Aim 1 Phase 3. Change in the respondent's confidence in making an effective decision to disclose HIV status to a family member.

Question Item: "How confident are you that you could make an effective decision of whether to tell a family member that you are HIV-positive?"

(1 item; 11-pt scale: 0-10; 0=cannot do, 10=certain can do). Higher scores mean more confidence.

Aim 1 Phase 3. Change in respondent's confidence in making an effective decision to disclose pregnancy to a family member.

Question Item: "How confident are you that you could make an effective decision of whether to tell a family member that you are pregnant?"

(1 item, 11-pt scale: 0-10; 0=cannot do, 10=certain can do; higher scores mean higher confidence).

Adapted from self-efficacy to make an effective decision to disclose HIV status.

Change in internalized HIV-related stigma (or self-stigma) among adolescents (e.g., "You feel guilty that you are HIV positive;" Response Options: Agree, Disagree).

(4 summed items; scale score range 0-4 with higher values indicating more stigma)

Change in respondent's use of avoidance, denial, and wishful thinking to cope with the stigma of HIV/AIDS (e.g. "I try not to think about the stigma of living with HIV. I try to forget all about it;" Response Options: Not at all, A little, Some, A lot).

(4 summed items; score range 4-16 with higher values indicating poorer coping)

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescent directly informs her caregiver that she is pregnant and/or living with HIV.

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescent makes no direct effort to reveal her status.

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Caregiver informs the adolescent or otherwise initiates a discussion that reveals the status.

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Caregiver informs the adolescent or otherwise initiates a discussion that reveals the status.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: The disclosure occurs though it was unintended by the adolescent.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescents who made statements suggesting that HIV-related stigma is worse than stigma associated with pregnancy.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescents who made statements suggesting that pregnancy-related stigma is worse than stigma associated with HIV.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescents who made statements suggesting that HIV- and pregnancy-related stigma are equally bad.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who noted having not received support (e.g., money, food, clothing, encouragement, emotional support, etc.) that they needed.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who thought the social support they received improved after disclosing their pregnancies.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who thought the social support they received worsened after disclosing their pregnancies.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who thought the social support they received improved after disclosing HIV.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who thought the social support they received worsened after disclosing HIV.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who reported no change regarding the social support they received after having disclosed their pregnancy.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who reported no change regarding the social support they received after having disclosed HIV.

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescents reported whether, at the time of the interview, their primary caregiver knew about their pregnancy.

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescents reported whether, at the time of their interview, their primary caregiver knew about their HIV status.

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

Data collected for Aim 1, Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

Data collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

Data collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

Data collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

Data collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

Data collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

Data collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

Data were collected during Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2. Frequencies of responses from caregivers concerning the intervention prototype and a potential complementary digital intervention for caregivers from four focus groups which included a total of 47 caregivers. Measure Definition: Caregivers who liked the idea of developing a similar digital intervention (i.e., an "App") for caregivers.

Data were collected during Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2. Frequencies of responses from caregivers concerning the intervention prototype and a potential complementary digital intervention for caregivers from four focus groups which included a total of 47 caregivers. Measure Definition: Caregivers who preferred to be engaged in a group setting as an alternative to using an App.

Data were collected for Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2. Frequencies of responses from caregivers concerning the intervention prototype and a potential complementary digital intervention for caregivers from four focus groups which included a total of 47 caregivers. Measure Definition: Caregivers who preferred to be engaged in a group setting as an alternative to using an App.

Data were collected for Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2. Frequencies of responses from caregivers concerning the intervention prototype and a potential complementary digital intervention for caregivers from four focus groups which included a total of 47 caregivers. Measure Definition: Caregivers who preferred to be engaged via radio advertisements as an alternative to using an App.

Data were collected for Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2. Frequencies of responses from caregivers concerning the intervention prototype and a potential complementary digital intervention for caregivers from four focus groups which included a total of 47 caregivers. Measure Definition: Caregivers who preferred to be engaged in a healthcare setting as an alternative to using an App.

Measures internalized HIV-related stigma (or self-stigma) among people living with HIV/AIDS (e.g., "You feel guilty that you are HIV positive;" Response Options: Agree, Disagree).

