An RCT of Dating Matters: Effects on Teen Dating Violence and Relationship Behaviors

Phyllis Holditch Niolon, Alana M Vivolo-Kantor, Allison J Tracy, Natasha E Latzman, Todd D Little, Sarah DeGue, Kyle M Lang, Lianne Fuino Estefan, Sharon R Ghazarian, Wendy Li KamWa McIntosh, Bruce Taylor, Linda L Johnson, Henrietta Kuoh, Tessa Burton, Beverly Fortson, Elizabeth A Mumford, Shannon C Nelson, Hannah Joseph, Linda Anne Valle, Andra Teten Tharp, Phyllis Holditch Niolon, Alana M Vivolo-Kantor, Allison J Tracy, Natasha E Latzman, Todd D Little, Sarah DeGue, Kyle M Lang, Lianne Fuino Estefan, Sharon R Ghazarian, Wendy Li KamWa McIntosh, Bruce Taylor, Linda L Johnson, Henrietta Kuoh, Tessa Burton, Beverly Fortson, Elizabeth A Mumford, Shannon C Nelson, Hannah Joseph, Linda Anne Valle, Andra Teten Tharp

Abstract

Introduction: Teen dating violence is a serious public health problem with few effective prevention strategies. This study examines whether the Dating Matters comprehensive prevention model, compared with a standard of care intervention, prevented negative relationship behaviors and promoted positive relationship behaviors.

Study design: This longitudinal, cluster-RCT compared the effectiveness of Dating Matters with standard of care across middle school. Standard of care was an evidence-based teen dating violence prevention curriculum (Safe Dates) implemented in eighth grade.

Setting/participants: Forty-six middle schools in high-risk urban neighborhoods in four U.S. cities were randomized. Schools lost to follow-up were replaced with new schools, which were independently randomized (71% school retention). Students were surveyed in fall and spring of sixth, seventh, and eighth grades (2012-2016). The analysis sample includes students from schools implementing Dating Matters or standard of care for >2 years who started sixth grade in the fall of 2012 or 2013 and had dated (N=2,349 students, mean age 12 years, 49% female, and 55% black, non-Hispanic, 28% Hispanic, 17% other).

Intervention: Dating Matters is a comprehensive, multicomponent prevention model including classroom-delivered programs for sixth to eighth graders, training for parents of sixth to eighth graders, educator training, a youth communications program, and local health department activities to assess capacity and track teen dating violence-related policy and data.

Main outcome measures: Self-reported teen dating violence perpetration and victimization, use of negative conflict resolution strategies, and positive relationship skills were examined as outcomes. Imputation and analyses were conducted in 2017.

Results: Latent panel models demonstrated significant program effects for three of four outcomes; Dating Matters students reported 8.43% lower teen dating violence perpetration, 9.78% lower teen dating violence victimization, and 5.52% lower use of negative conflict resolution strategies, on average across time points and cohorts, than standard of care students. There were no significant effects on positive relationship behaviors.

Conclusions: Dating Matters demonstrates comparative effectiveness, through middle school, for reducing unhealthy relationship behaviors, such as teen dating violence and use of negative conflict resolution strategies, relative to the standard of care intervention.

Trial registration: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01672541.

Published by Elsevier Inc.

Figures

Figure 1. CONSORT diagram for study enrollment,…
Figure 1. CONSORT diagram for study enrollment, allocation, and data collection and analysis.
Note: Implementation was whole-school, so more students were exposed to the intervention than were included in the trial. Therefore, only school numbers are included for completing implementation, although student numbers are provided for participation in data collection. aTwo schools lacked resources to implement in Y1 and did not complete spring data collection but stayed in the study and were active Y2 (n=81 and 44). bSchools did not contribute data; these schools dropped before fall data collection and therefore student numbers for participation cannot be estimated. 0Schools contributed some data but were active <2 years and therefore were not included in analyses. dOne school that lacked resources to implement in Y1 and did not complete spring data collection stayed in the study and was active Y2 (n=95). eOne retained school did not participate in fall data collection but implemented and participated in spring data collection.
Figure 2. Constrained means across time by…
Figure 2. Constrained means across time by sex and cohort: teen dating violence perpetration.
Note: Sample size (n) for each condition within each group are reported next to the condition label of the respective line in each figure. POMS refers to the maximum possible score, given the number of items and response categories in a scale, rather than the maximum observed score. Non-overlapping lines represent significant group differences. SEs, CIs, and statistical significance for each estimated mean value is reported in Appendix Table 11 (available online). DM, Dating Matters condition; POMS, percent of maximum score; SC, standard of care condition.
Figure 3.. Constrained means across time by…
Figure 3.. Constrained means across time by sex and cohort: teen dating violence victimization.
Note: Sample size (n) for each condition within each group are reported next to the condition label of the respective line in each figure. POMS refers to the maximum possible score given the number of items and response categories in a scale, rather than the maximum observed score. Non-overlapping lines represent significant group differences. SEs, CIs, and statistical significance for each estimated mean value is reported in Appendix Table 11 (available online). DM, Dating Matters condition; POMS, percent of maximum score; SC, standard of care condition.
Figure 4. Constrained means across time by…
Figure 4. Constrained means across time by sex and cohort: negative conflict resolution strategies.
Note: Sample size (n) for each condition within each group are reported next to the condition label of the respective line in each figure. POMS refers to the maximum possible score given the number of items and response categories in a scale, rather than the maximum observed score. Non-overlapping lines represent significant group differences. SEs, CIs, and statistical significance for each estimated mean value is reported in Appendix Table 11 (available online). DM, Dating Matters condition; POMS, percent of maximum score; SC, standard of care condition.

