CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03313310W2PUpdated Nov 24, 2020Results posted

ATN 151 Work-to-Prevent: Employment as HIV Prevention

An interventional study of Employment Intervention in HIV Prevention, sponsored by University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to male participants aged 16 Years to 24 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-11-24.

Sponsored by University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
92
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
16 Years to 24 Years
Sex
Male
01

Study summary

The investigators aim to pilot-test a novel social and structural-level HIV intervention for YMSM and YTW of color ages 16-24.

Read the detailed description

Work2Prevent will advance the science by adapting, tailoring, and pilot-testing a novel social and structural-level HIV intervention for YMSM and YTW of color ages16-24 aimed at increasing economic stability (i.e., employment) through youth empowerment and asset development, and decreasing HIV risk behaviors (i.e., sex work) associated with social and economic marginalization.

02

Conditions studied

  • HIV Prevention

Keywords

  • Youth Empowerment
  • Employment Intervention
  • Young Men Who Have Sex With Men
  • Young Transgender Women
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
16 Years to 24 Years
Sexes eligible
Male
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Eligibility criteria

Phase 2 Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Being male or assigned male at birth (YTW)
  2. Identifies as a man who has sex with men (YMSM) and/or a gay bisexual man or transgender woman/transwoman
  3. Identifies as African American/Black or Hispanic/Latino
  4. 16-24 years old
  5. English-speaking (primary)
  6. Currently unemployed but seeking employment, or employed only part-time (35 hrs or less on avg/wk)
  7. Is able to attend a 4-session employment program

Phase 2 Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Individuals identifying as non-Hispanic White
  2. Individuals not assigned male at birth
  3. Individuals with a known HIV positive-status at time of consent

Phase 3 Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Being male or assigned male at birth (YTW)
  2. Identifies as a man who has sex with men (YMSM) and/or a gay bisexual man or transgender woman/transwoman
  3. Identifies as African American/Black or Hispanic/Latino
  4. 16-24 years old
  5. English-speaking (primary)
  6. Currently unemployed but seeking employment, or employed only part-time (35 hrs or less on avg/wk)
  7. Is able to attend a 4-session employment program
  8. Did not participate in Phase 2

Phase 3 Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Individuals identifying as non-Hispanic White
  2. Individuals not assigned male at birth
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
92 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Employment Intervention

    An employment intervention (iFOUR) that has been adapted from previous piloting work of focus groups, key informant interviews and a community advisory board.

    Behavioral: Employment Intervention

Interventions

  • BehavioralEmployment Intervention

    Participants will complete 4 workshop sessions in groups of 6-12. The workshop curriculum was based on the pre-existing iFOUR program, and tailored based on feedback from a Community Advisory Board (CAB), Focus Groups, and In Depth Interviews.

    Also known as: iFOUR

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Information Systems Success Model Score

    The Information Systems Success Model (ISSM) will be used to assess for intervention acceptability and satisfaction. The 21-item scale measures four sub-domains: information quality, handbook quality, perceived usefulness, and overall satisfaction. Every item is scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being "Strongly Disagree" and 5 being "Strongly Agree". Responses are averaged within each sub-domain to produce four sub-domain scores. The four sub-domain scores are then averaged to produce an overall ISSM score (1-5; higher scores indicate higher acceptability/satisfaction).

    Time frame: Post-Intervention (up to 2 weeks after completion of intervention)

  2. Number of Participants Completing Two or More Workshop Sessions

    Workshop completion will be used to assess for intervention feasibility, as the workshop sessions are the intervention. Workshop completion will be defined as having attended at least two of the four workshop sessions and will be measured by tracking participant attendance.

