Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19067478›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2008

The long-term effects of a peer-led sex education programme (RIPPLE): a cluster randomised trial in schools in England.

Judith Stephenson, Vicki Strange, Elizabeth Allen, Andrew Copas, Anne Johnson, Chris Bonell, Abdel Babiker, Ann Oakley, RIPPLE Study Team

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
11.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 112 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. School-based interventions for improving contraceptive use in adolescents.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Interventions for preventing unintended pregnancies among adolescents.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  7. Behavioral interventions for improving condom use for dual protection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Judith StephensonDepartment of Infection and Population Health, Division of Population Health, University College London, London, UK. jstephen@gum.ucl.ac.uk
Vicki Strange
Elizabeth Allen
Andrew Copas
Anne Johnson
Chris Bonell
Abdel Babiker
Ann Oakley
RIPPLE Study Team
University College London · GBMedical Research Council · GBUniversity of London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G9626797
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeer-led sex education is widely believed to be an effective approach to reducing unsafe sex among young people, but reliable evidence from long-term studies is lacking. To assess the effectiveness of one form of school-based peer-led sex education in reducing unintended teenage pregnancy, we did a cluster (school) randomised trial with 7 y of follow-up. METHODS AND

findingsTwenty-seven representative schools in England, with over 9,000 pupils aged 13-14 y at baseline, took part in the trial. Schools were randomised to either peer-led sex education (intervention) or to continue their usual teacher-led sex education (control). Peer educators, aged 16-17 y, were trained to deliver three 1-h classroom sessions of sex education to 13- to 14-y-old pupils from the same schools. The sessions used participatory learning methods designed to improve the younger pupils' skills in sexual communication and condom use and their knowledge about pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), contraception, and local sexual health services. Main outcome measures were abortion and live births by age 20 y, determined by anonymised linkage of girls to routine (statutory) data. Assessment of these outcomes was blind to sex education allocation. The proportion of girls who had one or more abortions before age 20 y was the same in each arm (intervention, 5.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.0%-6.3%]; control, 5.0% [95% CI 4.0%-6.4%]). The odds ratio (OR) adjusted for randomisation strata was 1.07 (95% CI 0.80-1.42, p = 0.64, intervention versus control). The proportion of girls with one or more live births by 20.5 y was 7.5% (95% CI 5.9%-9.6%) in the intervention arm and 10.6% (95% CI 6.8%-16.1%) in the control arm, adjusted OR 0.77 (0.51-1.15). Fewer girls in the peer-led arm self-reported a pregnancy by age 18 y (7.2% intervention versus 11.2% control, adjusted OR 0.62 [95% CI 0.42-0.91], weighted for non-response; response rate 61% intervention, 45% control). There were no significant differences for girls or boys in self-reported unprotected first sex, regretted or pressured sex, quality of current sexual relationship, diagnosed sexually transmitted diseases, or ability to identify local sexual health services.

conclusionCompared with conventional school sex education at age 13-14 y, this form of peer-led sex education was not associated with change in teenage abortions, but may have led to fewer teenage births and was popular with pupils. It merits consideration within broader teenage pregnancy prevention strategies.

Indexed as

Peer GroupAbortion, InducedAdolescentEnglandFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInterpersonal RelationsLive BirthMalePregnancyPregnancy in AdolescenceSchool Health ServicesSchoolsSex EducationSexually Transmitted Diseases

Identifiers

PMID19067478
PMCPMC2586352
OpenAlexW2013705301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.