Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2002 Jun 15;324(7351):1430.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7351.1430.

Limits of teacher delivered sex education: interim behavioural outcomes from randomised trial

Daniel Wight  1 , Gillian M Raab, Marion Henderson, Charles Abraham, Katie Buston, Graham Hart, Sue Scott
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Limits of teacher delivered sex education: interim behavioural outcomes from randomised trial

Daniel Wight et al. BMJ. .

Erratum in

  • BMJ 2002 Aug 24;325(7361):435

Abstract

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 randomised trial with follow up two years after baseline (six months after intervention). A process evaluation investigated the delivery of sex education and broader features of each school.

Setting: Twenty five secondary schools in east Scotland.

Participants: 8430 pupils aged 13-15 years; 7616 completed the baseline questionnaire and 5854 completed the two 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure
Figure
Flow chart of participants; * indicates those for whom demographic data, including social class, were collected at follow up
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Social Exclusion Unit. Teenage pregnancy. London: Stationery Office; 1999.
    1. Holland J, Ramazanoglu C, Sharpe S, Thomson R. The male in the head: young people, heterosexuality and power. London: Tufnell Press; 1998.
    1. Wight D, Henderson M, Raab G, Abraham C, Buston K, Scott S, et al. Extent of regretted sexual intercourse among young teenagers in Scotland: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ. 2000;320:1243–1244. - PMC - PubMed
    1. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Preventing and reducing the adverse effects of unintended teenage pregnancies. Effective Health Care. 1997;3:1–12.
    1. Franklin C, Grant D, Corcoran J, Miller PO, Bultman L. Effectiveness of prevention programs for adolescent pregnancy: a meta-analysis. J Marriage Family. 1997;59:551–567.

Publication types