Dataset Information

Does individual advocacy work?: A research and evaluation protocol for a youth anti-sex trafficking program.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Thousands of youth are sexually trafficked each year worldwide. Increased public attention to the commercial sexual exploitation (CSE) of children has resulted in the rapid deployment of hybrid community public health and social service programs for these vulnerable youth. Research on the effectiveness of these advocacy programs is lacking, particularly whether they decrease psychosocial distress and increase readiness to leave CSE.

Methods and analysis

Cisgender girls under age 18 at the time of CSE, and who were identified as at-risk for sex trafficking revictimization, were included in an evaluation of an anti-trafficking advocacy program in the North Texas region of the United States. The program includes crisis response, case management, referral, and mentoring services in collaboration with multi-disciplinary team (MDT) responses to identified youth sex trafficking. Case management notes, needs assessments and individualized treatment plans were collected at intake and every 30 days until study conclusion. Standardized surveys, including the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), the Coping Self-Efficacy Scale, and the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA) were collected at intake and every 180 days until the study concluded. Analyses included descriptive statistics, paired t-tests, chi-square, multivariate linear and logistic regressions, Poisson regressions, and latent profile analysis.

Ethics and dissemination

This study was approved by the Texas Christian University's Institutional Review Board (IRB). Results of this study will be presented to the scientific community at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals and non-scholarly outlets such as public health and social service conferences.

SUBMITTER: Twis MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9242468 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFor women who want to, exiting sex work can be challenging. Numerous programs strive to help women wanting to exit sex work and secure alternative sources of income by providing targeted support at key moments during the transition, yet few of those initiatives are rigorously evaluated. In 2017 "Exit Doors Here", a 9-month sex work exiting program based on the critical time intervention (CTI) approach, was developed to provide wrap-around support services (e.g., health, addiction, housing, education, and employment supports) to women wishing to transition towards exiting sex work.MethodsWe present the design of an evaluation study of Exit Doors Here which combines quantitative and qualitative methods to assess participant recruitment and retention into the program, program fidelity, and relationships with service providers (process evaluation), as well as progress made by participants in terms of strengthening their social support networks and moving closer to achieving their housing, pre-employment (i.e., educational, training and volunteering), and income-related goals, as well as their involvement in sex work (outcome evaluation). Each year for 4 years, between 25 and 30 Exit Doors Here clients will be invited to complete an interviewer-administered questionnaire at the beginning and after completing the program, and to share data from their CTI charts and related documentation. Once a year, program staff and peer workers will be interviewed, and service providers will be surveyed.DiscussionConducting a formative (process) evaluation will allow us to inform program implementation and improve program delivery early on for maximum benefit. The summative (outcome) evaluation will provide much needed evidence on the effectiveness of CTI in supporting a traditionally underserved population to achieve the housing, pre-employment and income-related goals they value, and their progress towards reducing their involvement in, and eventually exiting, sex work.

Project description:Background: An 8-week educational intervention co-taught by medical students and faculty was designed to foster communication between clinical researchers and populations of interest to ultimately increase participation in clinical research by older adults, including underrepresented groups. Weekly topics focused on age-related changes and health conditions, socio-contextual factors impacting aging populations, and wellness strategies. Objectives: To evaluate the successes and weaknesses of an educational intervention aimed at increasing the participation of older adults in clinical research. Design: A focus group was assembled after an 8-week educational intervention, titled DREAMS, to obtain participants' feedback on the program, following a pre-formulated interview guide. Settings: Participants were interviewed in a health center office environment in the United States of America in April of 2016. Participants: A post-intervention focus group was conducted with a group of eight older adults (mean age = 75.8 ± 11.4 years) from 51 total participants who completed the intervention. Methods: The focus group was interviewed loosely following a pre-formed question guide. Participants were encouraged to give honest feedback. The conversation was recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analyses. Results: While participants viewed most aspects of the study as a success and stated that it was a productive learning experience, most participants had suggestions for improvements in the program content and implementation. Specifically, the composition of and direction to small breakout groups should be carefully considered and planned in this population, and attention should be paid to the delivery of sensitive topic such as death and dementia. A clear main benefit of this programmatic approach is the development of a rapport amongst participants and between participants and clinical researchers. Conclusions: The results provide useful insights regarding improving participation among hard-to-reach and historically underrepresented groups of older adults in clinical research. Future iterations of this program and similar educational interventions can use these findings to better achieve the programmatic objectives.

Project description:ImportanceAnti-programmed death 1 and anti-programmed death ligand 1 (anti-PD1/PDL1) immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) constitutes the therapeutic backbone for multiple malignant neoplasms. People living with HIV (PLWH) have routinely been excluded from ICB clinical trials, thus inhibiting broad implementation of ICB to PLWH with cancer.ObjectiveTo evaluate trends in the inclusion of PLWH in ICB cancer clinical trials that have occurred in association with ongoing efforts by the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), National Cancer Institute, to promote inclusion of PLWH.Design, setting, and participantsThis quality improvement study of ICB letters of intent (LOIs) included anti-PD1/PDL1 agents (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab) submitted to CTEP that proceeded to approved protocols between January 2014 to May 2019. The setting was ICB clinical trial development and inclusion of underrepresented populations, specifically PLWH. All 97 submitted cancer clinical trial LOIs that included the aforementioned ICB agents were eligible for inclusion. Ten proposals were excluded, of which 3 were designed specifically for PLWH and 7 were LOIs that did not advance to approved protocols within the study period. Statistical analysis was performed from April to September 2020.ExposuresCTEP advocacy included the requirement for justification of exclusion of PLWH and formal discussion of inclusion criteria during conference calls between CTEP and trial investigators.Main outcomes and measuresThe frequency of inclusion of PLWH in initially submitted LOIs was compared with final approved protocols using descriptive statistics. The probability of inclusion of PLWH in submitted LOIs and approved protocols over time was assessed using logistic regression.ResultsEighty-seven studies were included, of which 68 (78%) were pilot, phase 1, phase 1/2, or phase 2 studies and 19 (22%) were phase 2/3 or phase 3 studies. Thirty-nine studies (45%) included nivolumab, 23 (26%) included pembrolizumab, 19 (22%) included atezolizumab, and 6 (7%) included durvalumab. At initial LOI stage, 14 of 87 (16%) included PLWH. Following CTEP advocacy efforts, 61 of 87 protocols (70%) included PLWH. Of 36 LOIs to initially exclude PLWH, 24 (67%) included PLWH in final protocols. Among the 25 protocols to exclude PLWH, 21 (84%) were earlier phase studies (pilot to phase 2) and 4 (16%) were later phase studies (phase 2/3 to phase 3). Only 13 of 25 protocols (52%) provided justification for exclusion of PLWH, with safety being the most frequently cited concern (9 of 13 studies). The inclusion of PLWH on submitted LOIs increased over time (odds ratio, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.14-3.91), whereas inclusion on final protocols did not increase over time (odds ratio, 1.80; 95% CI, 0.81-1.59).Conclusions and relevanceThis study identified encouraging trends in the inclusion of PLWH in anti-PD1/PDL1 cancer trials that occurred in the period following the initiation of CTEP advocacy. Work is needed to examine what impact this will have on enrollment of PLWH in such trials. Similar advocacy may help to promote inclusion of other underrepresented populations in cancer clinical trials, including those with organ dysfunction and chronic infections.