Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33597013›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2021

Co-production of two whole-school sexual health interventions for English secondary schools: positive choices and project respect.

Ruth Ponsford, Rebecca Meiksin, Sara Bragg, Joanna Crichton, Lucy Emmerson, Tara Tancred, Nerissa Tilouche, Gemma Morgan, Pete Gee, Honor Young and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Youth involvement in policy processes in public health, education, and social work-A scoping review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Working with children and young people in research: Supportive practices and pathways to impact.Journal of child health care : for professionals working with children in the hospital and community · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Ruth PonsfordDepartment of Public Health, Environments & Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK. Ruth.Ponsford@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2612-0249
Rebecca MeiksinDepartment of Public Health, Environments & Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.
Sara BraggCentre for Sociology of Education and Equity, UCL Institute of Education, 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AL, UK.
Joanna CrichtonPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Lucy EmmersonSex Education Forum, National Children's Bureau, 23 Mentmore Terrace, London, E8 3PN, UK.
Tara TancredCentre for Maternal and Newborn Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK.
Nerissa TiloucheDepartment of Public Health, Environments & Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.
Gemma MorganPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Pete GeeSchool of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, UK.
Honor YoungSchool of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, UK.
Alison HadleyTeenage Pregnancy Knowledge Exchange, University of Bedfordshire, University Square, Luton, LU1 3JU, UK.
Rona CampbellPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Chris BonellDepartment of Public Health, Environments & Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 14/184/02Department of Health 15/03/09Medical Research Council MR/K023233/1National Institute of Health Research 14/184/02 and 15/03/09
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhole-school interventions represent promising approaches to promoting adolescent sexual health, but they have not been rigorously trialled in the UK and it is unclear if such interventions are feasible for delivery in English secondary schools. The importance of involving intended beneficiaries, implementers and other key stakeholders in the co-production of such complex interventions prior to costly implementation and evaluation studies is widely recognised. However, practical accounts of such processes remain scarce. We report on co-production with specialist providers, students, school staff, and other practice and policy professionals of two new whole-school sexual heath interventions for implementation in English secondary schools.

methodsFormative qualitative inquiry involving 75 students aged 13-15 and 23 school staff. A group of young people trained to advise on public health research were consulted on three occasions. Twenty-three practitioners and policy-makers shared their views at a stakeholder event. Detailed written summaries of workshops and events were prepared and key themes identified to inform the design of each intervention.

resultsData confirmed acceptability of addressing unintended teenage pregnancy, sexual health and dating and relationships violence via multi-component whole-school interventions and of curriculum delivery by teachers (providing appropriate teacher selection). The need to enable flexibility for the timetabling of lessons and mode of parent communication; ensure content reflected the reality of young people's lives; and develop prescriptive teaching materials and robust school engagement strategies to reflect shrinking capacity for schools to implement public-health interventions were also highlighted and informed intervention refinements. Our research further points to some of the challenges and tensions involved in co-production where stakeholder capacity may be limited or their input may conflict with the logic of interventions or what is practicable within the constraints of a trial.

conclusionsMulti-component, whole-school approaches to addressing sexual health that involve teacher delivered curriculum may be feasible for implementation in English secondary schools. They must be adaptable to individual school settings; involve careful teacher selection; limit additional burden on staff; and accurately reflect the realities of young people's lives. Co-production can reduce research waste and may be particularly useful for developing complex interventions, like whole-school sexual health interventions, that must be adaptable to varying institutional contexts and address needs that change rapidly. When co-producing, potential limitations in relation to the representativeness of participants, the 'depth' of engagement necessary as well as the burden on participants and how they will be recompensed must be carefully considered. Having well-defined, transparent procedures for incorporating stakeholder input from the outset are also essential. Formal feasibility testing of both co-produced interventions in English secondary schools via cluster RCT is warranted.

trial registrationProject Respect: ISRCTN12524938 . Positive Choices: ISRCTN65324176.

Indexed as

Complex health interventionsCo-productionDating and relationships violenceEvaluationPublic healthRelationships and sex educationSexual harassmentSexual healthTeenage pregnancy

Identifiers

PMID33597013
PMCPMC7888187

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.