    Time frame: Post-Intervention (up to 2 weeks after completion of intervention)

  3. Change From Baseline in Job Seeking Self-Efficacy Scale Score

    Job seeking self-efficacy is defined as one's perceived ability and confidence to perform job search and application activities. The 12-item Job Seeking Self-Efficacy (JSS) scale uses response values on a 1-10 score, with 1 being "Not at All Confident" and 10 being "Very Confident". Responses are averaged to yield a total score, with higher scores indicating higher self-efficacy. Change in JSS will be calculated by subtracting the JSS score at baseline (T1) from the JSS score at the 8-month follow-up (T3) (-9 to +9; negative change indicates decreased self-efficacy, while positive change indicates increased self-efficacy).

    Time frame: Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)

  4. Change From Baseline in Protean Career Attitudes Scale Score

    Protean career attitudes (PCAs) are defined as having self-direction in the pursuit of success in one's work. PCAs have previously been found to be associated with positive career satisfaction and self-perceived success. The validated 7-item scale measures two sub-domains: self-directed attitudes and values-driven attitudes. Every item is scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being "Strongly Disagree" and 5 being "Strongly Agree". Responses are averaged within each sub-domain to produce two sub-domain scores, which are then averaged as well to produce an overall PCA score. Change in PCA score will be calculated by subtracting the score at baseline (T1) from the score at the 8-month follow-up (T3) (-4 to +4; negative change indicates decreased PCAs, while positive change indicates increased PCAs).

    Time frame: Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change From Baseline in Self-Reported Hours Worked Per Week

    Employment status will be assessed using self-reported average number of hours worked each week. Change in hours worked per week will be calculated by subtracting the baseline (T1) value from the follow-up (T3) value (negative change indicates fewer hours worked per week, while positive change indicates more hours work per week).

    Time frame: Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)

  2. Change From Baseline in Self-Reported Sexual Risk Behaviors

    Sexual risk behaviors will be measured using 6 yes/no items assessing for engagement in the following behaviors during the past 6 months (this refers to the 6 months prior to the baseline visit for the first assessment and 6 months prior to the 8 month visit for the second assessment) for Phase 2, and the last 3 months for Phase 3: 1. condomless anal intercourse (CAI) with male partner of unknown HIV status 2. anal intercourse with 3 or more males 3. sex with male partner with a Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) 4. CAI with HIV+ male partner 5. anal intercourse with condom failure 6. transactional sex work involvement Responses will be averaged at each assessment. Change in sexual risk behaviors will be calculated by subtracting the average at baseline from the average at the 8-month follow-up (range: -1 to +1; negative change indicates fewer sexual risk behaviors, while positive change indicates more sexual risk behaviors).

    Time frame: Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)

  3. Change From Baseline in Oral Chlamydia Test Result

    Chlamydia infection will be assessed at baseline and follow-up using an oral sample. The test yields a positive (1) or negative (0) result. The number of positive test results at baseline and follow-up will be calculated.

    Time frame: Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)

  4. Change From Baseline in Anal Chlamydia Test Result

    Chlamydia infection will be assessed at baseline and follow up using an anal sample. The test yields a positive (1) or negative (0) result. Number of positive test results at baseline and follow-up will be calculated.

    Time frame: Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)

  5. Change From Baseline in Urine Chlamydia Test Result

    Chlamydia infection will be assessed at baseline and follow up using a urine sample. The test yields a positive (1) or negative (0) result. Number of positive test results at baseline and follow-up will be calculated.

    Time frame: Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)

  6. Change From Baseline in Oral Gonorrhea Test Result

    Gonorrhea infection will be assessed at baseline and follow-up using an oral sample. The test yields a positive (1) or negative (0) result. Number of positive test results at baseline and follow-up will be calculated.

    Time frame: Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)

  7. Change From Baseline in Anal Gonorrhea Test Result

    Gonorrhea infection will be assessed at baseline and follow-up using an anal sample. The test yields a positive (1) or negative (0) result. Number of positive test results at baseline and follow-up will be calculated.

    Time frame: Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)

  8. Change From Baseline in Urine Gonorrhea Test Result

    Gonorrhea infection will be assessed at baseline and follow-up using an oral sample. The test yields a positive (1) or negative (0) result. Number of positive test results at baseline and follow-up will be calculated.