References

    1. CDC. Preventing Teen Dating Violence . Accessed May 13, 2019.
    1. Exner-Cortens D, Eckenrode J, Bunge J, Rothman E. Revictimization after adolescent dating violence in a matched, national sample of youth. J Adolesc Health 2017;60(2):176–183. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.09.015.
    1. Exner-Cortens D, Eckenrode J, Rothman E. Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics 2013;131(1):71–78. 10.1542/peds.2012-1029.
    1. Offenhauer P, Buchalter A. Teen Dating Violence: A Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 2011.
    1. Foshee VA, Benefield TS, Ennett ST, Bauman KE, Suchindran C. Longitudinal predictors of serious physical and sexual dating violence victimization during adolescence. Prev Med 2004;39(5):1007–1016. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.04.014.
    1. Kann L, McManus T, Harris WA, et al. Youth risk behavior surveillance - United States, 2015. MMWR Surveill Summ 2016;65(6):1–174. 10.15585/mmwr.ss6506a1.
    1. Tharp AT, McNaughton Reyes HL, Foshee V, et al. Examining the prevalence and predictors of injury from adolescent dating violence. J Aggress Maltreat Trauma 2017;26(5):445–461. 10.1080/10926771.2017.1287145.
    1. De La Rue L, Polanin JR, Espelage DL, Pigott TD. A meta-analysis of school-based interventions aimed to prevent or reduce violence in teen dating relationships. Rev Educ Res 2017;87(1):7–34. .
    1. Miller E, Tancredi DJ, McCauley HL, et al. One-year follow-up of a coach-delivered dating violence prevention program: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med 2013;45(1):108–112. 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.03.007.
    1. Wolfe DA, Crooks CV, Jaffe P, et al. A school-based program to prevent adolescent dating violence: a cluster randomized trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2009;163(8):692–699. 10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.69.
    1. O’Leary KD, Slep AMS. Prevention of partner violence by focusing on behaviors of both young males and females. Prev Sci 2012;13(4):329–339. 10.1007/s11121-011-0237-2.
    1. Whitaker DJ, Murphy CM, Eckhardt CI, Hodges AE, Cowart M. Effectiveness of primary prevention efforts for intimate partner violence. Partner Abus 2013;4(2):175–195. 10.1891/1946-6560.4.2.175.
    1. Dahlberg LL, Krug EG. Violence-a global public health problem. In: Krug E, Dahlberg LL, Mercy JA, Zwi AB, Lozano R, eds. World Report on Violence and Health Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2002:1–56.
    1. David-Ferdon C, Simon TR. Preventing Youth Violence: Opportunities for Action Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, 2014.
    1. Matjasko JL, Vivolo-Kantor AM, Massetti GM, et al. A systematic meta-review of evaluations of youth violence prevention programs: common and divergent findings from 25 years of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Aggress Violent Behav 2012;17(6):540–552. 10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.006.
    1. Cunradi CB, Caetano R, Clark C, Schafer J. Neighborhood poverty as a predictor of intimate partner violence among white, black, and Hispanic couples in the United States: a multilevel analysis. Ann Epidemiol 2000;10(5):297–308. 10.1016/S1047-2797(00)00052-1.
    1. Gorman-Smith D, Tolan P. The role of exposure to community violence and developmental problems among inner-city youth. Dev Psychopathol 1998;10(1):101–116. 10.1017/S0954579498001539.
    1. Halliday-Boykins CA, Graham S. At both ends of the gun: testing the relationship between community violence exposure and youth violent behavior. J Abnorm Child Psychol 2001;29(5):383–402. 10.1023/A:1010443302344.
    1. Sampson RJ, Lauritsen JL. Violent victimization and offending: individual-, situational-, and community-level risk factors. In: Reiss AJ, Roth JA, eds. Understanding and Preventing Violence, volume 3, Social Influences Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1994:1–114.
    1. Black BM, Chido LM, Preble KM, et al. Violence exposure and teen dating violence among African American youth. J Interpers Violence 2015;30(12):2174–2195. 10.1177/0886260514552271.
    1. Johnson RM, Parker EM, Rinehart J, Nail J, Rothman EF. Neighborhood factors and dating violence among youth. Am J Prev Med 2015;49(3):458–466. 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.05.020.
