Cited by 522Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceCrime Patterns and InterventionsBullying, Victimization, and Aggression

Assessing the long-term effects of the Safe dates program and a booster in preventing and reducing adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration

Open access
Foshee, Vangie A., Bauman, Karl E., Ennett, Susan T., Linder, G. Fletcher, Benefield, Thad, Suchindran, Chirayath·2004·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study determined 4-year postintervention effects of Safe Dates on dating violence, booster effects, and moderators of the program effects. METHODS: We gathered baseline data in 10 schools that were randomly allocated to a treatment condition. We collected follow-up data 1 month after the program and then yearly thereafter for 4 years. Between the 2- and 3-year follow-ups, a randomly selected half of treatment adolescents received a booster. RESULTS: Compared with controls, adolescents receiving Safe Dates reported significantly less physical, serious physical, and sexual dating violence perpetration and victimization 4 years after the program. The booster did not improve the effectiveness of Safe Dates. CONCLUSIONS: Safe Dates shows promise for preventing dating violence but the booster should not be used.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2105/ajph.94.4.619

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [31]Bachman R, Saltzman LE. Violence against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 1995:1–8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Linder, G. F., Benefield, T., & Suchindran, C.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
2004-04
Volume
94
Issue
4
Pages
619-624
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
OpenAlex
W1984407050
Cited by
522
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 20
FWCI
11.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U81/CCU409964)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Keywords
dating violence, dating violence perpetration, dating violence victimization, booster intervention, long-term program effects, school-based intervention, sexual violence, physical violence
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Psychology, Adolescent, Courtship, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health Education, Humans, Male, North Carolina, Periodicals as Topic, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Rural Health, School Health Services, Violence, Program Evaluation, Linear Models, Adolescent Health Services, Safety Management, Crime Victims

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review