Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28669970›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

What is best practice in sex and relationship education? A synthesis of evidence, including stakeholders' views.

Pandora Pound, Sarah Denford, Janet Shucksmith, Clare Tanton, Anne M Johnson, Jenny Owen, Rebecca Hutten, Leanne Mohan, Chris Bonell, Charles Abraham and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

Pandora PoundSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Sarah DenfordChildren's Health and Exercise Research Centre, University of Exeter St Luke's Campus, Exeter, UK.
Janet ShucksmithSchool of Health and Social Care, Health and Social Care Institute, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK.
Clare TantonResearch Department of Infection and Population Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK.
Anne M JohnsonInstitute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, London, UK.
Jenny OwenPublic Health Section, School of Health and Related Research (SHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Rebecca HuttenSchool of Health and Related Research (SHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Leanne MohanSchool of Health and Social Care, Health and Social Care Institute, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK.
Chris BonellDepartment Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Charles AbrahamPsychology Applied to Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Rona CampbellSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council G0701757Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 084840
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSex and relationship education (SRE) is regarded as vital to improving young people's sexual health, but a third of schools in England lacks good SRE and government guidance is outdated. We aimed to identify what makes SRE programmes effective, acceptable, sustainable and capable of faithful implementation.

designThis is a synthesis of findings from five research packages that we conducted (practitioner interviews, case study investigation, National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, review of reviews and qualitative synthesis). We also gained feedback on our research from stakeholder consultations. SETTINGS: Primary research and stakeholder consultations were conducted in the UK. Secondary research draws on studies worldwide.

resultsOur findings indicate that school-based SRE and school-linked sexual health services can be effective at improving sexual health. We found professional consensus that good programmes start in primary school. Professionals and young people agreed that good programmes are age-appropriate, interactive and take place in a safe environment. Some young women reported preferring single-sex classes, but young men appeared to want mixed classes. Young people and professionals agreed that SRE should take a 'life skills' approach and not focus on abstinence. Young people advocated a 'sex-positive' approach but reported this was lacking. Young people and professionals agreed that SRE should discuss risks, but young people indicated that approaches to risk need revising. Professionals felt teachers should be involved in SRE delivery, but many young people reported disliking having their teachers deliver SRE and we found that key messages could become lost when interpreted by teachers. The divergence between young people and professionals was echoed by stakeholders. We developed criteria for best practice based on the evidence.

conclusionsWe identified key features of effective and acceptable SRE. Our best practice criteria can be used to evaluate existing programmes, contribute to the development of new programmes and inform consultations around statutory SRE.

Indexed as

Safe SexSexualityAdolescentEnglandFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleSchool Health ServicesSchoolsSex EducationSex FactorsSexually Transmitted DiseasesSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultbest practiceevidenceSex and relationship educationstakeholdersyoung people

Identifiers

PMID28669970
PMCPMC5730004

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.