Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30519482›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2018

Peer-led intervention to prevent and reduce STI transmission and improve sexual health in secondary schools (STASH): protocol for a feasibility study.

Ross Forsyth, Carrie Purcell, Sarah Barry, Sharon Simpson, Rachael Hunter, Lisa McDaid, Lawrie Elliot, Julia Bailey, Kirsty Wetherall, Mark McCann and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  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
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

13 authors.

Ross Forsyth1MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Top Floor, 200 Renfield St, Glasgow, G2 3AX UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0414-5640
Carrie Purcell1MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Top Floor, 200 Renfield St, Glasgow, G2 3AX UK.
Sarah Barry3Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, UK.
Sharon Simpson1MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Top Floor, 200 Renfield St, Glasgow, G2 3AX UK.
Rachael Hunter2Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Lisa McDaid1MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Top Floor, 200 Renfield St, Glasgow, G2 3AX UK.
Lawrie Elliot4Department of Nursing and Community Health, School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Julia Bailey2Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Kirsty Wetherall5Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Mark McCann1MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Top Floor, 200 Renfield St, Glasgow, G2 3AX UK.
Chiara Broccatelli1MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Top Floor, 200 Renfield St, Glasgow, G2 3AX UK.
Laurence Moore *1MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Top Floor, 200 Renfield St, Glasgow, G2 3AX UK.
Kirstin Mitchell *1MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Top Floor, 200 Renfield St, Glasgow, G2 3AX UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU11Chief Scientist Office SPHSU14Department of Health 10/131/01Department of Health 11/3009/04Department of Health PHR/14/182/14Medical Research Council G0701749Medical Research Council MC_PC_13027Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/11Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/14
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundYoung people in the UK are at highest risk of sexually transmitted infections and report higher levels of unsafe sex than any other age group. Involving peer supporters in intervention delivery is acceptable to students and effective in reducing risk behaviours via 'diffusion of innovation', particularly where peer supporters are influential in their networks. Informal peer-led interventions offer a useful alternative to peer-led didactic teaching, which has shown limited effects. Building on the successful ASSIST anti-smoking intervention, the 'STis And Sexual Health' (STASH) intervention involves identification and recruitment of the most influential students as peer supporters, training and support to these students by specialist trainers, positive sex and relationships messages, spread by peer supporters to their friendship groups in person and via social media. METHODS/

designThis protocol describes a feasibility trial of the STASH intervention in six schools. It builds on an earlier study phase of intervention co-development using patient and public involvement (PPI) activities, followed by a pilot of intervention components and evaluation tools in one school. Participants are fourth year (S4) students (aged 14-16) in state-funded Scottish secondary schools who have received some level of teacher-led sex education. The previous cohort of S4 students (those completing S4 in the year prior to the intervention) will serve as controls. Data will be collected from controls (month 16), baseline (month 20-21) and follow-up (month 27-30) via a web-based questionnaire, which will measure (and test the reliability of) primary outcome measures for a phase III trial (delayed initiation of/abstinence from sex and consistent condom use), secondary outcomes and mediators of sexual behaviour (including school climate and social networks). The main feasibility outcome is whether the study meets pre-set progression criteria regarding feasibility and acceptability, measured largely via a process evaluation (basic measures in all 6 schools and in-depth in 2-4 schools). An economic evaluation reporting costs alongside consequences will be conducted. DISCUSSION: This study will inform decisions on the feasibility, design and sample size for a phase III effectiveness trial to assess whether the STASH intervention is effective in reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections in young people.

trial registrationISRCTN97369178.

Indexed as

Feasibility outcomesIntervention developmentPeer supportersProcess evaluationSexual healthSexually transmitted infectionsSocial mediaSocial networksYoung people

Identifiers

PMID30519482
PMCPMC6264037

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.