Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34127082›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2021

Feasibility study of peer-led and school-based social network Intervention (STASH) to promote adolescent sexual health.

Kirstin R Mitchell, Carrie Purcell, Sharon A Simpson, Chiara Broccatelli, Julia V Bailey, Sarah J E Barry, Lawrie Elliott, Ross Forsyth, Rachael Hunter, Mark McCann and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract 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 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. 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 at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Kirstin R MitchellMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 99 Berkeley St, Glasgow, G3 7HR, UK. Kirstin.mitchell@glasgow.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4409-6601
Carrie PurcellMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 99 Berkeley St, Glasgow, G3 7HR, UK.
Sharon A SimpsonMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 99 Berkeley St, Glasgow, G3 7HR, UK.
Chiara BroccatelliMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 99 Berkeley St, Glasgow, G3 7HR, UK.
Julia V BaileyeHealth Unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Sarah J E BarryDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
Lawrie ElliottDepartment of Nursing and Community Health, School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Ross ForsythMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 99 Berkeley St, Glasgow, G3 7HR, UK.
Rachael HuntereHealth Unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Mark McCannMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 99 Berkeley St, Glasgow, G3 7HR, UK.
Lisa McDaidMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 99 Berkeley St, Glasgow, G3 7HR, UK.
Kirsty WetherallRobertson Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Laurence MooreMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 99 Berkeley St, Glasgow, G3 7HR, UK.
MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit · GBThe University of Queensland · AUUniversity College London · GBGlasgow Caledonian University · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GBUniversity of Strathclyde · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU16Chief Scientist Office SPHSU18Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate SPHSU11Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate SPHSU14Medical Research Council MC_PC_13027Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/3Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/11Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/14Medical Research Council Strategic Award MC-PC-13027Medical Research Council (GB) MC_UU_12017/11Medical Research Council (GB) MC_UU_12017/14Public Health Research Programme 14/182/14
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective sex education is the key to good sexual health. Peer-led approaches can augment teacher-delivered sex education, but many fail to capitalise on mechanisms of social influence. We assessed the feasibility of a novel intervention (STASH) in which students (aged 14-16) nominated as influential by their peers were recruited and trained as Peer Supporters (PS). Over a 5-10-week period, they spread positive sexual health messages to friends in their year group, both in-person and via social media, and were supported to do so via weekly trainer-facilitated meetings. The aims of the study were to assess the feasibility of STASH (acceptability, fidelity and reach), to test and refine the programme theory and to establish whether the study met pre-set progression criteria for continuation to larger-scale evaluation.

methodsThe overall design was a non-randomised feasibility study of the STASH intervention in 6 schools in Scotland. Baseline (n=680) and follow-up questionnaires (approx. 6 months later; n=603) were administered to the intervention year group. The control group (students in year above) completed the follow-up questionnaire only (n=696), 1 year before the intervention group. The PS (n=88) completed a brief web survey about their experience of the role; researchers interviewed participants in key roles (PS (n=20); PS friends (n=22); teachers (n=8); trainers (n=3)) and observed 20 intervention activities. Activity evaluation forms and project monitoring data also contributed information. We performed descriptive quantitative analysis and thematic qualitative analysis.

resultsThe PS role was acceptable; on average across schools >50% of students nominated as influential by their friends, signed up and were trained (n=104). This equated to 13% of the year group. Trained PS rarely dropped out (97% completion rate) and 85% said they liked the role. Fidelity was good (all bar one trainer-led activity carried out; PS were active). The intervention had good reach; PS were reasonably well connected and perceived as 'a good mix' and 58% of students reported exposure to STASH. Hypothesised pre-conditions, contextual influences and mechanisms of change for the intervention were largely confirmed. All bar one of the progression criteria was met.

conclusionThe weight of evidence supports continuation to full-scale evaluation.

trial registrationCurrent controlled trials ISRCTN97369178.

Indexed as

AcceptabilityAdolescentsDiffusion of innovationFeasibility trialNon-randomisedPeer educationPeer supportProcess evaluationProgramme theorySchoolSex educationSexual healthSocial mediaSocial network interventionYoung people

Identifiers

PMID34127082
PMCPMC8201683
OpenAlexW3166637332

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.