Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23427206›Full record

ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health2013

Has untargeted sexual health promotion for young people reached its limit? A quasi-experimental study.

Lawrie Elliott, Marion Henderson, Catherine Nixon, Daniel Wight

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Improving Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health: A Systematic Review of Potential Interventions.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2016
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lawrie ElliottSchool of Nursing Midwifery and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Sighthill Campus, Edinburgh, UK. l.elliott@napier.ac.uk
Marion Henderson
Catherine Nixon
Daniel Wight
MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit · GBEdinburgh Napier University · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UP_A540_1108
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTheoretically, there may be benefit in augmenting school-based sexual health education with sexual health services, but the outcomes are poorly understood. Healthy Respect 2 (HR2) combined sex education with youth-friendly sexual health services, media campaigns and branding, and encouraged joint working between health services, local government and the voluntary sector. This study examined whether HR2: (1) improved young people's sexual health knowledge, attitudes, behaviour and use of sexual health services and (2) reduced socioeconomic inequalities in sexual health.

methodsA quasi-experiment in which the intervention and comparison areas were matched for teenage pregnancy and terminations, and schools were matched by social deprivation. 5283 pupils aged 15-16 years (2269 intervention, 3014 comparison) were recruited to cross-sectional surveys in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

resultsThe intervention improved males' and, to a lesser extent, females' sexual health knowledge. Males' intention to use condoms, and reported use of condoms, was unaffected, compared with a reduction in both among males in the comparison arm. Although females exposed to the intervention became less accepting of condoms, there was no change in their intention to use condoms and reported condom use. Pupils became more tolerant of sexual coercion in both the intervention and comparison arms. Attitudes towards same-sex relationships remained largely unaffected. More pupils in the HR2 area used sexual health services, including those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. This aside, sexual health inequalities remained.

conclusionsCombining school-based sex education and sexual health clinics has a limited impact. Interventions that address the upstream causes of poor sexual health, such as a detrimental sociocultural environment, represent promising alternatives. These should prioritise the most vulnerable young people.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth Status DisparitiesAbortion, InducedAdolescentCondomsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Acceptance of Health CarePregnancyPregnancy in AdolescencePsychosocial DeprivationReproductive Health

Identifiers

PMID23427206
PMCPMC3607092
OpenAlexW2155746603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.