ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2025
Barriers and facilitators to providing sexual health programming at community colleges across the United States: a qualitative study with administrators, faculty, and staff.
Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCommunity college students are in need of sexual health programming. Unfortunately, community colleges are less likely than 4-year colleges to provide such programming, and very little research has focused on understanding the factors influencing sexual health program implementation at community colleges. PURPOSE: To examine the barriers and facilitators to adoption, implementation, and sustainability of student-facing sexual health programming at community colleges.
methodsUsing data from interviews with a convenience sample of 32 community college administrators, faculty, and staff from 23 campuses in the United States, we conducted thematic analysis. Six major themes were identified.
resultsCollege budgets are limited and resources specifically dedicated to sexual health promotion are needed. Buy-in from upper-level administrators is often required to approve programming, and personnel that champion student health are critical to successfully implementing programs. Unfortunately, many champions are overworked and unable to sustainably manage additional responsibilities. Colleges are interested in implementing programming that students want and that addresses their students' needs. However, participants perceived that students will not participate in optional programming and many colleges are hesitant to implement mandatory student programming as this is perceived as a barrier to student graduation. Finally, colleges' decision to implement sexual health programming is often tied to the presence of on-campus housing; thus, commuter students are especially in need of resources.
conclusionsThese findings highlight the importance of internal factors that facilitate or hinder the implementation of sexual health programming at community colleges and suggest the need for college-level efforts to effectively implement programming.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.