(4 summed items; scale score range 0-4 with higher values indicating more stigma; Baseline scale Cronbach alpha =.870)

Measures experienced stigma as perceived by people living with HIV (e.g., "Someone stopped being my friend;" Response Options: Never, Once or twice, Several times, Most of the time) (14 summed items; 4-pt scale 0-3; score range 0-42 with higher values indicating more stigma; Baseline Cronbach alpha = .919). Although 19 items were examined for the scale, we deleted variables with no variation in responses. We kept only the items that had variation at both time points.

Measures how much respondent uses avoidance, denial, and wishful thinking to cope with the stigma of HIV/AIDS (e.g. "I try not to think about the stigma of living with HIV. I try to forget all about it;" Response Options: Not at all, A little, Some, A lot).

(4 summed items; 4-pt scale 1-4; score range 4-16 with higher values indicating poorer coping; Baseline Cronbach alpha = .958)

Adapted for pregnancy-related stigma from the Internalized AIDS-Related Stigma Scale. Measures internalized pregnancy-related stigma among adolescents (e.g., "You feel guilty that you are pregnant;" Response Options: Agree, Disagree) (4 summed items; scale score range 0-4 with higher values indicating more stigma; Baseline Cronbach alpha = .777)

Adapted from the HIV/AIDS Stigma Instrument - PWLA. Measures experienced stigma due to being pregnant. (e.g., "People sang offensive songs when I passed by;" Response Options: Never, Once or twice, Several times, Most of the time).

(11 summed items; 4-pt scale 0-3; score range 0-33 with higher values indicating more stigma; Baseline Cronbach alpha = .850). Thirteen potential items were considered for the scale and 11 items remained after deleting those that lacked variation in responses.

Adapted from Response to Stress Questionnaire - HIV/AIDS Stigma: Disengaging Coping Subscale to measure how much respondent uses avoidance, denial, and wishful thinking to cope with pregnancy-related stigma (e.g., "I try not to think about the stigma of being pregnant. I try to forget all about it;" Response Options: Not at all, A little, Some, A lot).

(4 summed items; 4-pt scale 1-4; score range 4-16 with higher values indicating poorer coping; Baseline Cronbach alpha = .876)

Measures respondent's confidence in making an effective decision to disclose HIV status to a family member.

Question Item: "How confident are you that you could make an effective decision of whether to tell a family member that you are HIV-positive?"

(1 item; 11-pt scale: 0-10; 0=cannot do, 10=certain can do). Higher scores mean more confidence.

Measures respondent's confidence in knowing when it is safe to disclose HIV status to a family member.

Question Item: "How confident are you that you could know whether it was safe to tell a family member parent that you are HIV-positive?"

(1 item; 11-pt scale: 0-10; 0=cannot do, 10=certain can do). Higher scores mean more confidence.

Measures whether the respondent finds it difficult to disclose their HIV status to people.

Question Item: "It is difficult to tell people about my HIV infection."

(1 item; agree/disagree)

Adapted from self-efficacy to make an effective decision to disclose HIV status. Measures respondent's confidence in making an effective decision to disclose pregnancy to a family member.

Question Item: "How confident are you that you could make an effective decision of whether to tell a family member that you are pregnant?"

(1 item, 11-pt scale: 0-10; 0=cannot do, 10=certain can do). Higher scores mean more confidence.

Adapted from self-efficacy in knowing when it is safe to disclose HIV status. Measures respondent's confidence in knowing when it is safe to disclose pregnancy to a family member.

Question Item: "How confident are you that you could know whether it was safe to tell a family member parent that you are HIV-positive?

(1 item, 11-pt scale: 0-10, 0=cannot do, 10=certain can do). Higher scores mean more confidence.

Measures whether the respondent finds it difficult to disclose their pregnancy to people.

Question Item: "It is difficult to tell people about my HIV infection."

(1 item; agree/disagree)

Measures how much support the respondent feels she has in her life from her family.

Example item: "Family will always be there for me" (5-pt response scale of 0="Not at all like me" to 4="Very much like me").

(6 summed items; score range 0-24 with higher values indicating greater support; Baseline Cronbach alpha = .866)

Measures multiple dimensions of support, including emotional, informational, tangible, affectionate, and positive social interaction.

