ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2026
Implementation Patterns and Perceived Value of the SEXIT Method in School Health Care.
Article in Journal of clinical nursing, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo explore implementation patterns and perceived value of the SEXIT (SEXual health Identification Tool) method in the school health care (SHC) setting in Sweden.
designMixed method survey using an online questionnaire with closed and free-text response options.
methods115 SHC professionals who had completed SEXIT training responded to an online questionnaire (response rate 26%), between March and May 2024. Closed questions were answered on a five-point Likert scale, and responses trichotomised. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, qualitative data with a deductive qualitative content analysis. CROSS guideline was used.
results70 of 115 SHC professionals used SEXIT in their work. Findings suggest that SEXIT is appropriate and useful, supporting communication about topics such as sexual health and violence that both pupils and professionals may avoid addressing. Implementation patterns showed that 61% of those who had completed training also used SEXIT. 63% of those used SEXIT during regular health dialogues, but some did not use it with all pupils. The perceived value was that most SHC professionals felt that SEXIT helped them get a better understanding of the pupil's situation, an objection that it was too time-consuming.
conclusionMost SHC professionals who had completed SEXIT training used the method regularly and perceived the method as valuable and facilitating discussions about sexual ill health and experiences of violence with pupils. There are indications that SHC services fail to identify particularly at-risk young people. Sexual health inequity persists, as some structurally marginalised and vulnerable youths are excluded from the SEXIT dialogues. A follow-up study will focus on pupils' experiences. RELEVANCE: This study validates SEXIT in a new setting, SHC, and is relevant for the promotion of sexual and reproductive health for all, and for preventing violence and sexual ill health among young people.
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.