    Time frame: Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)

  9. Reactive HIV Result or Reported New HIV+ Status

    HIV infection will be assessed at follow-up using reactive HIV testing. Test results yield: Reactive or Non-reactive. Participants who reported HIV+ status will not be tested. A reactive HIV result will be defined as those with a "Reactive" result. Reported new HIV+ status is defined as those who report positive HIV status at follow-up and who were tested for HIV, with a non-reactive result, at baseline.

    Time frame: Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)

06

Results

Posted Nov 4, 2020

Participant flow

Participants will be recruited in clinics serving young men who have sex with men (YMSM) and young transwomen (YTW) of color, and local gathering places for YMSM and YTW. Participants will be asked to refer potentially eligible friends or acquaintances. Passive recruitment will include posting study flyers and describing the study on social media.

Phase 2
Participant flow — Phase 2
MilestonePhase 2Phase 3
Started510
Completed470
Not completed40
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up40
Phase 3
Participant flow — Phase 3
MilestonePhase 2Phase 3
Started041
Completed040
Not completed01
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up01

Outcome measures

PrimaryInformation Systems Success Model Score

The Information Systems Success Model (ISSM) will be used to assess for intervention acceptability and satisfaction. The 21-item scale measures four sub-domains: information quality, handbook quality, perceived usefulness, and overall satisfaction. Every item is scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being "Strongly Disagree" and 5 being "Strongly Agree". Responses are averaged within each sub-domain to produce four sub-domain scores. The four sub-domain scores are then averaged to produce an overall ISSM score (1-5; higher scores indicate higher acceptability/satisfaction).

Time frame:
Post-Intervention (up to 2 weeks after completion of intervention)
Reported as:
Median · units on a scale
Information Systems Success Model Score
units on a scalePhase 2Phase 3
Information Systems Success Model Score4.4 (4.0 to 4.8)4.2 (3.8 to 4.7)
PrimaryNumber of Participants Completing Two or More Workshop Sessions

Workshop completion will be used to assess for intervention feasibility, as the workshop sessions are the intervention. Workshop completion will be defined as having attended at least two of the four workshop sessions and will be measured by tracking participant attendance.

Time frame:
Post-Intervention (up to 2 weeks after completion of intervention)
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number of Participants Completing Two or More Workshop Sessions
ParticipantsPhase 2Phase 3
Number of Participants Completing Two or More Workshop Sessions2834
PrimaryChange From Baseline in Job Seeking Self-Efficacy Scale Score

Job seeking self-efficacy is defined as one's perceived ability and confidence to perform job search and application activities. The 12-item Job Seeking Self-Efficacy (JSS) scale uses response values on a 1-10 score, with 1 being "Not at All Confident" and 10 being "Very Confident". Responses are averaged to yield a total score, with higher scores indicating higher self-efficacy. Change in JSS will be calculated by subtracting the JSS score at baseline (T1) from the JSS score at the 8-month follow-up (T3) (-9 to +9; negative change indicates decreased self-efficacy, while positive change indicates increased self-efficacy).

Time frame:
Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change From Baseline in Job Seeking Self-Efficacy Scale Score
units on a scalePhase 2Phase 3
Change From Baseline in Job Seeking Self-Efficacy Scale Score-0.08 (-0.41 to 0.26)0.62 (0.14 to 1.11)
Statistical analysis
  • Phase 2 · Wilcoxon Signed Rank · p = 0.98 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
  • Phase 3 · Wilcoxon Signed Rank · p = 0.05 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
PrimaryChange From Baseline in Protean Career Attitudes Scale Score

Protean career attitudes (PCAs) are defined as having self-direction in the pursuit of success in one's work. PCAs have previously been found to be associated with positive career satisfaction and self-perceived success. The validated 7-item scale measures two sub-domains: self-directed attitudes and values-driven attitudes. Every item is scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being "Strongly Disagree" and 5 being "Strongly Agree". Responses are averaged within each sub-domain to produce two sub-domain scores, which are then averaged as well to produce an overall PCA score. Change in PCA score will be calculated by subtracting the score at baseline (T1) from the score at the 8-month follow-up (T3) (-4 to +4; negative change indicates decreased PCAs, while positive change indicates increased PCAs).

