NCT04950686

Study of Long-term Efficacy and Mechanisms Underlying the Impact of a Web-based Sexual and Relationship Health Promotion Program With Young Adult Community College Students

Completed NA Results posted Last updated 14 August 2025

What this trial tests

NA trial testing Media Aware for Young Adults in Sexual Behavior in 2,184 participants. Completed in 24 March 2024.

Timeline

21 July 2021

Primary endpoint
24 March 2024

24 March 2024

Quick facts

Lead sponsor	Innovation Research & Training
Phase	NA
Status	Completed
Study type	INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation	randomized
Design	parallel
Masking	double
Primary purpose	prevention
Enrollment	2,184
Start date	21 July 2021
Primary completion	24 March 2024
Estimated completion	24 March 2024
Sites	1 location across United States

Drugs / interventions tested

• Media Aware for Young Adults
• Health Aware for Young Adults

Conditions studied

• Sexual Behavior — all drugs for Sexual Behavior →
• Sexual Assault — all drugs for Sexual Assault →
• Violence, Domestic — all drugs for Violence, Domestic →

Sponsor

Innovation Research & Training

Who can join

Adults 18 to 19, any sex, with Sexual Behavior or Sexual Assault. Patients with the condition only — healthy volunteers not accepted.

Results — posted to ClinicalTrials.gov

Per-arm endpoint measurements with 95% confidence intervals where reported. Source: trial results section.

Relationship Satisfaction Primary · posttest (4-weeks after pretest)

Relationship satisfaction will be assessed using 7-items (e.g., "How well does your partner meet your needs?") rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (poorly) to 5 (extremely well); higher scores indicate greater relationship satisfaction; range = 1-5; higher scores indicate a more favorable outcome. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention - Media Aware for Young Adults	4.22	± 0.06
Delayed Intervention Control	4.21	± 0.05
Active Comparator: Active Control - Health Aware for Young Adults	4.29	± 0.06

Relationship Satisfaction Primary · 6-month follow-up

Relationship satisfaction will be assessed using 7-items (e.g., "How well does your partner meet your needs?") rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (poorly) to 5 (extremely well); higher scores indicate greater relationship satisfaction; range = 1-5; higher scores indicate a more favorable outcome. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention - Media Aware for Young Adults	4.17	± .07
Delayed Intervention Control	4.23	± .06
Active Comparator: Active Control - Health Aware for Young Adults	4.25	± 0.08

Relationship Satisfaction Primary · 12-month follow-up

Relationship satisfaction will be assessed using 7-items (e.g., "How well does your partner meet your needs?") rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (poorly) to 5 (extremely well); higher scores indicate greater relationship satisfaction; range = 1-5; higher scores indicate a more favorable outcome. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention - Media Aware for Young Adults	4.22	± 0.09
Delayed Intervention Control	4.25	± 0.07
Active Comparator: Active Control - Health Aware for Young Adults	4.22	± 0.10

Percentage of Participants With Relationship Violence Perpetration Primary · posttest (4-weeks after pretest)

10-items (e.g., "I spoke to my partner in a hostile or mean tone of voice."); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4. \[Given lack of variability, this measure was dichotomized so 0 equals no violence and 1 equals any violence.\]

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention - Media Aware for Young Adults	39
Delayed Intervention Control	38
Active Comparator: Active Control - Health Aware for Young Adults	38

Percentage of Participants With Relationship Violence Perpetration Primary · 6-month follow-up

10-items (e.g., "I spoke to my partner in a hostile or mean tone of voice."); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4. \[Given lack of variability, this measure was dichotomized so 0 equals no violence and 1 equals any violence.\]

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention - Media Aware for Young Adults	43
Delayed Intervention Control	40
Active Comparator: Active Control - Health Aware for Young Adults	37

Percentage of Participants With Relationship Violence Perpetration Primary · 12-month follow-up

10-items (e.g., "I spoke to my partner in a hostile or mean tone of voice."); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4. \[Given lack of variability, this measure was dichotomized so 0 equals no violence and 1 equals any violence.\]

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention - Media Aware for Young Adults	43
Delayed Intervention Control	45
Active Comparator: Active Control - Health Aware for Young Adults	41

Percentage of Participants With Relationship Violence Victimization Primary · posttest (4-weeks after pretest)

10-items (e.g., "My partner spoke to me in a hostile or mean tone of voice"); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4; \[Given lack of variability, this measure was dichotomized so 0 equals no violence and 1 equals any violence.\]

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention - Media Aware for Young Adults	38
Delayed Intervention Control	38
Active Comparator: Active Control - Health Aware for Young Adults	36

Percentage of Participants With Relationship Violence Victimization Primary · 6-month follow-up

10-items (e.g., "My partner spoke to me in a hostile or mean tone of voice"); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4; \[Given lack of variability, this measure was dichotomized so 0 equals no violence and 1 equals any violence.\]

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention - Media Aware for Young Adults	41
Delayed Intervention Control	36
Active Comparator: Active Control - Health Aware for Young Adults	39

Percentage of Participants With Relationship Violence Victimization Primary · 12-month follow-up

10-items (e.g., "My partner spoke to me in a hostile or mean tone of voice"); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4; \[Given lack of variability, this measure was dichotomized so 0 equals no violence and 1 equals any violence.\]

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention - Media Aware for Young Adults	45
Delayed Intervention Control	46
Active Comparator: Active Control - Health Aware for Young Adults	39

Risky Sexual Behaviors Primary · posttest (4-weeks after pretest)

4-items (e.g., How many times have you had oral, vaginal, or anal sex with a casual partner?); Participants were asked to report how many times each behavior happened; higher scores indicate greater sexual risk taking. Responses were open-ended so while the lower limit of the range was assumed to be zero, there was no upper limit imposed on participants.

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention - Media Aware for Young Adults	0.36	± 0.03
Delayed Intervention Control	0.29	± 0.02
Active Comparator: Active Control - Health Aware for Young Adults	0.33	± 0.03

Risky Sexual Behaviors Primary · 6-month follow-up

4-items (e.g., How many times have you had oral, vaginal, or anal sex with a casual partner?); Participants were asked to report how many times each behavior happened; higher scores indicate greater sexual risk taking. Responses were open-ended so while the lower limit of the range was assumed to be zero, there was no upper limit imposed on participants.

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention - Media Aware for Young Adults	0.41	± 0.02
Delayed Intervention Control	0.40	± 0.02
Active Comparator: Active Control - Health Aware for Young Adults	0.41	± 0.02

Risky Sexual Behaviors Primary · 12-month follow-up

4-items (e.g., How many times have you had oral, vaginal, or anal sex with a casual partner?); Participants were asked to report how many times each behavior happened; higher scores indicate greater sexual risk taking. Responses were open-ended so while the lower limit of the range was assumed to be zero, there was no upper limit imposed on participants.

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention - Media Aware for Young Adults	0.45	± 0.02
Delayed Intervention Control	0.42	± 0.02
Active Comparator: Active Control - Health Aware for Young Adults	0.43	± 0.02

Sponsor's own description

Community college students are an underserved and at-risk population in terms of their sexual and relationship health. This is a three-arm randomized control trial to evaluate the long-term efficacy of a web-based sexual and relationship health promotion program among U.S. community college students (expected N = 2010) and explore the mechanisms underlying the program efficacy.

Publications & conference data

2 peer-reviewed publications reference this trial (live from Europe PMC):

1. Evaluating the mechanisms and long-term effects of a web-based comprehensive sexual health and media literacy education program for young adults attending community college: study protocol for a three-arm randomized controlled trial.
   Scull TM, Dodson CV, Evans-Paulson R, Reeder LC, et al · · 2022 · cited 10× · PMID 35729664 · DOI 10.1186/s13063-022-06414-6
2. Long-Term Efficacy of a Web-Based Sexual Health Promotion Program Using a Media Literacy Education Approach in a National Sample of Community College Students.
   Scull TM, Dodson CV, Kupersmidt JB, Evans-Paulson R, et al · · 2026 · PMID 42159988 · DOI 10.1007/s11121-026-01930-2