Rigorous Evaluation of the READY to Stand Curriculum to Prevent the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children
Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
Age13-19
SponsorUniversity of Michigan
About this trial
The overall goal of this project is to conduct both a process and rigorous outcome evaluation of The Set Me Free Project (SMFP)'s READY to Stand (RTS)© curriculum with an eye toward widespread dissemination to other U.S. communities, if deemed effective. Broadly, the investigators seek to determine the effect participation has on students: reductions in commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC) perpetration (the primary outcome); reductions in CSEC victimization, teen dating violence (TDV), and sexual violence victimization and perpetration; as well as increases in bystander intervention in CSEC situations compared to participants in the control condition (secondary outcomes). Process evaluation components include fidelity monitoring, post session surveys, and exit interviews. The methodology includes a community-based RCT in which youth (N=400-600) are randomly assigned to the treatment (RTS) or attention control condition (nutrition program).
Eligibility criteria
This trial accepts healthy volunteersQualifiers
None
Disqualifiers
None
Trial design
Design model
Parallel
Treatments tested in this trial
The Set Me Free Project's (SMFP) READY to Stand (RTS)© Curriculum
BehavioralTeens will receive six modules of the Ready to Stand (RTS)© programming over one day on a weekend. There will be four cohorts over two weekends. The program is delivered in mixed-gender groups of 30-50 teens and includes videos, small and large group discussions, activities, worksheets, and ample opportunities for skill-building. This curriculum is intended to be one piece of comprehensive prevention strategies that has the potential to make immediate and sustained impacts on reducing rates of CSEC perpetration in the lives of youth, including those most vulnerable to this pernicious crime.
Treatment groups
500 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groupsGroup A: TreatmentExperimental treatment 1 intervention
Group B: ControlActive comparator 1 intervention
Trial outcomes
Primary outcomes
1
Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC)-Perpetration Experiences
Behaviorally worded items to assess students' self-reports of commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC) victimization perpetration; answers are binary (Yes/No) with an option not to answer. Scale information: items are summed and used to create two variables, one indicating if a student has ever experienced these activities and the other indicating if a student has experienced these activities in the past 1 or 6 months (1-month time frame utilized at baseline, 6-month time frame utilized for all follow ups). Higher scores indicate worse outcomes.
Time frame
Time 1 (baseline), Time 3 (six months post-program), and Time 4 (12 months post-program)Secondary outcomes
1
Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC)-Bystander Opportunity and Action
Response options range from 0 to "10 or more" with an option to not answer. If participants report "one or more times" they are then asked how many times they took the specified actions. Eleven actions are listed, two of which are negative behaviors, such as doing nothing, with the other nine actions being positive behaviors, such as trying to stop the situation. For each positive action, students' responses are re-coded into a binary variable where 0=did not take action and 1=did take action. For each negative item, responses are reverse-scored. Items are then summed to create an overall score that could range from 2 to 7, with a higher score indicating better outcomes.
Time frame
Time 1 (baseline), Time 3 (six months post-program), and Time 4 (12 months post-program)2
Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC)-Victimization Experiences
Behaviorally worded items to assess students' self-reports of commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC) victimization; answers are binary (Yes/No) with an option not to answer. Scale information: items are summed and used to create two variables, one indicating if a student has ever experienced these activities and the other indicating if a student has experienced these activities in the past month. Higher scores indicate worse outcomes.
Time frame
Time 1 (baseline), Time 3 (six months post-program), and Time 4 (12 months post-program)3
Dating and Sexual Violence Victimization
Dating and sexual violence victimization will be assessed using items adapted from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) and the Measure of Adolescent Relationship Harassment and Abuse (MARSHA). Items assess sexual violence, physical dating violence, psychological dating violence, and controlling behavior. Participants report the frequency of each experience during the specified assessment period, with higher scores indicating greater frequency of victimization.
Time frame
Time 1 (baseline), Time 3 (six months post-program), and Time 4 (12 months post-program)4
Dating and Sexual Violence Perpetration
Dating and sexual violence perpetration will be assessed using items adapted from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) and the Measure of Adolescent Relationship Harassment and Abuse (MARSHA). Items assess sexual violence, physical dating violence, psychological dating violence, and controlling behavior. Participants report the frequency of each behavior during the specified assessment period, with higher scores indicating greater frequency of perpetration.
Time frame
Time 1 (baseline), Time 3 (six months post-program), and Time 4 (12 months post-program)Other outcomes
1
Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC) Knowledge
Researcher created items to assess knowledge about sex trafficking (that aligns with the student programming being received). This measure is comprised of 19 items across four subscales. For each subscale, a total score is calculated by taking the mean of the items. The mean is the proportion of items answered correctly; scores can range from 0-1, with a higher score indicating better outcomes.
Time frame
Time 1 (baseline), Time 2 (~2 weeks post-program), Time 3 (six months post-program), and Time 4 (12 months post-program)2
Valuing of Self and Others
Researcher created items to assess the extent to which students value themselves and others. Items were created based on positive youth development and dignity literature. Items comprise two subscales, one on self-value and the next on the value of others, each with eight statements. Participants are asked to rate the statements on a scale from "strongly disagree" (1) to "strongly agree" (4). One item in each section was reverse coded. Scores for the subscales were calculated by taking the average of the subscale items, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.
Time frame
Time 1 (baseline), Time 2 (~2 weeks post-program), Time 3 (six months post-program), and Time 4 (12 months post-program)3
Sexual Consent
Items adapted from Ewing et al., 2022 to assess attitudes towards sexual consent. Answer options included Strongly disagree (1) / Disagree (2) / Agree (3) / Strongly agree (4). Higher scale scores reflect more positive / healthier attitudes towards sexual consent.
Time frame
Time 1 (baseline), Time 2 (approximately 3 months post-baseline), Time 3 (six months post-baseline), Time 4 (twelve months post-baseline, Time 5 (eighteen months post-baseline)4
Bystander Readiness to Help
The Denial Subscale of the Bystander Readiness to Help measure: participants rate five statements on a scale from "strongly disagree" (4) to "strongly agree" (1), with an option not to answer. The composite score is the mean of the five items, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.
Time frame
Time 1 (baseline), Time 2 (~2 weeks post-program), Time 3 (six months post-program), and Time 4 (12 months post-program)Sponsors and contacts
Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.
Source ClinicalTrials.gov