Example item: "Someone you can count on to listen to you when you need to talk." (5-point response scale of 0="None of the Time" to 4="All of the Time").

(19 summed items; score range 0-76 with higher values indicating greater support; Baseline Cronbach alpha = .937)

Measures depressive symptoms among general and clinical populations in the past 7 days. Example item: "How often did you feel that you could not 'get going'? (4-pt scale of 0="Rarely (<1 day) to 3="Most or all of the time (5-7 days)".

(10 summed items; score range 0-30 with higher values indicating more depression symptomology; Baseline Cronbach alpha = .814)

Used for screening for generalized anxiety symptomology and assessing severity over last two weeks in clinical practice and research.

Example item: "How often have you felt nervous, anxious or on edge" (4-pt response scale of 0="Rarely" (<1 day) to 3="Most or all of the time (5-7 days)".

(7 summed items; score range 0-21 with higher values indicating more anxiety symptomology; Baseline Cronbach alpha = .871)

Aim 1 Phase 3 Acceptability of Final Prototype. Quantitative data; overall subjective quality; self-report survey items assessing overall subjective quality of the digital intervention. Scale title: Adapted User version Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS; Low quality=1, High quality =5). App subjective quality mean scores: Min=3.67, Max=5.00. Higher scores indicate perception of higher quality.

Aim 1 Phase 3. Change in perception of experienced stigma (e.g., "Someone stopped being my friend.") (Never, Once or twice, Several times, Most of the time)(14 summed items; scale score range 0-42 with higher values indicating more stigma)

Aim 1 Phase 3. Change in internalized pregnancy-related stigma among adolescents. Example item:"Becoming pregnant and having a baby as a teen makes me feel ashamed and bad about myself;" Response Options: Agree, Disagree) (4 summed items; scale score range 0-4 with higher values indicating more stigma).

Adapted for pregnancy-related stigma from the Internalized AIDS-Related Stigma Scale.

Aim 1 Phase 3. Change in the respondent's confidence in making an effective decision to disclose HIV status to a family member.

Question Item: "How confident are you that you could make an effective decision of whether to tell a family member that you are HIV-positive?"

(1 item; 11-pt scale: 0-10; 0=cannot do, 10=certain can do). Higher scores mean more confidence.

Aim 1 Phase 3. Change in respondent's confidence in making an effective decision to disclose pregnancy to a family member.

Question Item: "How confident are you that you could make an effective decision of whether to tell a family member that you are pregnant?"

(1 item, 11-pt scale: 0-10; 0=cannot do, 10=certain can do; higher scores mean higher confidence).

Adapted from self-efficacy to make an effective decision to disclose HIV status.

Measures respondent's confidence in knowing when it is safe to disclose HIV status to a family member.

Question Item: "How confident are you that you could know whether it was safe to tell a family member parent that you are HIV-positive?"

(1 item; 11-pt scale: 0-10; 0=cannot do, 10=certain can do). Higher scores mean more confidence.

Change in internalized HIV-related stigma (or self-stigma) among adolescents (e.g., "You feel guilty that you are HIV positive;" Response Options: Agree, Disagree).

(4 summed items; scale score range 0-4 with higher values indicating more stigma)

Change in respondent's use of avoidance, denial, and wishful thinking to cope with the stigma of HIV/AIDS (e.g. "I try not to think about the stigma of living with HIV. I try to forget all about it;" Response Options: Not at all, A little, Some, A lot).

(4 summed items; score range 4-16 with higher values indicating poorer coping)

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescent directly informs her caregiver that she is pregnant and/or living with HIV.

The total number of participants in Aim 1 Phase 1 IDIs and DIs was 70, which included 46 adolescents and 24 caregivers. However, we used n=46 adolescents as our denominator or number analyzed because the focus of this phase was adolescents experiences.

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescent makes no direct effort to reveal her status.

The total number of participants in Aim 1 Phase 1 IDIs and DIs was 70, which included 46 adolescents and 24 caregivers. However, we used n=46 adolescents as our denominator or number analyzed because the focus of this phase was adolescents experiences.

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Caregiver informs the adolescent or otherwise initiates a discussion that reveals the status.