Time frame:
Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change From Baseline in Protean Career Attitudes Scale Score
units on a scalePhase 2Phase 3
Change From Baseline in Protean Career Attitudes Scale Score-0.09 (-0.25 to 0.06)-0.03 (-0.27 to 0.21)
Statistical analysis
  • Phase 2 · Wilcoxon Signed Rank · p = 0.39 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
  • Phase 3 · Wilcoxon Signed Rank · p = 0.76 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Self-Reported Hours Worked Per Week

Employment status will be assessed using self-reported average number of hours worked each week. Change in hours worked per week will be calculated by subtracting the baseline (T1) value from the follow-up (T3) value (negative change indicates fewer hours worked per week, while positive change indicates more hours work per week).

Time frame:
Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)
Reported as:
Mean · hours/week
Change From Baseline in Self-Reported Hours Worked Per Week
hours/weekPhase 2Phase 3
Change From Baseline in Self-Reported Hours Worked Per Week11.4 (7.14 to 15.65)5.24 (1.54 to 8.94)
Statistical analysis
  • Phase 2 · Wilcoxon Signed Rank · p = <0.001 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
  • Phase 3 · Wilcoxon Signed Rank · p = 0.02 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Self-Reported Sexual Risk Behaviors

Sexual risk behaviors will be measured using 6 yes/no items assessing for engagement in the following behaviors during the past 6 months (this refers to the 6 months prior to the baseline visit for the first assessment and 6 months prior to the 8 month visit for the second assessment) for Phase 2, and the last 3 months for Phase 3: 1. condomless anal intercourse (CAI) with male partner of unknown HIV status 2. anal intercourse with 3 or more males 3. sex with male partner with a Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) 4. CAI with HIV+ male partner 5. anal intercourse with condom failure 6. transactional sex work involvement Responses will be averaged at each assessment. Change in sexual risk behaviors will be calculated by subtracting the average at baseline from the average at the 8-month follow-up (range: -1 to +1; negative change indicates fewer sexual risk behaviors, while positive change indicates more sexual risk behaviors).

Time frame:
Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)
Reported as:
Mean · sexual risk factors
Change From Baseline in Self-Reported Sexual Risk Behaviors
sexual risk factorsPhase 2Phase 3
Change From Baseline in Self-Reported Sexual Risk Behaviors-0.03 (-0.10 to 0.05)-0.06 (-0.13 to 0.01)
Statistical analysis
  • Phase 2 · Wilcoxon Signed Rank · p = 0.51 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
  • Phase 3 · Wilcoxon Signed Rank · p = 0.17 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Oral Chlamydia Test Result

Chlamydia infection will be assessed at baseline and follow-up using an oral sample. The test yields a positive (1) or negative (0) result. The number of positive test results at baseline and follow-up will be calculated.

Time frame:
Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Change From Baseline in Oral Chlamydia Test Result
ParticipantsPhase 2Phase 3
Number of Positive Test Results at Baseline21
Number of Positive Test Results at Follow-up00
Statistical analysis
  • Phase 2 ·
  • Phase 3 ·
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Anal Chlamydia Test Result

Chlamydia infection will be assessed at baseline and follow up using an anal sample. The test yields a positive (1) or negative (0) result. Number of positive test results at baseline and follow-up will be calculated.

Time frame:
Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Change From Baseline in Anal Chlamydia Test Result
ParticipantsPhase 2Phase 3
Number of Positive Test Results at Baseline20
Number of Positive Test Results at Follow-up32
Statistical analysis
  • Phase 2 · McNemar · p = 1.00 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
  • Phase 3 · McNemar · p = 0.50 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Urine Chlamydia Test Result

Chlamydia infection will be assessed at baseline and follow up using a urine sample. The test yields a positive (1) or negative (0) result. Number of positive test results at baseline and follow-up will be calculated.

Time frame:
Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Change From Baseline in Urine Chlamydia Test Result
ParticipantsPhase 2Phase 3
Number of Positive Test Results at Baseline12
Number of Positive Test Results at Follow-up31
Statistical analysis
  • Phase 2 · McNemar · p = 0.63 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
  • Phase 3 · McNemar · p = 1.00 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Oral Gonorrhea Test Result

Gonorrhea infection will be assessed at baseline and follow-up using an oral sample. The test yields a positive (1) or negative (0) result. Number of positive test results at baseline and follow-up will be calculated.

Time frame:
Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Change From Baseline in Oral Gonorrhea Test Result
ParticipantsPhase 2Phase 3
Number of Positive Test Results at Baseline23
Number of Positive Test Results at Follow-up10
Statistical analysis
  • Phase 2 · McNemar · p = 1.00 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
  • Phase 3 · McNemar · p = 0.25 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Anal Gonorrhea Test Result

Gonorrhea infection will be assessed at baseline and follow-up using an anal sample. The test yields a positive (1) or negative (0) result. Number of positive test results at baseline and follow-up will be calculated.

Time frame:
Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Change From Baseline in Anal Gonorrhea Test Result
ParticipantsPhase 2Phase 3
Number of Positive Test Results at Baseline32
Number of Positive Test Results at Follow-up21
Statistical analysis
  • Phase 2 · McNemar · p = 1.00 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
  • Phase 3 · McNemar · p = 1.00 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Urine Gonorrhea Test Result

Gonorrhea infection will be assessed at baseline and follow-up using an oral sample. The test yields a positive (1) or negative (0) result. Number of positive test results at baseline and follow-up will be calculated.

Time frame:
Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Change From Baseline in Urine Gonorrhea Test Result
ParticipantsPhase 2Phase 3
Number of Positive Test Results at Baseline10
Number of Positive Test Results at Follow-up00
Statistical analysis
  • Phase 2 ·
  • Phase 3 ·
SecondaryReactive HIV Result or Reported New HIV+ Status

HIV infection will be assessed at follow-up using reactive HIV testing. Test results yield: Reactive or Non-reactive. Participants who reported HIV+ status will not be tested. A reactive HIV result will be defined as those with a "Reactive" result. Reported new HIV+ status is defined as those who report positive HIV status at follow-up and who were tested for HIV, with a non-reactive result, at baseline.

Time frame:
Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Reactive HIV Result or Reported New HIV+ Status
ParticipantsPhase 2Phase 3
Reactive HIV Result or Reported New HIV+ Status02
Post-hocChange From Baseline in Any Self-reported Condomless Anal Intercourse

Self-reported condomless anal intercourse will be measured using 2 yes/no items assessing for engagement in the following behaviors during the past 6 months (this refers to the 6 months prior to the baseline visit for the first assessment and 6 months prior to the 8 month visit for the second assessment) for Phase 2, and the last 3 months for Phase 3: 1. CAI with male partner of unknown HIV status 2. CAI with HIV+ male partner Number of yes responses at baseline and follow-up will be calculated.

Time frame:
Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Change From Baseline in Any Self-reported Condomless Anal Intercourse
ParticipantsPhase 2Phase 3
Number of Yes Responses at Baseline1413
Number of Yes Responses at Follow-up1312
Statistical analysis
  • Phase 2 · McNemar · p = 1.00 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
  • Phase 3 · McNemar · p = 1.00 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
Post-hocChange From Baseline in Self-reported Sex With Male Partner With a Sexually Transmitted Infection

Self-reported sex with a male partner with a sexually transmitted infection during the past 6 months (this refers to the 6 months prior to the baseline visit for the first assessment and 6 months prior to the 8 month visit for the second assessment) for Phase 2, and the last 3 months for Phase 3, will be measured using a yes/no item. Number of yes responses at baseline and follow-up will be calculated.

Time frame:
Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Change From Baseline in Self-reported Sex With Male Partner With a Sexually Transmitted Infection
ParticipantsPhase 2Phase 3
Number of Yes Responses at Baseline511
Number of Yes Responses at Follow-up59
Statistical analysis
  • Phase 2 · McNemar · p = 1.00 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
  • Phase 3 · McNemar · p = 0.75 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
Post-hocChange From Baseline in Self-reported Anal Intercourse With Condom Failure

Self-reported anal intercourse where the condom broke or slipped during the past 6 months (this refers to the 6 months prior to the baseline visit for the first assessment and 6 months prior to the 8 month visit for the second assessment) for Phase 2, and the last 3 months for Phase 3, will be measured using a yes/no item. Number of yes responses at baseline and follow-up will be calculated.

Time frame:
Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Change From Baseline in Self-reported Anal Intercourse With Condom Failure
ParticipantsPhase 2Phase 3
Number of Yes Responses at Baseline914
Number of Yes Responses at Follow-up1215
Statistical analysis
  • Phase 2 · McNemar · p = 0.55 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
  • Phase 3 · McNemar · p = 1.00 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
Post-hocChange From Baseline in Self-reported Transactional Sex Work Involvement

Self-reported transactional sex work involvement during the past 6 months (this refers to the 6 months prior to the baseline visit for the first assessment and 6 months prior to the 8 month visit for the second assessment) for Phase 2, and the last 3 months for Phase 3, will be measured using a yes/no item. Number of yes responses at baseline and follow-up will be calculated.

Time frame:
Baseline, Follow-Up (8 months for Phase 2, 3 months for Phase 3)
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Change From Baseline in Self-reported Transactional Sex Work Involvement
ParticipantsPhase 2Phase 3
Number of Yes Responses at Baseline1321
Number of Yes Responses at Follow-up1015
Statistical analysis
  • Phase 2 · McNemar · p = 0.45 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)
  • Phase 3 · McNemar · p = 0.07 (The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.)

Adverse events

Collected over Adverse event data were collected from the baseline through study completion, approximately 8 months for Phase 2 and 3 months for Phase 3.. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Phase 20/51 (0%)0/51 (0%)0/51 (0%)
Phase 30/41 (0%)0/41 (0%)0/41 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

The analysis population consists of participants who completed at least one workshop and/or the 8-month (3-month) follow-up visit.

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Phase 2Phase 3Total
Median22 (19 to 23)22 (20 to 23.5)22 (20 to 23)
Sex/Gender, Customized
Sex/Gender, Customized(Participants)Phase 2Phase 3Total
Female325
Male352358
Transfemale or Transwoman61117
Transmale or Transman000
Genderqueer or Gender Nonconforming347
Other Gender Identity000
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Phase 2Phase 3Total
Hispanic or Latino11415
Not Hispanic or Latino363672
Unknown or Not Reported000
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity, Customized(Participants)Phase 2Phase 3Total
Black413879
White101
Other516
American Indian or Alaskan Native000
Asian000
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander011
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(Participants)Phase 2Phase 3Total
United States474087
Sexual Orientation
Sexual Orientation(Participants)Phase 2Phase 3Total
Bisexual191231
Gay191837
Homosexual011
Queer505
Same Gender Loving022
Straight or Heterosexual459
Other022
Employment Status
Employment Status(Participants)Phase 2Phase 3Total
Not Employed413475
Part-Time6612
Full-Time000
Job Seeking Self-Efficacy Score
Job Seeking Self-Efficacy Score(units on a scale)Phase 2Phase 3Total
Median9.1 (7.9 to 10)8.5 (7.6 to 9.9)8.8 (7.8 to 10)

3 further baseline measures are reported on the registry.