    1. Teten Tharp A Dating Matters: the next generation of teen dating violence prevention. Prev Sci 2012;13(4):398–401. 10.1007/s11121-012-0307-0.
    1. Teten Tharp A, Burton T, Freire K, et al. Dating Matters™: strategies to promote healthy teen relationships. J Womens Health 2011;20 (12):1–5. 10.1089/jwh.2011.3177.
    1. CDC. Dating Matters website . Accessed October 10, 2017.
    1. Raudenbush SW, Spybrook J, Congdon R, et al. Optimal Design Plus Empirical Evidence New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation, 2011.
    1. Niolon PH, Taylor BG, Latzman NE, et al. Lessons learned in evaluating a multisite, comprehensive teen dating violence prevention strategy: design and challenges of the evaluation of dating matters: strategies to promote healthy teen relationships. Psychol Viol 2016;6 (3):452–458. 10.1037/vio0000043.
    1. Foshee VA, Bauman KE, Ennett ST, et al. Assessing the long-term effects of the Safe Dates program and a booster in preventing and reducing adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration. Am J Public Health 2004;94(4):619–624. 10.2105/AJPH.94.4.619.
    1. Forehand R, Armistead L, Long N, et al. Efficacy of a parent-based sexual-risk prevention program for African American preadolescents: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2007;161(12):1123–1129. 10.1001/archpedi.161.12.1123.
    1. Foshee VA, McNaughton Reyes HL, Ennett ST, et al. Assessing the effects of Families for Safe Dates, a family-based teen dating abuse prevention program. J Adolesc Health 2012;51(4):349–356. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.029.
    1. Wolfe DA, Scott K, Reitzel-Jaffe D, et al. Development and validation of the conflict in adolescent dating relationships inventory. Psychol Assess 2001;13(2):277 10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.277.
    1. Foshee VA, Bauman KE, Arriaga XB, et al. An evaluation of Safe Dates, an adolescents dating violence prevention program. Am J Public Health 1998;88(1):45–50. 10.2105/AJPH.88.1.45.
    1. Kurdek LA. Conflict resolution styles in gay, lesbian, heterosexual nonparent, and heterosexual parent couples. J Marriage Fam 1994;56 (3):705–722. 10.2307/352880.
    1. Miller Gaubert J, Gubits D, Principe Alderson D, Knox V. The Supporting Healthy Marriage Evaluation: final implementation findings: OPRE Report 20122–12 Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, the Administration for Children and Families, HHS; 2012.
    1. Lang KM, Little TD, PcAux Development Team. PcAux: automatically extract auxiliary features for simple, principled missing data analysis (R package version 0.0.0.9004) Published 2017. Accessed February 6, 2019.
    1. Lance CE. Residual centering, exploratory and confirmatory moderator analysis, and decomposition of effects in path models containing interactions. Appl Psychol Meas 1988;12(2):163–175. 10.1177/014662168801200205.
    1. Little TD. Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling New York: Guilford Press, 2013.
    1. Ghosh-Dastidar B, Schafer JL. Multiple edit/multiple imputation for multivariate continuous data. J Am Stat Assoc 2003;98(464):807–817. 10.1198/016214503000000738.
    1. Cohen P, Cohen J, Aiken LS, West SG. The problem of units and the circumstance for POMP. Multivariate Behav Res 1999;34(3):315–346. 10.1207/S15327906MBR3403_2.
    1. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus Users Guide 8th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017.
    1. Little TD, Lopez DF. Regularities in the development of children’s causality beliefs about school performance across six sociocultural contexts. Dev Psychol 1997;33(1):165–175. 10.1037/0012-1649.33.1.165.
    1. Wolfe DA, Crooks CV, Chiodo D, Hughes R, Ellis W. Observations of adolescent peer resistance skills following a classroom-based healthy relationship program: a post-intervention comparison. Prev Sci 2012;13(2):196–205. 10.1007/s11121-011-0256-z.
    1. Smith J, Mulford C, Latzman NE, et al. Taking stock of behavioral measures of adolescent dating violence. J Aggress Maltreat Trauma 2015;24(6):674–692. 10.1080/10926771.2015.1049767.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit