Selecting, Implementing, and Evaluating Teen Pregnancy Prevention Interventions

1
Selecting, Implementing, and Evaluating Teen
Pregnancy Prevention Interventions

• Lessons Learned from the
• Community Coalition Partnership Programs
• Presented by
• Darlene L. Shearer DrPH, Susan L. Gyaben MPH,
• Lorraine V. Klerman DrPH, and Kaia Gallegher, PhD

2
Study Purpose and Objectives

• To investigate decision-making processes used
  by 13 CDC-funded communities to prioritize,
  select, implement and evaluate their
  interventions
• To describe barriers experienced and lessons
  learned during implementation and evaluation
• Major Focus on reproductive health services,
  reproductive health education, parent-child
  communication, male involvement, and programs for
  pregnant and parenting teens

3
Definitions
RHS - Reproductive Health Services -
interventions aimed at teens to directly modify
their sexual behavior through the provision of
clinic-type services RHE - Reproductive Health
Education - interventions aimed at modifying teen
sexual behavior through the provision of
sexuality-related education PPT - Pregnant and
Parenting Teens - interventions aimed at
assisting teens medically or educationally to
prevent subsequent pregnancies before reaching
milestones such as high school graduation MI -
Male Involvement - interventions aimed directly
at young males PCC - Parent Child Communication -
interventions aimed primarily at increasing
comfort levels, frequency, and style of
communications between teens and parents
4
Methodology

• Review of semi-annual reports (SARs) to
  identify interventions implemented by each of 13
  CDC-funded community programs
• Developed a telephone survey instrument
• Conducted telephone interviews with Program
  Director, Program Evaluator, and Coalition
  Chairperson from each of the 13 communities.

5
Study Questions

• What factors influenced community decisions to
  develop or not to develop interventions within 5
  categories (RHS, RHE, PPT, MI, and PCC)?
• How important were community needs and assets
  assessments (NAAs) and community action plans
  (CAPs) in selection of interventions?
• Who were the key entities in decision making?
• What is the current status of each
  intervention, what sources of funding have been
  used for each and what specific barriers have
  been encountered?

6
Analysis
Responses were entered into SPSS and analyzed in
two ways - by type of respondent - by the
intervention category Because responses to
questions were not independent of each other only
descriptive analyses were done.
7
Study Results

• Thirty individuals were interviewed
• 13 Program Directors, 12 Program Evaluators, and
  5 Coalition Chairs
• Identified 82 interventions in the 5 categories,
  an average of 6 per grantee.
• Interventions by category
• RHS 13, RHE 43, MI 12, PCC 24 and PPT 7
• Interventions by grantee
• RHE 92, PCC 85, MI 54, RHS 46, and PPT 39

8
Key Decision-Makers in Selection
9
Importance of NAA in Selection
(as reported by Project Directors)
10
Reason for Selection of Category
11
Reason for Not Selecting a Category
12
Implementation Barriers
13
Conclusions

• Grantees relied heavily on their Needs and
  Assets Assessments in making decisions about
  intervention selection.
• Teens were infrequently utilized, while
  program staff were the most frequent cited
  decision-makers.
• The most frequent reason given for not
  implementing interventions in a particular
  category was that similar programs already
  existed.
• About two-thirds of the interventions are
  being evaluated by process or outcome measures or
  a combination of both.
• Many respondents did not feel that the (82)
  interventions reflected their investment of time
  and money or emphasized the importance of their
  community-mobilizing and community-awareness
  activities.