07

Study locations

1 site
  • University of Chicago
    Chicago, Illinois 60637, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Barlow J., Wright C., Cullen L. A job-seeking self-efficacy scale for people with physical disabilities:preliminary development and psychometric testing. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling. 2002;30(1):37-53.
  • Porter C., Woo S.E., Tak, J. Developing and Validating Short Form Protean and Boundaryless Career Attitudes Scales. Journal of Career Assessment. 2016;24(1):162-181.
  • Horvath KJ, Oakes JM, Rosser BR, Danilenko G, Vezina H, Amico KR, Williams ML, Simoni J. Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary efficacy of an online peer-to-peer social support ART adherence intervention. AIDS Behav. 2013 Jul;17(6):2031-44. doi: 10.1007/s10461-013-0469-1. PubMed 23553347 ↗
  • Volmer J., Spurk D. Protean and boundaryless career attitudes: relationships with subjective and objective career success. 2011;43(3):207-218.
  • Hill BJ, Motley DN, Rosentel K, VandeVusse A, Fuller C, Bowers SME, Williams M, Kipke M, Kuhns L, Pashka N, Reisner S, DeMonte JB, Goolsby RW, Rupp BM, Slye N, Strader LC, Schneider JA, Razzano L, Garofalo R. Employment as HIV Prevention: An Employment Support Intervention for Adolescent Men Who Have Sex With Men and Adolescent Transgender Women of Color. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2022 Sep 1;91(1):31-38. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000003020. Epub 2022 May 12. PubMed 35551157 ↗
  • Hill BJ, Motley DN, Rosentel K, VandeVusse A, Garofalo R, Kuhns LM, Kipke MD, Reisner S, Rupp B, West Goolsby R, McCumber M, Renshaw L, Schneider JA. Work2Prevent, an Employment Intervention Program as HIV Prevention for Young Men Who Have Sex With Men and Transgender Youth of Color (Phase 3): Protocol for a Single-Arm Community-Based Trial to Assess Feasibility and Acceptability in a Real-World Setting. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 Sep 11;9(9):e18051. doi: 10.2196/18051. PubMed 32915162 ↗
  • Hill BJ, Motley DN, Rosentel K, VandeVusse A, Garofalo R, Schneider JA, Kuhns LM, Kipke MD, Reisner S, Rupp BM, Sanchez M, McCumber M, Renshaw L, Loop MS. An Employment Intervention Program (Work2Prevent) for Young Men Who Have Sex With Men and Transgender Youth of Color (Phase 1): Protocol for Determining Essential Intervention Components Using Qualitative Interviews and Focus Groups. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 Aug 10;9(8):e16384. doi: 10.2196/16384. PubMed 32773383 ↗
  • Hill BJ, Motley DN, Rosentel K, VandeVusse A, Garofalo R, Schneider JA, Kuhns LM, Kipke MD, Reisner S, Rupp BM, Sanchez M, McCumber M, Renshaw L, West Goolsby R, Loop MS. An Employment Intervention Program (Work2Prevent) for Young Men Who Have Sex With Men and Transgender Youth of Color (Phase 2): Protocol for a Single-Arm Mixed Methods Pilot Test to Assess Feasibility and Acceptability. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 Aug 10;9(8):e16401. doi: 10.2196/16401. PubMed 32773376 ↗

Study documents

  • Study protocol · Aug 5, 2019
  • Statistical analysis plan · Dec 13, 2019

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — De-identified study data will be made available in the NICHD Data and Specimen Hub (DASH), a centralized resource for researchers to store de-identified data from NICHD supported studies for use in secondary research. NICHD DASH is a free public resource designed for the scientific research community.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Sap

09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03313310
Lead sponsor
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Collaborators
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Oct 18, 2017
Start date
Mar 20, 2018
Primary completion
Dec 5, 2019
Completion
Dec 5, 2019
Results posted
Nov 4, 2020
Last update
Nov 24, 2020

Study contacts

Brandon Hill, PhD
principal investigator · University of Chicago
Lisa Strader, MPH
study director · University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion