Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37548507›Full record

ReviewSexual and reproductive health matters2023

A reanalysis of the Institute for Research and Evaluation report that challenges non-US, school-based comprehensive sexuality education evidence base.

Kelly VanTreeck, Shatha Elnakib, Venkatraman Chandra-Mouli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sexual and reproductive health matters, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Kelly VanTreeckConsultant, Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Av. Appia 20, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7578-7678
Shatha ElnakibConsultant, Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Av. Appia 20, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2316-4211
Venkatraman Chandra-MouliScientist, Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6937-4842

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) prepares young people to make informed decisions about their sexuality. A review by the Institute of Research and Evaluation that analysed 43 CSE studies in non-US settings found the majority to be ineffective and concluded that there was little evidence of the effectiveness of CSE. We reanalysed the review to investigate its validity. We found several weaknesses with the review's methodology and analysis: (1) there was an absence of a clearly articulated search strategy and specific eligibility criteria; (2) the authors put forth criteria for programme effectiveness but included studies that did not collect the data needed to show programme effectiveness and thus several studies were determined to be ineffective by default; (3) the analytical framework minimised positive intervention effects and privileged negative intervention effects; and (4) there were errors in the data extracted, with 74% of studies containing one or more discrepancies. Overall, our reanalysis reveals that the IRE review suffers from significant methodological flaws and contains many errors which compromise its conclusions about CSE. Our reanalysis is a tool for the international community to refute CSE opposition campaigns based on poor science.

Indexed as

Sex EducationSexualityAdolescentHumansProgram EvaluationSchoolsSexual Behaviorcomprehensive sexuality educationCSEdisinformationevidence basemisinformationsexual educationsexual health education

Identifiers

PMID37548507
PMCPMC10408562

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.