Zwi K J, Woolfenden S R, Wheeler D M, O'brien T A, Tait P, Williams K W
University of New South Wales & Sydney Children's Hospital, School of Women's and Children's Health, Sydney Children's Hospital, High Street Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2031.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jul 18(3):CD004380. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004380.pub2.
Child sexual abuse is a significant problem that requires an effective means of prevention.
To assess: if school-based programmes are effective in improving knowledge about sexual abuse and self-protective behaviours; whether participation results in an increase in disclosure of sexual abuse and/or produces any harm; knowledge retention and the effect of programme type or setting.
Electronic searches of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts, Dissertation Abstracts and other databases using MESH headings and text words specific for child sexual assault and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted in August 2006.
RCTs or quasi-RCTs of school-based interventions to prevent child sexual abuse compared with another intervention or no intervention.
Meta-analyses and sensitivity analysis, using two imputed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) (0.1, 0.2), were used for four outcomes: protective behaviours, questionnaire-based knowledge, vignette-based knowledge and disclosure of abuse. Meta-analysis was not possible for retention of knowledge, likelihood of harm, or effect of programme type and setting.
Fifteen trials measuring knowledge and behaviour change as a result of school-based child sexual abuse intervention programmes were included. Over half the studies in each initial meta-analysis contained unit of analysis errors. For behaviour change, two studies had data suitable for meta-analysis; results favoured intervention (OR 6.76, 95% CI 1.44, 31.84) with moderate heterogeneity (I(2)=56.0%) and did not change significantly when adjustments using intraclass coefficients were made. Nine studies were included in a meta-analysis evaluating questionnaire-based knowledge. An increase in knowledge was found (SMD 0.59; 0.44, 0.74, heterogeneity (I2=66.4%). When adjusted for an ICC of 0.1 and 0.2 the results were SMD 0.6 (0.45, 0.75) and 0.57 (0.44, 0.71) respectively. Heterogeneity decreased with increasing ICC. A meta-analysis of four studies evaluating vignette-based knowledge favoured intervention (SMD 0.37 (0.18, 0.55)) with low heterogeneity (I(2)=0.0%) and no significant change when ICC adjustments were made. Meta-analysis of between-group differences of reported disclosures did not show a statistically significant difference.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Studies evaluated in this review report significant improvements in knowledge measures and protective behaviours. Results might have differed had the true ICCs from studies been available or cluster-adjusted results been available. Several studies reported harms, suggesting a need to monitor the impact of similar interventions. Retention of knowledge should be measured beyond 3-12 months. Further investigation of the best forms of presentation and optimal age of programme delivery is required.
儿童性虐待是一个重大问题,需要有效的预防手段。
评估:基于学校的项目是否能有效提高对性虐待的认知和自我保护行为;参与项目是否会增加性虐待的披露率和/或造成任何伤害;知识的保留情况以及项目类型或实施环境的影响。
2006年8月,使用与儿童性侵犯相关的医学主题词(MESH)和文本词,对Cochrane对照试验中心注册库、MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsycINFO、CINAHL、社会学文摘、学位论文文摘及其他数据库进行电子检索,并检索随机对照试验(RCT)。
将基于学校的预防儿童性虐待干预措施的随机对照试验或准随机对照试验与另一种干预措施或不进行干预进行比较。
采用两种估算的组内相关系数(ICC)(0.1、0.2)进行荟萃分析和敏感性分析,用于四个结果:保护行为、基于问卷的知识、基于案例的知识和性虐待的披露。对于知识保留、伤害可能性或项目类型及实施环境的影响,无法进行荟萃分析。
纳入了15项测量基于学校的儿童性虐待干预项目导致的知识和行为变化的试验。每次初始荟萃分析中超过一半的研究存在分析单位错误。对于行为变化,两项研究的数据适合进行荟萃分析;结果支持干预(优势比6.76,95%置信区间1.44,31.84),异质性中等(I² = 56.0%),使用组内系数进行调整时无显著变化。9项研究纳入了评估基于问卷的知识的荟萃分析。发现知识有所增加(标准化均数差0.59;0.44,0.74,异质性(I² = 66.4%)。调整ICC为0.1和0.2时,结果分别为标准化均数差0.6(0.45,0.75)和0.57(0.44,0.71)。随着ICC增加,异质性降低。对4项评估基于案例的知识的研究进行的荟萃分析支持干预(标准化均数差0.37(0.18,0.55)),异质性低(I² = 0.0%),进行ICC调整时无显著变化。对报告的披露情况的组间差异进行的荟萃分析未显示统计学上的显著差异。
本综述评估的研究报告了知识测量和保护行为方面的显著改善。如果能获得研究的真实ICC或聚类调整后的结果,结果可能会有所不同。几项研究报告了危害,表明需要监测类似干预措施的影响。应在3至***个月以上测量知识的保留情况。需要进一步研究最佳的呈现形式和项目实施的最佳年龄。 (注:原文中“3 - 12 months”这里的“12”表述似乎有误,推测可能是想表达一个具体数字,但因原文如此,所以译文保留原样)