2. Prevention Options for Women Equals Rights
POWER
Summary of the
Prevention Options for Women Equals Rights
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

3. 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 (primarily African American and Latina)

8. 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

9. 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 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.

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

11. 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

12. Baseline Demographics
Characteristic
Proportion (%)
Age 15-17 42
18-19 20
20-25 38
Race African American 34
Ethnicity Latino/Hispanic
Age appropriate years in school 66

13. Campaign Activities East LA Ingle-wood Las Vegas Ocean-side Lake-view
Mission
Total
# Displays
111
120
115 45 51
125
561
# Brochures distributed
8814
9755
8529
9494
3590
6420
46,602
# purses redeemed
209
361
217
244
266
344
1641
Purses/
brochures
2.3
3.7
2.5
7.4
5.3
3.5

14. 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

15. Follow-up demographics
Characteristic
Proportion (%)
Age 15-17 42
18-19 19
20-25 40
Race African American 35
Ethnicity Latino/Hispanic
Age appropriate years in school 79

16. 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

17. Exposure to Campaign

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

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

20. 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

21. 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

22. Use of Condoms Last Sex Variable OR P-value Seen POWER 1.55 0.01
Age 20-25
0.56
<0.0001
Condom Intention
1.24
0.003
Positive Expectations
1.23
0.0004
Negative Expectations
0.75
Other variables in this model that were not significant included younger age and race/ethnicity

23. POWER exposure and outcomes
Awareness of POWER (0=none, 4+=most) 1 2 3 4+ N
307
272
410
210
205
Seen info on Female Condoms
25.3
67.4
72.0
83.3
88.3
Seen Female Condom
43.6
76.3
75.5
85.6
86.3
Read info on Male Condoms
79.9
90.6
93.2
97.1
97.0
Ever Used Male Condom
88.1
90.4
91.4
94.6
93.9
Positive Outcome Expectancies
3.22
3.21
3.3
3.4

24. 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

25. 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?