The total number of participants in Aim 1 Phase 1 IDIs and DIs was 70, which included 46 adolescents and 24 caregivers. We used N=46 adolescents as our denominator or number analyzed because the focus of this phase was adolescents experiences.

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Caregiver informs the adolescent or otherwise initiates a discussion that reveals the status.

The total number of participants in Aim 1 Phase 1 IDIs and DIs was 70, which included 46 adolescents and 24 caregivers. However, we used n=46 adolescents as our denominator or number analyzed because the focus of this phase was adolescents experiences.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: The disclosure occurs though it was unintended by the adolescent.

The total number of participants in Aim 1 Phase 1 IDIs and DIs was 70, which included 46 adolescents and 24 caregivers. However, we used n=46 adolescents as our denominator or number analyzed because the focus of this phase was adolescents experiences.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescents who made statements suggesting that HIV-related stigma is worse than stigma associated with pregnancy.

The total number of participants in Aim 1 Phase 1 IDIs and DIs was 70, which included 46 adolescents and 24 caregivers. However, we used n=46 adolescents as our denominator or number analyzed because the focus of this phase was adolescents experiences. HIV versus pregnancy-related stigma was not discussed with adolescents in 19 interviews. Thus, 27 participants were evaluated for this theme.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescents who made statements suggesting that pregnancy-related stigma is worse than stigma associated with HIV.

The total number of participants in Aim 1 Phase 1 IDIs and DIs was 70, which included 46 adolescents and 24 caregivers. We used N=46 adolescents as our denominator or number analyzed because the focus of this phase was adolescents experiences. HIV versus pregnancy-related stigma was not discussed with adolescents in 19 interviews. Thus, 27 participants were evaluated for this theme.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescents who made statements suggesting that HIV- and pregnancy-related stigma are equally bad.

The total number of participants in Aim 1 Phase 1 IDIs and DIs was 70, which included 46 adolescents and 24 caregivers. We used N=46 adolescents as our denominator or number analyzed because the focus of this phase was adolescents experiences. HIV versus pregnancy-related stigma was not discussed with adolescents in 19 interviews. Thus, 27 participants were evaluated for this theme.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who noted having not received support (e.g., money, food, clothing, encouragement, emotional support, etc.) that they needed.

The total number of participants in Aim 1 Phase 1 IDIs and DIs was 70, which included 46 adolescents and 24 caregivers. We used N=46 adolescents as our denominator or number analyzed because the focus of this phase was adolescents experiences. Social support received before versus after disclosure of status was not discussed with adolescents in eight interviews. Thus, 38 participants were evaluated for this theme.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who thought the social support they received improved after disclosing their pregnancies.

The total number of participants in Aim 1 Phase 1 IDIs and DIs was 70, which included 46 adolescents and 24 caregivers. We used N=46 adolescents as our denominator or number analyzed because the focus of this phase was adolescents experiences. Social support received before versus after disclosure of status was not discussed with adolescents in eight interviews. Thus, 38 participants were evaluated for this theme.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who thought the social support they received worsened after disclosing their pregnancies.

The total number of participants in Aim 1 Phase 1 IDIs and DIs was 70, which included 46 adolescents and 24 caregivers. We used N=46 adolescents as our denominator or number analyzed because the focus of this phase was adolescents experiences. Social support received before versus after disclosure of status was not discussed with adolescents in eight interviews. Thus, 38 participants were evaluated for this theme.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who thought the social support they received improved after disclosing HIV.

The total number of participants in Aim 1 Phase 1 IDIs and DIs was 70, which included 46 adolescents and 24 caregivers. We used N=46 adolescents as our denominator or number analyzed because the focus of this phase was adolescents experiences. Social support received before versus after disclosure of status was not discussed with adolescents in eight interviews. Thus, 38 participants were evaluated for this theme.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who thought the social support they received worsened after disclosing HIV.

The total number of participants in Aim 1 Phase 1 IDIs and DIs was 70, which included 46 adolescents and 24 caregivers. We used N=46 adolescents as our denominator or number analyzed because the focus of this phase was adolescents experiences. Social support received before versus after disclosure of status was not discussed with adolescents in eight interviews. Thus, 38 participants were evaluated for this theme.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who reported no change regarding the social support they received after having disclosed their pregnancy.

The total number of participants in Aim 1 Phase 1 IDIs and DIs was 70, which included 46 adolescents and 24 caregivers. We used N=46 adolescents as our denominator or number analyzed because the focus of this phase was adolescents experiences. Social support received before versus after disclosure of status was not discussed with adolescents in eight interviews. Thus, 38 participants contributed to analysis of this theme.

Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who reported no change regarding the social support they received after having disclosed HIV.

The total number of participants in Aim 1 Phase 1 IDIs and DIs was 70, which included 46 adolescents and 24 caregivers. We used N=46 adolescents as our denominator or number analyzed because the focus of this phase was adolescents experiences. Social support received before versus after disclosure of status was not discussed with adolescents in eight interviews. Thus, 38 participants contributed to analysis of this theme.

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescents reported whether, at the time of the interview, their primary caregiver knew about their pregnancy.

The total number of participants in Aim 1 Phase 1 IDIs and DIs was 70, which included 46 adolescents and 24 caregivers. We used N=46 adolescents as our denominator or number analyzed because the focus of this phase was adolescents experiences.

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescents reported whether, at the time of their interview, their primary caregiver knew about their HIV status.

The total number of participants in Aim 1 Phase 1 IDIs and DIs was 70, which included 46 adolescents and 24 caregivers. We used N=46 adolescents as our denominator or number analyzed because the focus of this phase was adolescents experiences.

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

A total of 22 pregnant adolescents participated in Aim 1 Phase 2 focus groups.

Data collected for Aim 1, Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

A total of 22 pregnant adolescents participated in Aim 1 Phase 2 focus groups.

Data collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

A total of 22 pregnant adolescents participated in Aim 1 Phase 2 focus groups.

Data collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

A total of 22 pregnant adolescents participated in Aim 1 Phase 2 focus groups.

Data collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

A total of 22 pregnant adolescents participated in Aim 1 Phase 2 focus groups.

Data collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

A total of 22 pregnant adolescents participated in Aim 1 Phase 2 focus groups.

Data collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

A total of 22 pregnant adolescents participated in Aim 1 Phase 2 focus groups.

Data collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

A total of 22 pregnant adolescents participated in Aim 1 Phase 2 focus groups.

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

A total of 22 pregnant adolescents participated in Aim 1 Phase 2 focus groups.

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

A total of 22 pregnant adolescents participated in Aim 1 Phase 2 focus groups.

Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.

A total of 22 pregnant adolescents participated in Aim 1 Phase 2 focus groups.

Data were collected during Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2. Frequencies of responses from caregivers concerning the intervention prototype and a potential complementary digital intervention for caregivers from four focus groups which included a total of 47 caregivers. Measure Definition: Caregivers who liked the idea of developing a similar digital intervention (i.e., an "App") for caregivers.

The total number of participants in Aim 2 focus groups was 47 caregivers.

Data were collected during Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2. Frequencies of responses from caregivers concerning the intervention prototype and a potential complementary digital intervention for caregivers from four focus groups which included a total of 47 caregivers. Measure Definition: Caregivers who preferred to be engaged in a group setting as an alternative to using an App.

The total number of participants in Aim 2 focus groups was 47 caregivers.

Data were collected for Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2. Frequencies of responses from caregivers concerning the intervention prototype and a potential complementary digital intervention for caregivers from four focus groups which included a total of 47 caregivers. Measure Definition: Caregivers who preferred to be engaged in a group setting as an alternative to using an App.

The total number of participants in Aim 2 focus groups was 47 caregivers.

Data were collected for Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2. Frequencies of responses from caregivers concerning the intervention prototype and a potential complementary digital intervention for caregivers from four focus groups which included a total of 47 caregivers. Measure Definition: Caregivers who preferred to be engaged via radio advertisements as an alternative to using an App.

The total number of participants in Aim 2 focus groups was 47 caregivers.

Data were collected for Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2. Frequencies of responses from caregivers concerning the intervention prototype and a potential complementary digital intervention for caregivers from four focus groups which included a total of 47 caregivers. Measure Definition: Caregivers who preferred to be engaged in a healthcare setting as an alternative to using an App.

The total number of participants in Aim 2 focus groups was 47 caregivers.