Premium
Limits of teacher‐delivered sex education: interim behavioural outcomes from randomized trial.
Wight D, Raab GM, Henderson M et al. (2002) BMJ , 324, 1430–1433.
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
child: care, health and development
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.832
H-Index - 82
eISSN - 1365-2214
pISSN - 0305-1862
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2214.2002.t01-1-00303_2.x
Subject(s) - medicine , sexual intercourse , intervention (counseling) , randomized controlled trial , interim , reproductive health , demography , health education , confidence interval , family medicine , population , public health , psychiatry , environmental health , nursing , surgery , archaeology , sociology , history
Objective To determine whether a theoretically based sex education programme for adolescents (SHARE) delivered by teachers reduced unsafe sexual intercourse compared with current practice. Design Cluster randomized trial with follow up 2 years after baseline (6 months after intervention). A process evaluation investigated the delivery of sex education and broader features of each school. Setting In total, 25 secondary schools in east Scotland. Participants A total of 8430 pupils aged 13–15 years; 7616 completed the baseline questionnaire and 5854 completed the 2‐year follow‐up questionnaire. Intervention SHARE programme (intervention group) versus existing sex education (control programme). Main outcome measures Self‐reported exposure to sexually transmitted disease, use of condoms and contraceptives at first and most recent sexual intercourse, and unwanted pregnancies. Results When the intervention group was compared with the conventional sex education group in an intention to treat analysis, there were no differences in sexual activity or sexual risk taking by the age of 16 years. However, those in the intervention group reported less regret of first sexual intercourse with most recent partner (young men 9.9% difference, 95% confidence interval 18.7 to 1.0; young women 7.7% difference, 16.6 to 1.2). Pupils evaluated the intervention programme more positively, and their knowledge of sexual health improved. Lack of behavioural effect could not be linked to differential quality of delivery of intervention. Conclusions Compared with conventional sex education, this specially designed intervention did not reduce sexual risk‐taking in adolescents.