The Healthy Families Bright Futures Program for LGBTQ+ Teens and Caregivers

This study is testing an online group program called the Healthy Families Bright Futures Program. It's designed for LGBTQ+ teens (ages 15-18) and their caregivers to help prevent alcohol use and dating violence. The program involves seven weekly online sessions, with separate groups for teens and caregivers. Researchers want to see if the program is acceptable and helpful for these families. They will measure changes in teen alcohol use, dating violence, and communication skills, as well as caregiver acceptance and parenting skills. To join, teens must identify as LGBTQ+ or questioning, have been in a dating/sexual relationship recently, and live in the U.S. with internet access and a willing caregiver.

Study design
This interventional study plans to enroll 160 participants. It is testing a behavioral intervention.
What's involved
You would participate in a one-hour weekly online group for seven weeks. You would also complete assessments at the start, after 8 weeks, and after 3 months.
Compensation
Not stated in the trial record.
Follow-up
Participants will be followed for 3 months after the start of the program.

AI-generated from the public study record. Only the study team can confirm whether you're eligible — confirm details with them before making decisions.

NCT06309134

The Healthy Families Bright Futures Program

Recruiting
NAAges 15–18InterventionalPrevention
University of Colorado, Colorado Springs
~160 participants
Updated 2025-07-17 on ClinicalTrials.gov
What's tested:Healthy Families Bright Futures Program

At a glance

Recruiting sites
1 of 1 listed site is recruiting right now
RecruitingSuspended, closed, or not yet open
What they're measuring
Measure of Adolescent Relationships and Harassment and Abuse - Victimization
Measured over Baseline, 8 weeks, 3 months
+7 more outcomes measured
Alcohol Drinking
Violence in Adolescence
1 sites across 1 states
Colorado1
  • Heather Littleton, PhD · PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR · UCCS

Opens a ready-to-send draft in your own email app — review before sending.

Do you actually qualify for this trial?

Add a private profile and we'll compare every criterion below against your situation — and tell you which ones are met, uncertain, or excluding.

Check eligibility for this trial ~2 min · HIPAA-protected · delete anytime
Eligibility criteria

Inclusion

Age between 15 and 18 years
Self-identify as a sexual and/or gender minority or questioning identity
In dating/sexual/hook up relationship in past three months
Ability to read, write, and speak English
Current residence in United States
Regular Internet access
Ability to complete program and assessments
Has caregiver willing to complete program who is eligible to participate (18 +, sees teen at least once per week, can read/write/speak English, residence in US, Internet access, no current suicidality, psychotic symptoms, or symptoms of serious mental illness)

Exclusion

Current enrollment as a college student
Current suicidality
Current psychotic symptoms
Current symptoms of serious mental illness
  • Measure of Adolescent Relationships and Harassment and Abuse - VictimizationBaseline, 8 weeks, 3 months

    Teens only- both dichotomous scores and mean scores calculated for each subscale administered (privacy control, social control, intimidation). Items refer to frequency of past month victimization (0 times \[0\], 1-3 times \[1\], 4-10 times \[2\], more than 10 times \[3\]). Higher scores reflect greater victimization.

  • Measure of Adolescent Relationships and Harassment and Abuse - PerpetrationBaseline, 8 weeks, 3 months

    Teens only- both dichotomous scores and mean scores calculated for each subscale administered (cyber control, social control, intimidation). Items refer to frequency of past month perpetration (0 times \[0\], 1-3 times \[1\], 4-10 times \[2\], more than 10 times \[3\]). Higher scores reflect greater perpetration.

  • Monitoring the future alcohol use intentionsBaseline, 8 weeks, 3 months

    Teens only, two items that query about intentions to drink alcohol in the next 3 months and the next 30 days. Rating scale responses ranging from 1- Definitely will and 5- Definitely won't. Mean score of both items are calculated. Possible range 1 to 5, higher scores reflect lower intentions to use alcohol.

  • Monitoring the future alcohol use itemsBaseline, 8 weeks, 3 months

    Teens only- Items assesses frequency of alcohol use and frequency of getting drunk in past 30 days. Response options are: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6-9, 10-19, 20-39, 40+. Mean scores across both items are calculated. Higher scores reflect more frequent alcohol use.

  • Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy Questionnaire- Shortened adolescent versionBaseline, 8 weeks, 3 months

    Teens only- both total and subscale (opportunistic, social pressure, emotional relief) scores are calculated. Items are summed. Higher scores reflect greater alcohol refusal self-efficacy. Possible total range 9- 54.

  • Conflict Tactics Scale- 2 (SGM Specific IPV Perpetration)Baseline, 8 weeks, 3 months

    Teens only- both a dichotomous and mean score calculated. For each item, teens indicate how often in the past month they engaged in the SGM specific dating violence behavior with options of 0 times (0), 1-3 times (1), 4-10 times (2), more than 10 times (3). Higher scores reflect greater engagement in SGM specific IPV.

  • Conflict Tactics Scale- 2 (SGM Specific IPV Victimization)Baseline, 8 weeks, 3 months

    Teens only- both a dichotomous and mean score calculated. For each item, teens indicate how often in the past month they experience the SGM specific dating violence behavior with options of 0 times (0), 1-3 times (1), 4-10 times (2), more than 10 times (3). Higher scores reflect greater SGM specific IPV victimization.

  • Program acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility ratings (drawn from Weiner)8 weeks

    Teens and caregivers- subscales consist of 6 items each with one assessing appropriateness (e.g., the program was a good match to my needs), one assessing acceptability (e.g., I liked the program), and one assessing feasibility (e.g., The skills I learned in the program are easy to use). Mean scores are calculated for each subscale. For each item, participants rate their agreement with the statement on a 5 point scale ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree. Mean subscale scores are compared to scale midpoint (3). Scores significantly above the midpoint are evidence of intervention acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility.