ABSTRACT

Despite growing interest in the effectiveness of sexuality education, only a single systematic review regarding its evaluation has been conducted. This review aimed to systematically analyse studies that include the evaluation of sexuality education for adolescents using the Context, Input, Process, Product (CIPP) model, and summarise evidence concerning relevant theoretical and methodological issues. From inception to 2017, eleven databases were searched and additional hand searches were completed. Full text, peer reviewed articles covering the evaluation of sexuality education for adolescents were considered. After examining 832 abstracts, 64 publications were retained. Almost half of them were published after 2010; and more than a half came from Europe. Products, and specifically short-term outcomes, were the most evaluated components, while inputs and long-term outcomes were the least often evaluated. Findings reveal a detached and narrow approach to evaluation. Quantitative methodology, experimental and pre/quasi-experimental designs, and questionnaire were the gold standards. A focus on adolescents and school settings for participant selection could be observed, as well as a bias towards public health risks. In the light of the growing interest in sexuality education evaluation, current practices, perhaps constrained by funding issues, lead to an evaluation that seeks mainly to prove rather than improve. Practical recommendations are suggested.

摘要

尽管人们对性教育的有效性越来越感兴趣，但仅对其评估进行了单一的系统评价。本综述旨在系统地分析包括使用情境、输入、过程、产品 (CIPP) 模型评估青少年性教育的研究，并总结有关相关理论和方法问题的证据。从成立到 2017 年，共检索了 11 个数据库，并完成了额外的手动检索。考虑了涵盖青少年性教育评估的全文、同行评议的文章。在审查了 832 篇摘要后，保留了 64 篇出版物。其中几乎有一半是在 2010 年之后出版的；一半以上来自欧洲。产品，特别是短期成果，是评估最多的组成部分，而投入和长期结果的评估最少。调查结果揭示了一种独立而狭隘的评估方法。定量方法、实验和预/准实验设计以及问卷是黄金标准。可以观察到对参与者选择的关注青少年和学校环境，以及对公共卫生风险的偏见。鉴于对性教育评估的兴趣日益浓厚，目前的做法，可能受到资金问题的限制，导致评估主要是为了证明而不是改进。提出了实用的建议。问卷是金标准。可以观察到对参与者选择的关注青少年和学校环境，以及对公共卫生风险的偏见。鉴于对性教育评估的兴趣日益浓厚，目前的做法，可能受到资金问题的限制，导致评估主要是为了证明而不是改进。提出了实用的建议。问卷是金标准。可以观察到对参与者选择的关注青少年和学校环境，以及对公共卫生风险的偏见。鉴于对性教育评估的兴趣日益浓厚，目前的做法，可能受到资金问题的限制，导致评估主要是为了证明而不是改进。提出了实用的建议。