Schalet Amy T, Santelli John S, Russell Stephen T, Halpern Carolyn T, Miller Sarah A, Pickering Sarah S, Goldberg Shoshana K, Hoenig Jennifer M
Department of Sociology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA.
J Youth Adolesc. 2014 Oct;43(10):1595-610. doi: 10.1007/s10964-014-0178-8. Epub 2014 Sep 9.
Scientific research has made major contributions to adolescent health by providing insights into factors that influence it and by defining ways to improve it. However, US adolescent sexual and reproductive health policies-particularly sexuality health education policies and programs-have not benefited from the full scope of scientific understanding. From 1998 to 2009, federal funding for sexuality education focused almost exclusively on ineffective and scientifically inaccurate abstinence-only-until-marriage (AOUM) programs. Since 2010, the largest source of federal funding for sexual health education has been the "tier 1" funding of the Office of Adolescent Health's Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative. To be eligible for such funds, public and private entities must choose from a list of 35 programs that have been designated as "evidence-based" interventions (EBIs), determined based on their effectiveness at preventing teen pregnancies, reducing sexually transmitted infections, or reducing rates of sexual risk behaviors (i.e., sexual activity, contraceptive use, or number of partners). Although the transition from primarily AOUM to EBI is important progress, this definition of evidence is narrow and ignores factors known to play key roles in adolescent sexual and reproductive health. Important bodies of evidence are not treated as part of the essential evidence base, including research on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth; gender; and economic inequalities and health. These bodies of evidence underscore the need for sexual health education to approach adolescent sexuality holistically, to be inclusive of all youth, and to address and mitigate the impact of structural inequities. We provide recommendations to improve US sexual health education and to strengthen the translation of science into programs and policy.
科学研究通过深入了解影响青少年健康的因素并确定改善方法,为青少年健康做出了重大贡献。然而,美国青少年性与生殖健康政策——尤其是性健康教育培训政策和项目——并未充分受益于全面的科学认知。1998年至2009年期间,联邦政府对性教育的资助几乎完全集中在无效且科学上不准确的仅禁欲直到结婚(AOUM)项目上。自2010年以来,联邦政府对性健康教育的最大资金来源一直是青少年健康办公室青少年怀孕预防倡议的“一级”资助。为了有资格获得此类资金,公共和私人实体必须从35个已被指定为“循证”干预措施(EBIs)的项目列表中进行选择,这些项目是根据其在预防青少年怀孕、减少性传播感染或降低性风险行为发生率(即性行为、避孕措施使用或性伴侣数量)方面的有效性来确定的。尽管从主要的AOUM项目向EBI项目的转变是重要的进展,但这种证据的定义是狭隘的,忽略了已知在青少年性与生殖健康中起关键作用的因素。重要的证据体系未被视为基本证据基础的一部分,包括对女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、跨性别、酷儿和有疑问(LGBTQ)青少年的研究;性别;以及经济不平等与健康。这些证据体系强调了性健康教育需要全面地对待青少年性行为,包容所有青少年,并应对和减轻结构性不平等的影响。我们提出建议以改善美国的性健康教育,并加强将科学转化为项目和政策的工作。