1 / 26

POWER

POWER. Summary of the P revention O ptions for W omen E quals R ights Project Sheana Bull Tom Evans Samuel Posner Charlene Ortiz Jana Sczersputowski Sherri Varnell Stephanie Phibbs Lili Whittaker Lillian Lin Brenda Beaty Lee Sherman James Ortiz.

mary-olsen
Download Presentation

POWER

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. POWER Summary of the PreventionOptions forWomenEqualsRights Project Sheana Bull Tom Evans Samuel Posner Charlene Ortiz Jana Sczersputowski Sherri Varnell Stephanie Phibbs Lili Whittaker Lillian Lin Brenda Beaty Lee Sherman James Ortiz

  2. POWER Summary • POWER tests the efficacy of a condom social marketing campaign to increase knowledge of, improve attitudes towards and increase use of female as well as male condoms for women aged 15-25 (primarily African American and Latina)

  3. POWER Summary • We have a pre post design in 12 neighborhoods in four cities; six neighborhoods were randomly selected to implement the campaign. • We completed cross-sectional baseline data collection in all 12 neighborhoods in 2004. • The campaign ran in six communities starting in October 2004 and continuing through April 2005

  4. POWER sampling • We used a time-space sampling approach, one that yields a probability sample. • For data collection, we identified 363 likely places to find and intercept 15-25 year old African American and Latina women across all neighborhoods; we generated 622 unique Venue-Day-Time increments (VDT) • We randomly selected VDTs and attended those venues at that time to recruit and enroll women in the data collection efforts.

  5. POWER field staff Lived in study neighborhoods Baseline: 46 Follow-up: 32 Diverse: age, gender, ethnicity Referrals from community ‘Gatekeepers’ Referrals from staff Walking the Talk!

  6. Baseline findings • Recruitment: • “Clicked” 16,478 women • Approached 10,136 women • 6122 (60%) agreed to complete eligibility screener • 4032 were eligible; 3437 (85%) completed a survey; 3407 were useable

  7. Baseline Demographics

  8. Campaign Activities

  9. Follow-up findings • Recruitment: • 12,183 women “clicked” • 6682 approached (55% of those clicked) • 4228 screened (64% of those approached) • 3290 eligible (70% of those screened) • 3036 agreed to survey • 3130 completed a survey; 3007 were useable

  10. Follow-up demographics

  11. Primary outcomes • We saw no neighborhood effects--there were no differences in awareness, attitudes or use of male and female condoms between women in campaign neighborhoods and comparison • There was no change in awareness, attitudes and use from baseline to follow-up across neighborhoods

  12. Exposure to Campaign

  13. Awareness of Female Condoms • Women who had seen our posters had more frequently seen and read information on female condoms

  14. Awareness of Male Condoms • Women who had seen our postershad more frequently read information on male condoms--no differences observed in having seen male condoms * *differences not significant

  15. Use of Female Condoms • More women seeing our posters had ever used a Female Condom and more had used one the last time they had sex

  16. Use of Male Condoms • More women seeing our posters had ever used a Male Condom and more had used one the last time they had sex

  17. Use of Condoms Last Sex

  18. POWER exposure and outcomes

  19. Additional findings • Although a larger proportion of women in campaign neighborhoods saw the campaign than women in comparison neighborhoods (14% vs. 9%), we believe many women from comparison neighborhoods were exposed to the campaign

  20. Making sense of it all • Campaign appears to work at the individual but not the neighborhood level • Increase campaign coverage to get saturation? • What other secular trends are occurring? • So what now? • Dissemination? • Further Research?

More Related