Predictors of uptake and retention in an intervention to improve social reactions to disclosures of sexual assault and partner abuse

Abstract

Objective Examine uptake (e.g., initial session participation) and retention (e.g., booster session participation) in an intervention about responding to sexual assault and partner abuse disclosures. Participants: Participants were 836 students (primarily White; upper-middle class) at a medium-sized university. Method: Participants completed baseline surveys, were invited to a two-session intervention, and responded to a follow-up survey. Results: Initial session attendance was 36.2% (n = 303); of those, 83.1% (n = 252) attended the booster. Female, sexual minority students, and students with fewer prior negative reactions, and higher initial session satisfaction were more likely to attend than other students. Participants’ reported reasons for not attending included scheduling problems and topic discomfort. Participants reported that remote attendance and higher cash incentives would have made attendance more likely. Conclusion: Findings indicate the draw of cash incentives, a need to reach high-risk students and integrate into existing organizations, and the potential for individualized prevention.

Keywords:

• Intervention
• intimate partner violence
• recruitment
• retention
• sexual assault

Acknowledgments

The authors owe a great deal of gratitude to the participants for the time and energy spent on this study. We would like to thank Jania Marshall, Caroline Leyva, Robert Eckstein, and Jane Stapleton for their contributions to the larger study, as well as the 20+ research assistants and program facilitators at University of New Hampshire. Without these agencies and individuals, this project would not have been possible.

Conflict of interest disclosure

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Notes

1 Most participants received two reminder emails. However, one wave of participants only received one reminder email due to scheduling difficulties with the Dean of students’ email broadcasts.

2 The percentages describing participants are valid meaning they do not include participants who refused to answer the question. Participant refusal on these questions was small, ranging from 3 participants (0.2%) to 13 participants (1.0%).

3 We randomized more participants into the intervention than the control group; see Edwards et al.,³¹ for more details.

4 Data on income level and expense was collected at Time 2, and the percentages describing participants are valid meaning they do not include participants who refused to answer the question or did not respond to Time 2.

5 Although we sent multiple text, call, and email reminders about sessions to participants, some participants did not leave a number, and thus did not receive text and call reminders. If these participants did not check their emails, they may have not seen the invitation.

Additional information

Funding

We thank the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) for funding this research (Grant #R34AA024849).