Kelly VanTreeck, Shatha Elnakib, Venkatraman Chandra-Mouli
{"title":"对研究与评估研究所报告的重新分析,该报告挑战了非美国的、以学校为基础的综合性教育证据基础。","authors":"Kelly VanTreeck, Shatha Elnakib, Venkatraman Chandra-Mouli","doi":"10.1080/26410397.2023.2237791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":37074,"journal":{"name":"Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters","volume":"31 1","pages":"2237791"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10408562/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A reanalysis of the Institute for Research and Evaluation report that challenges non-US, school-based comprehensive sexuality education evidence base.\",\"authors\":\"Kelly VanTreeck, Shatha Elnakib, Venkatraman Chandra-Mouli\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/26410397.2023.2237791\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37074,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"2237791\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10408562/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2023.2237791\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2023.2237791","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
A reanalysis of the Institute for Research and Evaluation report that challenges non-US, school-based comprehensive sexuality education evidence base.
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.
期刊介绍:
SRHM is a multidisciplinary journal, welcoming submissions from a wide range of disciplines, including the social sciences and humanities, behavioural science, public health, human rights and law. The journal welcomes a range of methodological approaches, including qualitative and quantitative analyses such as policy analysis; mixed methods approaches to public health and health systems research; economic, political and historical analysis; and epidemiological work with a focus on SRHR. Key topics addressed in SRHM include (but are not limited to) abortion, family planning, contraception, female genital mutilation, HIV and other STIs, human papillomavirus (HPV), maternal health, SRHR in humanitarian settings, gender-based and other forms of interpersonal violence, young people, gender, sexuality, sexual rights and sexual pleasure.