The Safe Dates program: 1-Year follow-up results

School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 27599-7400, USA.
American Journal of Public Health (Impact Factor: 4.55). 11/2000; 90(10):1619-22. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.90.10.1619
Source: PubMed


An earlier report described desirable 1-month follow-up effects of the Safe Dates program on psychological, physical, and sexual dating violence. Mediators of the program-behavior relationship also were identified. The present report describes the 1-year follow-up effects of the Safe Dates program.
Fourteen schools were in the randomized experiment. Data were gathered by questionnaires in schools before program activities and 1 year after the program ended.
The short-term behavioral effects had disappeared at 1 year, but effects on mediating variables such as dating violence norms, conflict management skills, and awareness of community services for dating violence were maintained.
The findings are considered in the context of why program effects might have decayed and the possible role of boosters for effect maintenance.

Download full-text


Available from: Karl E Bauman,
  • Source
    • "One trial, Stepping Stones, was conducted in rural communities although participants were recruited from schools [41]. The follow-up periods among the trials ranged from 1 month [36] to 4 years [37] [38], both are follow-up times of the Safe Dates trial. The findings of one trial (Safe Dates) were reported for multiple time points, and in multiple manuscripts. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a pervasive global health issue affecting adolescents. We reviewed randomized controlled trials of interventions to reduce physical, sexual, and psychological violence perpetration and victimization among adolescents. PUBMED, CINAHL, Science Direct, EMbase, PsychLIT, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane database were searched for English language papers published up to the end of February 2013. Eight articles reporting on six randomized controlled trials were retrieved. Four interventions contained both school and community components. We found positive intervention effects on IPV perpetration (three studies) and IPV victimization (one study). Compared with the studies with no effects on IPV, the effective interventions were of longer duration, and were implemented in more than one setting. There were quality issues in all six trials. Interventions targeting perpetration and victimization of IPV among adolescents can be effective. Those interventions are more likely to be based in multiple settings, and focus on key people in the adolescents' environment. Future trials should assess perpetration and victimization of IPV among male and female adolescents with and without prior experiences with IPV, taking gender differences into account.
    Journal of Adolescent Health 10/2013; 54(1). DOI:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.08.008 · 3.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Our study documented dating violence victimization experiences across the teen years, from age 13 to 19, including dating violence types, frequency, number of abusive partners, and age at first occurrence—providing important information for health professionals and others to respond to a very common problem among teens, even those at higher socioeconomic levels who go on to college. Our results point to the need to amplify primary and secondary prevention efforts; school-based programs have been effective in reducing dating violence occurrence in adolescents [1,21,42-49]. As well, with females experiencing sexual pressure at high rates and by multiple partners, there must be a concerted effort to discuss sexual health, including healthy relationships, healthy sexual boundaries, and consent; health care settings offer a safe, confidential place for such conversations. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Prior longitudinal studies have shown high cumulative dating violence exposure rates among U.S adolescents, with 36 percent of males and 44 percent to 88 percent of females experiencing victimization across adolescence/young adulthood. Despite promising information characterizing adolescents’ dating violence experiences longitudinally, prior studies tended to concentrate on physical and sexual types of violence only, and did not report information on the number of times dating violence was experienced across multiple abusive partners. We used a method similar to the timeline follow-back interview to query adolescents about dating violence victimization from age 13 to 19—including dating violence types (physical, sexual, and psychological), frequency, age at first occurrence, and number of abusive partners. Methods A total of 730 subjects were randomly sampled from university registrar records and invited to complete an online survey, which utilized methods similar to the timeline follow-back interview, to retrospectively assess relationship histories and dating violence victimization from age 13 to 19 (eight questions adapted from widely-used surveys covering physical, sexual, and psychological abuse). Then, for each dating violence type, we asked about the number of occurrences, number of abusive partners, and age at first occurrence. Of 341 subjects who completed the survey, we included 297 (64 percent females; 36 percent males) who had a dating partner from age 13 to 19. Results Fully 64.7 percent of females and 61.7 percent of males reported dating violence victimization between age 13 and 19, with most experiencing multiple occurrences. More than one-third of abused females had two or more abusive partners: controlling behavior (35.6 percent); put downs/name calling (37.0); pressured sex (42.9); insults (44.3); slapped/hit (50.0); and threats (62.5). Males also had two or more abusive partners, as follows: controlling behavior (42.1 percent); insults (51.2); put downs (53.3); threats (55.6); and unwanted calls/texts/visits (60.7). Among abused females, 44.7 percent first experienced controlling behavior between age 13 and 15, whereas the majority (62.5 percent) first experienced pressured sex between age 16 and 17. Among males, for most abuse types, 16 percent to 30 percent of victimization began before age 15. Conclusions Our study adds information to a substantial, but still growing, body of literature about dating violence frequency, age of occurrence, and number of abusive partners among adolescents.
    BMC Public Health 08/2012; 12(1):637. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-12-637 · 2.26 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Research shows that men who show greater support of gender equality are less likely to engage in IPV (6, 7, 27). Several studies have pointed out that interventions aimed at primary prevention of IPV by young men are much more effective than interventions attempting to change the behaviours of batterer men (30, 52, 53). An increasing number of academic and formative research studies show that among certain groups of men, real change towards increased gender equality and non-violent intimate relationships could be possible (6, 25, 27–29, 31). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aims to explore young men's understanding of intimate partner violence (IPV) in Ecuador, examining similarities and differences between how ordinary and activist young men conceptualize IPV against women. We conducted individual interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) with 35 young men--five FGDs and five interviews with ordinary young men, and 11 interviews with activists--and analysed the data generated using qualitative content analysis. Among the ordinary young men the theme 'too much gender equality leads to IPV' emerged, while among the activists the theme 'gender inequality is the root of IPV'. Although both groups in our study rejected IPV, their positions differed, and we claim that this is relevant. While activists considered IPV as rooted in gender inequality, ordinary young men understood it as a response to the conflicts generated by increasing gender equality and women's attempts to gain autonomy.
    Global Health Action 06/2012; 5(1). DOI:10.3402/gha.v5i0.18049 · 1.93 Impact Factor
Show more