Evaluating the Role of Family Context Within a Randomized Adolescent HIV-Risk Prevention Trial
- 119 Downloads
Project STYLE is a multi-site 3-arm RCT comparing family-based, adolescent-only, and general health promotion interventions with 721 adolescents in mental health treatment. This study reports 12-month outcomes for family context and sexual risk behaviors, and explores the role of baseline family context in modifying treatment response. Using the full sample, there were sustained benefits for parent-reported sexual communication (d = 0.28), and adolescent-reported parental monitoring (d = 0.24), with minimal differences in risk behaviors. Latent profile analysis identified four family context classes: struggling (n = 177), authoritative (n = 183), authoritarian (n = 175), and permissive (n = 181). The authoritarian and permissive classes were also distinguished by disagreement between parent and adolescent report of family context. Classes differed in terms of baseline mental health burden and baseline sexual risk behavior. Classes showed different patterns of treatment effects, with the struggling class showing consistent benefit for both family context and sexual risk. In contrast, the authoritarian class showed a mixed response for family context and increased sexual risk.
KeywordsAdolescents Sexual risk Family context Mental health Treatment modifiers
This research was supported by a National Institute of Mental Health Grant R01MH 63008 to Rhode Island Hospital and by a National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Grant P30 AI042853 to the Lifespan/Tufts/Brown Center for AIDS Research. The trial is registered as NCT00496691 on clinicaltrials.gov. Dr. Barker’s time was supported by a K23 award from the National Institute of Mental Health (K23MH102131).
This study was funded by the following grants: National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH 63008); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (P30AI042853); and National Institute of Mental Health (K23MH102131).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all parents/caregivers and assent was obtained from all participants under the age of 18.
- 1.Brown LK, Danovsky MB, Lourie KJ, DiClemente RJ, Ponton LE. Adolescents with psychiatric disorders and the risk of HIV. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1997;36(11):1609–17.Google Scholar
- 9.Donenberg GR, Brown L, Hadley W, Kapungu C, Lescano C. Family-based HIV-prevention program for adolescents with psychiatric disorders. In: Pequegnat W, Bell C, editors. Families and HIV/AIDS: culture and contextual issues in prevention and treatment. New York: Springer; 2012. p. 261–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Bird HR, Shaffer D, Fisher P, Gould MS, et al. The Columbia impairment scale (CIS): pilot findings on a measure of global impairment for children and adolescents. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 1993;3(3):167–76.Google Scholar
- 26.Oregon Social Learning Center. Parental monitoring and supervision constructs (Technical reports). Oregon Social Learning Center; 1990.Google Scholar
- 27.Barnes H, Olsen D. Parent–adolescent communication scale. In: Olsen D, McCubbin H, Barnes H, Larsen A, Muxen M, Wilson M, editors. Family inventories. St. Paul, MN: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota; 1986.Google Scholar
- 44.Donenberg GR, Wilson HW, Emerson E, Bryant FB. Holding the line with a watchful eye: the impact of perceived parental permissiveness and parental monitoring on risky sexual behavior among adolescents in psychiatric care. AIDS Educ Prev Off Publ Int Soc AIDS Educ. 2002;14(2):138–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar