Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Journal of Adolescent Health 51 (2012) 349 –356

www.jahonline.org

Original article

Assessing the Effects of Families for Safe Dates, a Family-Based Teen Dating
Abuse Prevention Program
Vangie A. Foshee, Ph.D.a,*, Heath Luz McNaughton Reyes, M.P.H.a, Susan T. Ennett, Ph.D.a,
Jessica D. Cance, Ph.D.b, Karl E. Bauman, Ph.D.a, and J. Michael Bowling, Ph.D.a
a
Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
b
Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

Article history: Received September 12, 2011; Accepted December 22, 2011
Keywords: Adolescent dating violence; Prevention of dating abuse

A B S T R A C T
IMPLICATIONS AND
CONTRIBUTIONS
Purpose: To examine the effects of a family-based teen dating abuse prevention program, Families
for Safe Dates, primarily on outcomes related to testing the conceptual underpinnings of the
Results from a randomized
program including (1) factors motivating and facilitating caregiver engagement in teen dating
evaluation of the first family-
abuse prevention activities, and 2) risk factors for teen dating abuse, and secondarily on dating
based teen dating abuse pre-
abuse behaviors. vention program are pre-
Methods: Families were recruited nationwide using listed telephone numbers. Caregivers and sented. The program was
teens completed baseline and 3-month follow-up telephone interviews (n ⫽ 324). Families ran- effective in promoting
domly allocated to treatment condition received the Families for Safe Dates program including six changes in the family context
mailed activity booklets followed-up by health educator telephone calls. that provide a foundation for
Results: There were significant (⬍.05) treatment effects in hypothesized directions on most of the preventing teen dating abuse
factors motivating and facilitating caregiver engagement in teen dating abuse prevention activities over time, decreasing teen ac-
including caregiver perceived severity of dating abuse, response efficacy for preventing dating ceptance of dating abuse, and
abuse, self-efficacy for talking about dating abuse, knowledge of dating abuse, acceptance of dating preventing dating abuse
abuse, communication skills with the teen, and belief in the importance of involvement in their victimization.
male (but not female) teen’s dating. The latter effect was the only one moderated by sex of the teen.
The targeted risk factor affected by the program was teen acceptance of dating abuse. Treatment
was also significantly associated with less physical dating abuse victimization.
Conclusions: Modifications to the program are warranted, but overall, the findings are very
favorable for the first family-based teen dating abuse prevention program to be evaluated.
䉷 2012 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. All rights reserved.

Teen dating abuse victimization and perpetration are preva- teens who experience dating abuse are physically injured and
lent for both boys and girls and result in serious consequences require medical attention [2,3].
[1–3]. Consequences identified from longitudinal studies include Few dating abuse prevention programs have been evalu-
binge-eating, cigarette smoking, marijuana and other illicit sub- ated using a randomized design (n ⫽ 10); only four of them
stance use, antisocial behavior, depression, and suicide ideation assessed program effects on dating abuse behaviors. Further,
and attempts [4 – 6]. Additionally, a substantial percentage of with one exception, the teen dating abuse prevention pro-
grams evaluated have been school-based [7]. However, the
difficulties of doing dating abuse prevention in schools be-
* Address correspondence to: Vangie Foshee, Ph.D., Department of Health cause of school objection to taking time away from academics
Behavior and Health Education, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Univer-
and fear of parental responses to sensitive program content
sity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 319B Rosenau Hall, CB# 7440, Chapel Hill,
NC, 27599 –7400. suggest a need for developing dating abuse prevention pro-
E-mail address: foshee@email.unc.edu (V.A. Foshee). grams that can be administered independent of schools. This

1054-139X/$ - see front matter 䉷 2012 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.029

Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en Universidad de Valparaiso de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en junio 03, 2018.
Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2018. Elsevier Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
350 V.A. Foshee et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 51 (2012) 349 –356

article reports an evaluation using a randomized design of a use of self-administered family-focused interventions for pre-
universal family-based program, Families for Safe Dates (FSD), venting teen health risk behaviors.
designed to prevent teen dating abuse.
Involving families in the prevention of teen dating abuse has
FSD Conceptual Framework
promise because (1) families have a significant impact on dating
abuse risk factors; (2) families’ influence on teens is persistent, The overall goal of FSD is to motivate and facilitate caregiver
suggesting that programs focusing on family change may have engagement in dating abuse prevention activities with their
long-term effectiveness; (3) the family is the primary context in teens that can lead to decreases in risk factors for teen dating
which teens acquire information and values; and (4) family- abuse. Thus, FSD is designed to change two categories of con-
based programs have been found effective in preventing other structs: (1) factors that motivate and facilitate caregiver engage-
teen health risk behaviors [8 –11]. However, parents are substan- ment in dating abuse prevention activities with their teen and (2)
tially less likely to talk to their teens about dating abuse than empirically and theoretically based risk factors for teen dating
other risky behaviors [12]. Reasons given by parents for not abuse.
talking to their teens about dating abuse are that the child will
learn about it from experience, it would be too embarrassing for
Factors motivating and facilitating caregiver engagement in teen
the child, and they would not know what to say [12]. Involving
dating abuse prevention activities. FSD is consistent with a so-
parents in efforts to prevent teen dating abuse is warranted, yet
cial ecological approach in that the practitioner does not in-
to date, no family-based teen dating abuse prevention programs
tervene directly with teens, but instead intervenes with care-
have been evaluated. Mrazek and Haggerty [13] suggest that
givers to promote changes in the family context that lead to
tests of the conceptual model guiding an intervention (Stage 3
teen dating abuse prevention [18]. Because caregivers are the
research) should be conducted before conducting large-scale
change agents, motivating them to deliver intervention con-
efficacy trials on targeted behaviors (Stage 4 research). Because
tent to their teen and to have continuing discussions with
intervening with families to prevent teen dating abuse is a new
them about dating abuse is imperative. According to Protec-
approach, we conducted a Stage 3 study to test the conceptual
tion Motivation Theory [19], four beliefs are needed to moti-
underpinnings of the program. Although the study was not pow-
vate parents to take a preventive action such as talking to their
ered to assess program effects on dating abuse behaviors, we
teens about dating abuse: the first belief parents must have is
conducted exploratory analyses to examine those behavioral
that their teen is vulnerable to dating abuse (perceived suscep-
effects. We determined if sex of the teen modified program
tibility). Second belief is that negative consequences could
effects on all outcomes.
accrue to them and their teen if the teen becomes involved in
dating abuse (perceived severity). The third belief is that they
The Structure of FSD have the potential to influence their teen’s dating abuse be-
Family-based programs for preventing teen problem behav- havior (response efficacy). Finally, caregivers need to feel con-
iors typically place high time demands on families are inconve- fident that they have the skills for talking to their teen about
nient because of the necessity to go to locations outside the home dating abuse (self-efficacy). FSD activities are designed to alter
to receive the program, are expensive because they require de- these caregiver beliefs. FSD is also intended to increase care-
livery by highly trained professionals and large incentives for giver knowledge of dating abuse and to improve caregiver skills
family participation, and often result in low family participation for communicating with their teen because parental lack of
[10,14]. FSD was designed to address some of these limitations. knowledge and poor communication skills are common barri-
The program consists of six booklets delivered to families by ers to parent–teen communication about sensitive topics
mail. The first booklet, Getting Started is for caregivers only. The [20,21]. Additionally, it is designed to decrease caregiver ac-
five subsequent booklets include a variety of interactive activi- ceptance of dating abuse and to increase caregiver belief in the
ties that caregivers and teens do together designed to alter risk importance of being involved in their teen’s dating. Altering each
factors for dating abuse. Booklets are completed in the home at of these constructs is expected to enhance caregiver motiva-
times convenient for the family. A health educator calls the tion to complete the program and to create a family context
caregiver 2 weeks after each booklet is mailed to determine that is conducive to discussing teen dating abuse once the
whether activities were completed, encourage family participa- program is over.
tion, answer questions, and assess caregiver satisfaction and
other reactions to the booklet. Targeted risk factors for dating abuse. FSD activities are de-
This structure is modeled after our earlier program, Family signed to alter targeted risk factors for teen dating abuse. Teen
Matters, which used this same format for intervening with par- attitudes about the acceptability of dating abuse and per-
ents to prevent teen alcohol and tobacco use because a national ceived consequences of dating abuse have been repeatedly
randomized trial of Family Matters obtained high family partici- associated with dating abuse [22–24]. Poor conflict resolution
pation and found significant program effects in preventing teen skills also have been associated with dating abuse [25,26], and
tobacco and alcohol use [8,15,16]. Haggerty and colleagues [17] parental monitoring and rule setting are among the most
found higher family participation in a self-administered with consistent longitudinal predictors of teen dating abuse [27–
telephone support (SA) version of a family-based program for 29]. Therefore, FSD is designed to decrease teen acceptance of
preventing teen problem behaviors than in a group-administered dating abuse, increase teen perceived negative consequences of
(GA) version of the same program. The SA program was effective dating abuse, improve teen skills in resolving conflict, and in-
in decreasing several risk behaviors among African American crease caregiver date rule setting and monitoring. Changes in
teens; program effects tended to be stronger with the SA than GA each of these risk factors are expected to prevent dating abuse
version of the program [9]. Thus, there is evidence of successful victimization and perpetration.

Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en Universidad de Valparaiso de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en junio 03, 2018.
Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2018. Elsevier Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
V.A. Foshee et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 51 (2012) 349 –356 351

Table 1
Booklet description

Booklet Overall goal Sample activities Constructs targeted for change

Getting started: Introducing To explain to CGs how to do the program, CGs complete a true/false assessment that The four protection motivation
caregivers to the families address potential challenges, offer taps into DA myths and realities. constructs
for safe dates program suggestions for how to encourage teen CG knowledge of DA
participation, and motivate parents to CG acceptance of DA
engage in the activity booklets with
their teens.
Booklet 1: Talking about To improve communication between CG A card game that helps CGs understand CG communication skills with
dating and teen so they can more comfortably current teen dating practices and helps teen
talk about DA and date rape in later teens realize what dating was like for Teen conflict resolution skills
booklets. CGs.
A communication checklist is completed
after each activity to indicate which tips
for successful communication and
communication blockers CGs and teens
used in activity discussions.
Booklet 2: Skills for To increase CG and teen skills for Families are taught skills for settling Teen conflict resolution skills
handling conflict diffusing and dealing with anger and disagreements through the acronym CG communication skills with
settling disagreements. SAFE (stay calm, ask questions, find out teen
feelings, and exchange ideas for
possible solutions).
Families identify the SAFE skills used in a
scripted role play of a teen dating
couple settling a disagreement.
Booklet 3: Recognizing To increase teen and CG awareness of the In scenarios of dating abuse situations, Teen acceptance of DA
dating abuse various types of DA, warning signs of CGs and teens circle which of nine Teen perceived negative
DA, harmful consequences of DA, and control tactics listed were used by the consequences of DA
manipulation tactics used by abusers perpetrator. CG knowledge of DA
to “inoculate” the teen from those
controlling tactics and to introduce
teen to healthy dating characteristics.
Booklet 4: Preventing To challenge certain date rape myths and CGs and teens read a scenario of a date Teen acceptance of sexual DA
dating sexual abuse and beliefs, increase CG and teen rape situation and discuss questions Teen perceived negative
rape awareness of date rape and its harmful that ask about the manipulation tactics consequences of sexual DA
consequences, learn strategies to used by the perpetrator, signs that the CG knowledge of sexual DA
prevent being a perpetrator or victim victim did not want to have sex, and
of sexual DA, and learn about date rape potential negative consequences of the
drugs (including alcohol). rape for the perpetrator and victim.
Booklet 5: Planning for the To help teens think about their goals for Teens list five ways they want to treat the CG date rule setting and
future treating and being treated by dates, people they date and five ways they monitoring
develop a plan with CGs for what to do want to be treated by dates. CG’s also CG belief in the importance of
if they are being treated complete a card listing five ways they being involved in their teen’s
disrespectfully by a date or if they are want their teen to treat and be treated dating
treating a date disrespectfully, and to by a date. CGs and teens discuss. Teen conflict resolution skills
help families develop guidelines and Families work together to develop
rules about dating. guidelines for dating which are posted
on the refrigerator.

CG ⫽ caregiver; DA ⫽ dating abuse.

FSD Program Content be English speaking and have at least one 13–15–year-old in
residence. Once families were recruited, the primary caregiver
Booklet content that mapped onto each of these constructs (usually the mother) and the teen were administrated a 20 min-
was developed by designing new activities and drawing from ute computer-assisted telephone interview by trained inter-
relevant activities of Safe Dates, one of the few evidenced-based viewers. Pairs of families were matched on the date they com-
teen dating abuse prevention programs [30,31]. Feedback was pleted the interviews, and one family of each matched pair was
obtained on various drafts of the booklets through a series of randomly allocated to either a full or a partial treatment group
multiple focus groups with 86 caregivers and teens. Booklet and the other to a control group. Families in full treatment re-
content was revised accordingly resulting in the final booklets ceived the Getting Started booklet for caregivers and the five
described in Table 1. activity booklets; those in partial treatment received only the
five activity booklets; and those in the control group received no
Methods program materials. Having two treatment groups allowed for
testing the hypothesis that changes in the four Protection Moti-
Study design vation beliefs targeted in Getting Started would increase family
engagement in the program. Because testing that hypothesis is
Families were recruited nationwide via telephone using a not the focus of the current study, analyses are limited to those
targeted telephone sampling frame purchased from GENESYS allocated to the full treatment and control. Three months after a
Sampling Systems (Horsham, PA). To be eligible, families had to treatment family completed the program, the caregiver and teen

Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en Universidad de Valparaiso de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en junio 03, 2018.
Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2018. Elsevier Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
352 V.A. Foshee et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 51 (2012) 349 –356

Table 2 Program exposure and caregiver reactions


Baseline characteristics of FSD participants who completed a follow-up survey,
by treatment condition (n ⫽ 324)
At each call, health educators asked the caregiver a series of
Control Treatment Total questions to determine if the family had completed the booklet.
(n ⫽ 184) (n ⫽ 140) (n ⫽ 324)
If the family had completed 70% or less of the activities, the
% (n) % (n) % (n)
caregiver was encouraged to complete the activities and another
Demographic characteristics call was scheduled. If the family had completed ⬎70% of the
Female teen 55 (101) 62 (87) 58 (188) activities they were mailed the next booklet; 88% completed at
Black race 11 (20) 14 (20) 12 (40) least one booklet, and 69% completed all six booklets. Of those
Other racea 9 (17) 7 (10) 8 (27)
Caregiver education ⬎high 80 (147) 86 (120) 83 (267)
who completed the program, 100% viewed the program as very
schoolb or somewhat helpful; 94% indicated that the teen was very or
Two caregiver family 88 (161) 89 (125) 88 (286) somewhat willing to participate; 96% considered the program
Caregiver relationship very or somewhat convenient; and 94% indicated that they
Biological/adoptive/step mother 96 (177) 96 (134) 96 (311)
would recommend FSD.
Biological/adoptive father 3 (6) 2 (3) 3 (9)
Grandmother/aunt 1 (1) 2 (3) 1 (4)
Ever dated 63 (116) 64 (90) 64 (206) Measures
Teen dating abuse prevalencec
Physical perpetration 3 (5) 1 (2) 2 (7) Primary outcomes. Given that the focus of this article is on test-
Psychological perpetration 7 (12) 6 (9) 6 (21)
ing the conceptual underpinnings of the program, the primary
Physical victimization 6 (11) 4 (6) 5 (17)
Psychological victimization 20 (36) 16 (22) 18 (58) outcomes examined are (1) factors related to motivating and
Total books completedd facilitating caregiver engagement in teen dating abuse preven-
0 books — 12 (17) — tion activities and (2) the targeted risk factors. The measurement
1–5 books — 19 (27) —
of these constructs is detailed in Table 3. All primary outcomes
6 books — 69 (96) —
were coded so that expected associations between treatment
There were no significant differences between treatment and control groups on condition and outcomes were positive. Because established mea-
any of these variables at baseline at p ⬍ .10.
sures of many of the outcomes were not available, we created
FSD ⫽ Families for Safe Dates.
a
A total of 16 teens reported being of Latino race/ethnicity (eight treatment several new measures. The psychometric properties of these
and eight control). measures were examined by performing exploratory and confir-
b
Two caregivers did not report their education level at baseline. matory factor analyses on scales composed of three or more
c
These are dichotomous measures of lifetime involvement in physical or
items using Mplus Version 5.1 (Muthen & Muthen, Los Angeles,
psychological dating abuse perpetration or victimization (nondaters are in-
cluded in the denominator). CA) [33]. Most factor analyses suggested good fit between the
d
The full program included six booklets. data and the hypothesized construct (comparative fit index
ranged from .94 to 1.00 and the Tucker-Lewis Index ranged from
.92 to 1.00); the scales for caregiver belief in the importance of
involvement in teen dating and for caregiver date rule setting and
from that family and their matched control family completed
monitoring fit the data moderately well (comparative fit indexes
follow-up telephone interviews. Caregivers provided consent for
⫽ .90; Tucker-Lewis Indexes ⫽ .90).
their own and the teen’s participation. Teens provided verbal
assent for their own participation. Procedures were approved by Secondary outcomes. Exploratory analyses were conducted to
the University of North Carolina Internal Review Board. examine effects on psychological and physical dating abuse per-
petration and victimization (referred to as secondary outcomes).
Sample description Psychological dating abuse perpetration was assessed by four
items that asked how many times the teen had ever (1) insulted
Of the 3,134 households in the sampling frame, 1,105 were a date in front of others, (2) not let a date do things with other
ineligible, 1,237 were eligible, and 972 could not be reached to people, (3) made a date describe where he/she was every minute
determine eligibility. Among the 1,237 eligible households, 514 of the day, and/or (4) threatened to hurt a date. Psychological
primary caregivers and teens completed baseline interviews. dating abuse victimization was assessed by asking teens how
Response Rate 4 of the American Association of Public Opinion many times they had ever had these things done to them. Re-
sponse options ranged from “never” to “more than four times.”
Research [32] standard definitions takes into account all cases
Items were summed to create continuous psychological perpe-
where eligibility could not be ascertained by determining which
tration and victimization composite scores.
proportion of them, if contacted, should be eligible. The Response
Physical dating abuse perpetration was assessed by five items
Rate 4 for this study was 37.1%.
that asked how many times the teen had ever (1) slapped or
Of the 464 families in the full treatment (n ⫽ 230) and control
scratched a date, (2) physically twisted a date’s arm or bent back
groups (n ⫽ 234), 324 (70%) completed follow-up interviews. his or her fingers, (3) pushed, grabbed, shoved, or kicked a date,
The analyses were conducted on these 324 families (treatment (4) hit a date with a fist or something hard, and/or (5) assaulted a
n ⫽ 140; control n ⫽ 184). There were no significant differences date with a knife or gun. Teens were instructed not to count acts
at baseline between treatment and control groups on any of the perpetrated in self-defense. Response options ranged from
demographic and dating abuse characteristics examined (Table “never” to “more than four times.” Because of the skewedness of
2). Ever dated status at baseline was also comparable in the two the data toward no violence, a dichotomous variable was created
groups; there were no sex differences in either group in dating such that a 1 indicated any perpetration and a 0 indicated no
status. perpetration. Physical dating abuse victimization was assessed by

Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en Universidad de Valparaiso de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en junio 03, 2018.
Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2018. Elsevier Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
V.A. Foshee et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 51 (2012) 349 –356 353

Table 3
Measures of the primary outcomes

Construct # of items Source Item or example item(s) (original response options)

Factors motivating and facilitating caregiver engagement


in teen dating abuse prevention activities
CG perceived susceptibility of TN to dating abuse 2 CG “In your opinion, how likely is it that [TN] could become a victim of dating
abuse/could abuse someone [he/she] is dating?” (0 ⫽ not at all likely to,
3 ⫽ very likely)
CG perceived severity of dating abuse 4 CG “For families today, would you say that TN dating abuse is . . .” (0 ⫽ not a
problem at all to, 3 ⫽ a very serious problem)
CG response efficacy for preventing dating abuse 3 CG “If a TN is in an abusive relationship, parents can do things to help the
TN . . .” (0 ⫽ strongly disagree, 3 ⫽ strongly agree)a
CG self-efficacy for talking about dating abuse 5 CG “How confident do you feel in your ability to talk to [TN] about dating
abuse?” (0 ⫽ not at all comfortable to, 3 ⫽ very comfortable)
CG knowledge of dating abuse 4 CG “Most teen rapes are by someone the teen does not know.” (1 ⫽ true, 2 ⫽
false, 9 ⫽ don’t know)b
c
CG acceptance of dating abuse 1 CG “Being insulted by a date is not that big a deal as long as there is no
physical abuse” (0 ⫽ strongly disagree to, 3 ⫽ strongly agree)d
CG belief in the importance of being involved in TN 3 CG “You believe it is important to provide [TN] with guidance on dating.” (0
dating ⫽ strongly disagree, 3 ⫽ strongly agree)e
CG use of positive communication skills with the TN 4/4 CG/TN “In conversations that you have had with [TN/CG] . . . how much of the
time would you say [you/CG] . . . really listened to [TN/you]?” (0 ⫽ none
of the time to, 4 ⫽ all the time)
CG use of negative communication with the TN 2/2 CG/TN “In conversations that you have had with [TN/CG] . . . how much of the
time would you say [you/CG] . . . interrupted [TN/you]?” (0 ⫽ all the
time to, 4 ⫽ none of the time)
Risk factors for teen dating abuse
TN acceptance of dating abusec 11 TN “Hitting a date because of jealousy is just a natural part of dating.” (0 ⫽
strongly agree to, 3 ⫽ strongly disagree)
f
TN perceived negative consequences of dating abuse 8 TN “. . . How likely or unlikely do you think it is that the following things
would happen if you frequently hit the person you were dating . . . The
person would break up with you” (0 ⫽ not at all likely to, 3 ⫽ very
likely)
TN conflict resolution skills 5 TN “. . . When you have had disagreements with someone, how many times
did you let the person know how you felt?” (0 ⫽ none of the time, 4 ⫽
all the time)
CG date rule setting 7 TN “Have you actually been told by a parent or guardian the time you need to
be home from a date” (0 ⫽ no, 1 ⫽ yes)

CG ⫽ caregiver; TN ⫽ teen.
a
Each response efficacy item was recoded so that a response of “strongly agree” was scored “1” and all other nonmissing responses were scored “0.”
b
Each knowledge item was recoded so that correct responses were scored “1” and incorrect responses and responses of “don’t know” were scored “0.”
c
The CG and TN acceptance items were scored so that higher scores indicated less acceptance of dating abuse.
d
The CG acceptance item was dichotomized so that a response of strongly disagree was scored “1” and all other nonmissing responses were scored “0.”
e
The belief items were dichotomized so that “strongly agree” was scored “1” and all other nonmissing responses were scored “0.”
f
The negative consequences items were coded so that higher scores denoted greater perceived likelihood of negative consequences or a lower perceived likelihood
of positive consequences.

asking how many times teens had ever had these things done to Analytical strategy for testing treatment effects
them that were not done in self-defense. Response options and
the dichotomization of the variable were the same as for physical An intention-to-treat approach was used; that is, analyses
dating abuse perpetration. were based on the treatment condition families were assigned to
and not on the amount of treatment received [34]. The effect of
Attrition analysis and results FSD on each primary outcome was tested with linear regression
for continuous outcomes and logistic regression for dichotomous
Loss to follow-up was more likely when caregivers did not outcomes. The follow-up outcome was regressed on treatment
have education beyond high school (p ⫽ .002) and when caregiv- condition, the baseline value of that outcome, the control vari-
ers reported high levels of perceived severity of dating abuse (p ⫽ ables (teen, sex, and race, caregiver education, and family struc-
.01). Significantly more participants in the treatment (39%) than ture), and the interaction between treatment condition and sex
control group (21%) were lost to follow-up (p ⬍ .001) but only of the teen. Cohen’s d (effect size) was calculated for each con-
one of the 27 interactions between treatment condition and the tinuous outcome. Conclusions about the significance (p ⬍ .05) of
baseline measure of the outcomes was significant. In the treat- program effects were identical using and not using multiple
ment group, caregivers lost to follow-up reported significantly imputation procedures (in SAS [SAS Institute, Cary, NC]) [35];
greater belief in the importance of involvement in teen dating therefore, we report results from the sample of 324 families.
than those who remained in the study, whereas in the control When assessing effects on dating abuse behaviors, the sample
group that variable was not associated with loss to follow-up. was limited to those who reported at follow-up that they had
The direction of this interaction would unlikely bias results in ever been on a date. Very few teens reported any physical perpe-
favor of treatment effects; rather, it would potentially bias re- tration (n ⫽ 7) or physical victimization (n ⫽ 17) at baseline.
sults in the opposite direction. Therefore when assessing program effects on physical dating

Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en Universidad de Valparaiso de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en junio 03, 2018.
Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2018. Elsevier Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
354 V.A. Foshee et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 51 (2012) 349 –356

Table 4 perceived susceptibility of the teen to dating abuse. Treatment


Effects of FSD on the primary outcomes condition was also significantly associated in directions hypoth-
Targeted outcome Coef (se)a Cohen’s db esized with caregiver knowledge of dating abuse (p ⬍ .001),
acceptance of dating abuse (p ⬍ .001), caregiver use of negative
Factors motivating and facilitating CG
communication with the teen (caregiver report) (p ⬍ .01), and
engagement in teen DA
prevention activities belief in the importance of involvement in teen dating (p ⬍ .05);
CG perceived susceptibility of teen ⫺.11 (.07) — however, the treatment effect on the latter construct was modi-
to DA victimization fied by sex of the teen (b ⫽ .38, standard error ⫽ .16, p ⫽ .02) such
CG perceived susceptibility of teen .04 (.07) — that the effect was significant for caregivers of male (t ⫽ 2.97, p ⫽
to DA perpetration
CG perceived severity of DA .61 (.28)* .25
.004, Cohen’s d ⫽ .35) but not female teens (t ⫽ .29, p ⫽ .78).
CG response efficacy for preventing .21 (.08)* .31 Cohen’s d ranged from .25 to .44 across these outcomes.
DA
CG self-efficacy for talking about DA .38 (.16)* .28 Targeted risk factors. Treatment condition was significantly as-
CG knowledge of DA .32 (.09)** .44
sociated with teen acceptance of dating abuse (p ⫽ ⬍.01; Cohen’s
CG acceptance of DA (OR, 95% CI) 4.95 (2.53-9.68)** —
CG belief in the importance of .18 (.08)*c .27 d ⫽ .37) in the expected direction. There were no treatment
involvement in teen dating effects on teens’ perceived negative consequences of dating
CG use of positive communication ⫺.003 (.05) — abuse (p ⫽ .12), teen conflict resolution skills (p ⫽ .17), or care-
skills with teen (CG report) giver date rule setting and monitoring.
CG’s use of positive communication .05 (.07) —
skills with teen (teen report)
CG use of negative communication .18 (.06)*** .38 Treatment effects on the secondary outcomes
with teen (CG report)
CG’s use of negative communication .03 (.09) — Forty-six percent of the teens in the control group compared
skills with teen (teen report)
with only 26.0% of the teens in the treatment group initiated
Risk factors for teen dating abuse
Acceptance of DA .84 (.27)*** .37
dating between baseline and follow-up (odds ratio ⫽ .44; 95%
Perceived negative consequences of ⫺.50 (.33) — confidence interval ⫽ .19-1.03; p ⫽ .06), and there were no sex
DA differences in dating initiation. Trends in treatment effects on
Conflict resolution skills ⫺.47 (.34) — psychological and physical dating abuse victimization and per-
Date rule setting and monitoring .11 (.15) —
petration were all in the expected directions (Table 5). One effect
All outcomes are coded so the hypothesized effects of the program were positive. was statistically significant and that was the effect of the pro-
DA ⫽ dating abuse; CG ⫽ caregiver; FSD ⫽ Families for Safe dates.
a
gram on the onset of physical dating abuse victimization (p ⫽
For continuous measures the numbers presented are regression coefficients
and standard errors for the main effects of the program on the targeted
.04): 3% (n ⫽ 3; all females) of the treatment teens, but 11% (n ⫽
outcome; for dichotomous measures the numbers presented are the odds 14; nine females and five males) of the control teens became
ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval. All analyses controlled for baseline victims of physical dating abuse between baseline and follow-up.
levels of the outcome, teen sex, teen race, caregiver education, and family None of the effects were moderated by sex.
structure.
b
Cohen’s d was calculated as the difference in the adjusted means divided by
the pooled standard deviation. Discussion
c
Program effects varied by sex.
* p ⬍ .05, ** p ⬍ .001, *** p ⬍ .01. FSD was effective in promoting changes in the family context
conducive to continued discussion about teen dating abuse, thus
providing a foundation for preventing teen dating abuse over
abuse, those who reported dating abuse at baseline were deleted time. It was also effective in decreasing teen acceptance of dating
from analyses, and program effects on the onset of physical abuse, a key construct explaining the effects of other effective
dating abuse were assessed. Because there was adequate varia- dating abuse prevention programs [31,36], and in preventing
tion in psychological dating abuse at baseline, treatment effects dating abuse victimization. Effect sizes ranged from small (.25) to
on the amount of psychological dating abuse victimization and medium (.44). These findings are encouraging for the first family-
perpetration at follow-up were assessed, controlling for the
baseline psychological dating abuse measure.
Table 5
Results Effects of FSD on the secondary outcomes

Outcome ␤ (SE)/(OR 95% CI) p


Treatment effects on the primary outcomes
Psychological
Perpetration (n ⫽ 235) ⫺.17 (.10) .09
Table 4 presents treatment effects on the primary outcomes. Victimization (n ⫽ 235) ⫺.29 (.19) .14
Physical
Factors motivating and facilitating caregiver engagement in teen Perpetration (n ⫽ 228) OR:.48 (.14–1.67) .25
dating abuse prevention activities. Treatment condition was sig- Victimization n ⫽ (218) OR:.26 (.07–.94) .04
nificantly associated with three of the four Protection Motivation All models controlled for teen sex, teen race, caregiver education, and family
constructs. At follow-up, treatment group caregivers reported structure. For psychological violence, the numbers presented are regression
significantly greater perceived severity of dating abuse (p ⫽ .03), coefficients and standard errors (SE) for program effects controlling for baseline
levels of the outcome; for physical violence, the numbers presented are odds
response efficacy for preventing dating abuse (p ⫽ .01), and ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the effects of the program on
self-efficacy for talking about dating abuse (p ⫽ .02) compared initiation of physical violence among teens who were not involved in physical
with control group caregivers. There were no effects on caregiver dating violence at baseline.

Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en Universidad de Valparaiso de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en junio 03, 2018.
Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2018. Elsevier Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
V.A. Foshee et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 51 (2012) 349 –356 355

based teen dating abuse prevention program but also suggest with 13–15–year-olds. Loss to follow-up could have further de-
that modifications to the program are warranted. creased the generalizability of study findings. Also, only short-
term program effects were assessed, not allowing much time for
Indicated program content modification assessing changes in dating abuse behaviors.
The study has many strengths. This is the first evaluation of a
There was a strong significant program effect on decreasing family-based program for preventing teen dating abuse. Program
caregiver use of negative communication with the teen, but only development was guided by a theoretically and empirically
from the caregivers’ report. This suggests that program activities based conceptual model and results from extensive formative
for improving caregiver communication with the teen need to be research with families. The study used a randomized design and
improved. However, it is also possible that the measures of these a nationwide sampling approach, there was high family partici-
skills-based constructs, assessed in a brief telephone interview, pation in the program, and the program effects were the same
do not adequately capture changes in these complex constructs. when using multiple imputation suggesting that loss to follow-up
There were no program effects on teen perceived negative is an unlikely threat to internal validity.
consequences of dating abuse and teen conflict resolution skills,
suggesting the need to modify activities targeted at these con- Acknowledgments
structs. However, it is important to note that in the randomized
This research was supported by funding from the Centers for
trials of the two evidenced-based dating abuse prevention pro-
Disease Control and Prevention (grant Number R49CCV423115-
grams that assessed program effects on these two constructs, no
01-04). The sampling and the baseline and follow-up telephone
effects were found, despite finding strong long-lasting effects on
interviews were conducted by the Survey Research Unit, in the
preventing dating abuse victimization and perpetration [31,37].
Department of Biostatistics at the University of North Carolina at
Thus, changes in these two constructs may not be necessary for
Chapel Hill. The study was reviewed and approved by the Public
dating abuse behavior change.
Health-Nursing Institutional Review Board for the Protection of
FSD also was not effective in increasing caregiver date rule
Human Subjects at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
setting and monitoring. The longitudinal studies finding that
parental monitoring predicts dating abuse assessed general References
monitoring of peers and activities. However, FSD program activ-
ities focused on caregiver monitoring and rule setting specific to [1] Foshee VA, Reyes HL. Dating abuse prevalence, consequences, and predic-
dating, and to match that programmatic focus, the measure of tors. In: Levesque Roger J.R. eds. Encyclopedia of Adolescence. New York,
NY: Springer Publishers, 2011.
monitoring and rule setting was specific to dating situations. FSD [2] O’Leary KD, Smith Slep AM, Avery-Leaf S, Cascardi M. Gender differences in
should be modified to include content to encourage more general dating aggression among multiethnic high school students. J Adolesc Health
monitoring of peers and activities. It is important to note, how- 2008;42:473–9.
[3] MuÒoz-Rivas MJ, GraÒa JL, O’Leary KD, GonzÂlez MP. Aggression in adoles-
ever, that fewer teens in the treatment condition than in the cent dating relationships: Prevalence, justification, and health conse-
control condition began dating by the follow-up, and thus, there quences. J Adolesc Health 2007;40:298 –304.
were fewer opportunities for caregivers in the treatment than in [4] Ackard DM, Eisenberg ME, Neumark-Sztainer D. Long-term impact of ado-
lescent dating violence on the behavioral and psychological health of male
the control condition to set dating rules. and female youth. J Pediatr 2007;151:476 – 81.
[5] Brown A, Cosgrave E, Killackey E, et al. The longitudinal association of
Program structure adolescent dating violence with psychiatric disorders and functioning. J In-
terpers Violence 2009;24:1964 –79.
[6] Roberts TA, Klein JD, Fisher S. Longitudinal effect of intimate partner abuse
Although modifications to the program content are war- on high-risk behavior among adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2003;
ranted, results suggest that the program structure was effective. 157:875– 81.
[7] Foshee VA, Reyes M, Wyckoff S. Approaches to preventing psychological,
Family participation in the program was high: 88% of the treat-
physical, and sexual partner abuse. In: O’Leary D, Woodin E, eds. Psycholog-
ment families began the program and 69% completed all six ical and Physical Aggression in Couples. Washington, DC: American Psycho-
booklets. These participation rates are especially impressive logical Association, 2009:165– 89.
given that no incentives were offered and families were recruited [8] Bauman KE, Ennett ST, Foshee VA, et al. Influence of a family program on
adolescent smoking and drinking prevalence. Prev Sci 2002;3:35– 42.
through listed telephone numbers across the country with no [9] Haggerty KP, Skinner ML, MacKenzie EP, Catalano RF. A randomized trial of
personal connection ahead of time. These participation rates are parents who care: Effects on key outcomes at 24-month follow-up. Prev Sci
much higher than those for programs requiring caregivers to go 2007;8:249 – 60.
[10] Kumpfer KL, Alvarado R. Family-strengthening approaches for the preven-
to central locations for the program, where it is not atypical to tion of youth problem behaviors. Am Psychol 2003;58:457– 65.
have 40% or lower program participation [38]. Self-administered, [11] Velleman RD, Templeton LJ, Copello AG. The role of the family in preventing
home-based approaches, with telephone involvement have been and intervening with substance use and misuse: A comprehensive review of
family interventions, with a focus on young people. Drug Alcohol Rev
recommended as intervention approaches for overcoming barri- 2005;24:93–109.
ers to participation, decreasing attrition, and promoting behav- [12] Rothman EF, Miller E, Terpeluk A, et al. The proportion of U.S. parents who
ior change in underserved at risk families [39]. talk with their adolescent children about dating abuse. J Adolesc Health
2011;49:216 – 8.
[13] Mrazek PJ, Haggerty RJ. Reducing risks for mental disorders: Frontiers for
Study weaknesses and strengths prevention intervention research. Washington, DC: National Academies
Press, 1994.
[14] Spoth R, Redmond C. Research on family engagement in preventive inter-
The 37.1% response rate for participating in the study sug-
ventions: Toward improved use of scientific findings in primary prevention
gests that recruiting families through cold calls is not a desirable practice. J Prim Prev 2000;21:267– 84.
recruitment approach. Although this response rate is no worse [15] Bauman K, Foshee V, Ennett S, et al. Family matters: A family-directed
than the 3%–35% typically found for family-based intervention program designed to prevent teen tobacco and alcohol use. Health Promot
Practice 2001;2:81–96.
studies [40], it introduces the possibility that the participating [16] Bauman KE, Foshee VA, Ennett ST, et al. Influence of a family program on
families were different from the general population of families adolescent tobacco and alcohol onset. Am J Public Health 2001;91:604 –10.

Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en Universidad de Valparaiso de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en junio 03, 2018.
Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2018. Elsevier Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
356 V.A. Foshee et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 51 (2012) 349 –356

[17] Haggerty KP, MacKenzie EP, Skinner ML, et al. Participation in “parents who [28] Capaldi DM, Clark S. Prospective family predictors of aggression toward female
care”: Predicting program initiation and exposure in two different program partners for young at-risk young men. Dev Psychol 1998;34:1175– 88.
formats. J Prim Prev 2006;27:47– 65. [29] Lavoie F, Hebert M, Tremblay R, et al. History of family dysfunction and
[18] Brofenbrenner U. The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: perpetration of dating violence by teen boys: A longitudinal study. J Adolesc
Harvard University Press, 1979. Health 2002;30:375– 83.
[19] Rogers R. Cognitive and physiological processes in fear based attitude [30] Foshee VA, Bauman KE, Ennett ST, et al. Assessing the long-term effects of
change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In: Cacioppo J, Petty R, the safe dates program and a booster in preventing and reducing adolescent
eds. Social Psycho-Physiology: A Sourcebook. New York, NY: Guilford Pub- dating violence victimization and perpetration. Am J Public Health 2004;94:
lications, 1983:153–76. 619 –24.
[20] Jackard J, Dodge T, Dittus P. Parent teen communication about sex and birth [31] Foshee V, Bauman K, Ennett S, et al. Assessing the effects of the dating
control: A conceptual framework. In: Feldman S, Rosenthal DA, eds. Talking violence prevention program. Safe dates using random coefficient regres-
Sexuality: Parent-Teen Communication. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, sion modeling. Prev Sci 2005;6:245–58.
2002:9 – 41. [32] The American Association of Public Opinion Research. Standard definitions:
[21] Wurtele SK, Kvaternick M, Franklin CF. Sexual abuse prevention for pre- Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Ann Arbor,
schoolers: A survey of parents’ behaviors, attitudes and beliefs. J Child Sex Michigan: AAPOR, 2004.
Abuse 1992;1:113–28. [33] MuthÊn B, MuthÊn LK. Mplus (version 5.1) [computer software]. Los Ange-
[22] Foshee VA, Linder F, MacDougall JE, Bangdiwala S. Gender differences in the les, CA: MuthÊn and MuthÊn, 2007.
longitudinal predictors of adolescent dating violence. Prev Med 2001;32:128–41. [34] Wright CC, Sim J. Intention-to-treat approach to data from randomized
[23] Foshee V, Bauman K, Linder F. Family violence and the perpetration of teen controlled trials: A sensitivity analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:833– 42.
dating violence: Examining social learning and social control processes. J [35] SAS Institute. Statistical analysis software (SAS), version 9.1. Cary, NC: SAS
Marriage Fam 1999;61:331– 42. Institute Inc, 2003.
[24] Malik S, Sorenson SB, Aneshensel CS. Community and dating violence [36] Woodin EM, O’Leary KD. A brief motivational intervention for physically
among teens: Perpetration and victimization. J Adolesc Health 1997;21: aggressive dating couples. Prev Sci 2010;11:371– 83.
291–302. [37] Wolfe DA, Wekerle C, Scott K, et al. Dating violence prevention with at-risk
[25] Bird GW, Stith SM, Schladale J. Psychological resources, coping strategies, youth: A controlled outcome evaluation. J Consult Clin Psychol 2003;71:
and negotiation styles as discriminators of violence in dating relationships. 279 –91.
Fam Relat 1991;40:45–50. [38] Dusenbury L. Family-based drug abuse prevention programs: A review. J
[26] Foshee VA, Benefield TS, Ennett ST, et al. Longitudinal predictors of serious Prim Prev 2000;20:337–52.
physical and sexual dating violence victimization during adolescence. Prev [39] Snell-Johns J, Mendez JL, Smith BH. Evidence-based solutions for overcom-
Med 2004;39:1007–16. ing access barriers, decreasing attrition, and promoting change with under-
[27] Brendgen M, Vitaro F, Tremblay RE, Lavoie F. Reactive and proactive aggres- served families. J Fam Psychol 2004;18:19 –35.
sion: Predictions to physical violence in different contexts and moderating [40] Meek J, Lillehoj CJ, Welsh J, et al. Rural community partnership recruitment
effects of parental monitoring and caregiving behavior. J Abnorm Child for an evidence-based family-focused prevention program. The PROSPER
Psychol 2001;29:293–304. project. Rural Ment Health 2004;29:23– 8.

Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en Universidad de Valparaiso de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en junio 03, 2018.
Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2018. Elsevier Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.

Вам также может понравиться