participants will be presented with the situation "imagine you are alone with someone you like very much" and then asked to indicate how confident they are that they could stop the person if he or she wanted to (a) kiss them on the lips, (b) touch their chest or breasts, (c) touch their private parts below the waist, (d) have oral sex, or (e) have vaginal sex. Participants will report how confident they are that they could refuse sex if they had been drinking or had strong sexual feelings for someone. Self-efficacy for condom use will be measured using 5 items (e.g., "If you wanted to get a condom, how sure are you that you could go to the store and buy one?").
24 months
Drug and alcohol use behaviors
Time Frame: 6 weeks
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, decreases drug and alcohol use behaviors in minority early adolescents.
6 weeks
Drug and alcohol use behaviors
Time Frame: 3 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, decreases drug and alcohol use behaviors in minority early adolescents.
3 months
Drug and alcohol use behaviors
Time Frame: 6 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, decreases drug and alcohol use behaviors in minority early adolescents.
6 months
Drug and alcohol use behaviors
Time Frame: 12 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, decreases drug and alcohol use behaviors in minority early adolescents.
12 months
Drug and alcohol use behaviors
Time Frame: 24 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, decreases drug and alcohol use behaviors in minority early adolescents.
24 months
Level of self-efficacy in negotiating situations involving offers of drugs and alcohol
Time Frame: 6 weeks
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases self-efficacy in negotiating situations involving offers of drugs and alcohol in minority adolescents.To assess participants' self-efficacy to refuse drugs we will use 6 items adapted from the Drug Use Resistance Self-Efficacy (DURSE) Scale for Young Adolescents (Carpenter & Howard, 2009). We will administer 2 items each for cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana assessing participants' confidence to refuse the drug if it is offered by (a) a friend or (b) an older friend of family member.
6 weeks
Level of self-efficacy in negotiating situations involving offers of drugs and alcohol
Time Frame: 3 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases self-efficacy in negotiating situations involving offers of drugs and alcohol in minority adolescents.To assess participants' self-efficacy to refuse drugs we will use 6 items adapted from the Drug Use Resistance Self-Efficacy (DURSE) Scale for Young Adolescents (Carpenter & Howard, 2009). We will administer 2 items each for cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana assessing participants' confidence to refuse the drug if it is offered by (a) a friend or (b) an older friend of family member.
3 months
Level of self-efficacy in negotiating situations involving offers of drugs and alcohol
Time Frame: 6 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases self-efficacy in negotiating situations involving offers of drugs and alcohol in minority adolescents.To assess participants' self-efficacy to refuse drugs we will use 6 items adapted from the Drug Use Resistance Self-Efficacy (DURSE) Scale for Young Adolescents (Carpenter & Howard, 2009). We will administer 2 items each for cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana assessing participants' confidence to refuse the drug if it is offered by (a) a friend or (b) an older friend of family member.
6 months
Level of self-efficacy in negotiating situations involving offers of drugs and alcohol
Time Frame: 12 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases self-efficacy in negotiating situations involving offers of drugs and alcohol in minority adolescents.To assess participants' self-efficacy to refuse drugs we will use 6 items adapted from the Drug Use Resistance Self-Efficacy (DURSE) Scale for Young Adolescents (Carpenter & Howard, 2009). We will administer 2 items each for cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana assessing participants' confidence to refuse the drug if it is offered by (a) a friend or (b) an older friend of family member.
12 months
Level of self-efficacy in negotiating situations involving offers of drugs and alcohol
Time Frame: 24 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game, increases self-efficacy in negotiating situations involving offers of drugs and alcohol in minority adolescents.To assess participants' self-efficacy to refuse drugs we will use 6 items adapted from the Drug Use Resistance Self-Efficacy (DURSE) Scale for Young Adolescents (Carpenter & Howard, 2009). We will administer 2 items each for cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana assessing participants' confidence to refuse the drug if it is offered by (a) a friend or (b) an older friend of family member.
24 months
Overall risk-taking behaviors
Time Frame: 6 weeks
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game,reduces overall risk-taking behaviors in minority early adolescents.
6 weeks
Overall risk-taking behaviors
Time Frame: 3 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game,reduces overall risk-taking behaviors in minority early adolescents.
3 months
Overall risk-taking behaviors
Time Frame: 6 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game,reduces overall risk-taking behaviors in minority early adolescents.
6 months
Overall risk-taking behaviors
Time Frame: 12 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game,reduces overall risk-taking behaviors in minority early adolescents.
12 months
Overall risk-taking behaviors
Time Frame: 24 months
To determine if an interactive videogame focused on developing sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills, compared to a control game,reduces overall risk-taking behaviors in minority early adolescents.
24 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Yale University

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Lynn E Fiellin, MD, Yale School of Medicine

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Helpful Links

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (ACTUAL)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
January 1, 2013

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
June 18, 2016

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
June 18, 2016

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
August 9, 2012

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
August 13, 2012

First Posted (ESTIMATE)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
August 16, 2012

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
June 27, 2017

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
June 26, 2017

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
February 1, 2017

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • 1208010715

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings