Lopez Laureen M, Bernholc Alissa, Chen Mario, Tolley Elizabeth E
Clinical and Epidemiological Sciences, FHI 360, 359 Blackwell St, Suite 200, Durham, North Carolina, USA, 27701.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jun 29;2016(6):CD012249. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012249.
Young women, especially adolescents, often lack access to modern contraception. Reasons vary by geography and regional politics and culture. The projected 2015 birth rate in 'developing' regions was 56 per 1000 compared with 17 per 1000 for 'developed' regions.
To identify school-based interventions that improved contraceptive use among adolescents
Until 6 June 2016, we searched for eligible trials in PubMed, CENTRAL, ERIC, Web of Science, POPLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP.
We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assigned individuals or clusters. The majority of participants must have been 19 years old or younger.The educational strategy must have occurred primarily in a middle school or high school. The intervention had to emphasize one or more effective methods of contraception. Our primary outcomes were pregnancy and contraceptive use.
We assessed titles and abstracts identified during the searches. One author extracted and entered the data into RevMan; a second author verified accuracy. We examined studies for methodological quality.For unadjusted dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For cluster randomized trials, we used adjusted measures, e.g. OR, risk ratio, or difference in proportions. For continuous outcomes, we used the adjusted mean difference (MD) or other measures from the models. We did not conduct meta-analysis due to varied interventions and outcome measures.
The 11 trials included 10 cluster RCTs and an individually randomized trial. The cluster RCTs had sample sizes from 816 to 10,954; the median number of clusters was 24. Most trials were conducted in the USA and UK; one was from Mexico and one from South Africa.We focus here on the trials with moderate quality evidence and an intervention effect. Three addressed preventing pregnancy and HIV/STI through interactive sessions. One trial provided a multifaceted two-year program. Immediately after year one and 12 months after year two, the intervention group was more likely than the standard-curriculum group to report using effective contraception during last sex (reported adjusted ORs 1.62 ± standard error (SE) 0.22) and 1.76 ± SE 0.29), condom use during last sex (reported adjusted ORs 1.91 ± SE 0.27 and 1.68 ± SE 0.25), and less frequent sex without a condom in the past three months (reported ratios of adjusted means 0.50 ± SE 0.31 and 0.63 ± SE 0.23). Another trial compared multifaceted two-year programs on sexual risk reduction and risk avoidance (abstinence-focused) versus usual health education. At 3 months, the risk reduction group was less likely than the usual-education group to report no condom use at last intercourse (reported adjusted OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.96) and sex without a condom in the last three months (reported adjusted OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.95). At 3 and after 15 months, the risk avoidance group was also less likely than the usual-education group to report no condom use at last intercourse (reported adjusted ORs 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.93; and 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.85). At the same time points, the risk reduction group had a higher score than the usual-education group for condom knowledge. The third trial provided a peer-led program with eight interactive sessions. At 17 months, the intervention group was less likely than the teacher-led group to report oral contraceptive use during last sex (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.91). This difference may not have been significant if the investigators had adjusted for the clustering. At 5 and 17 months, the peer-led group had a greater mean increase in knowledge of HIV and pregnancy prevention compared with the control group. An additional trial showed an effect on knowledge only. The group with an emergency contraception (EC) session was more likely than the group without the EC unit to know the time limits for using hormonal EC (pill) and the non-hormonal IUD as EC.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since most trials addressed preventing STI/HIV and pregnancy, they emphasized condom use. However, several studies covered a range of contraceptive methods. The overall quality of evidence was low. Main reasons for downgrading the evidence were having limited information on intervention fidelity, analyzing a subsample rather than all those randomized, and having high losses.
年轻女性,尤其是青少年,往往难以获得现代避孕方法。原因因地域、地区政治和文化而异。预计2015年“发展中”地区的出生率为每1000人中有56例,而“发达”地区为每1000人中有17例。
确定能提高青少年避孕措施使用率的校内干预措施。
截至2016年6月6日,我们在PubMed、CENTRAL、ERIC、科学网、POPLINE、ClinicalTrials.gov和ICTRP中检索符合条件的试验。
我们纳入了对个体或群组进行分配的随机对照试验(RCT)。大多数参与者必须为19岁及以下。教育策略必须主要在初中或高中开展。干预措施必须强调一种或多种有效的避孕方法。我们的主要结局为妊娠和避孕措施的使用。
我们评估了检索过程中识别出的标题和摘要。一位作者提取数据并录入RevMan;另一位作者核实准确性。我们检查了研究的方法学质量。对于未经调整的二分结局,我们计算了Mantel-Haenszel比值比(OR)及95%置信区间(CI)。对于群组随机试验,我们使用了调整后的指标,如OR、风险比或比例差异。对于连续性结局,我们使用了调整后的均数差(MD)或模型中的其他指标。由于干预措施和结局指标各不相同,我们未进行Meta分析。
11项试验包括10项群组RCT和1项个体随机试验。群组RCT的样本量为816至10954;群组数量中位数为24。大多数试验在美国和英国开展;一项来自墨西哥,一项来自南非。我们在此重点关注证据质量中等且有干预效果的试验。三项试验通过互动课程预防妊娠和HIV/性传播感染。一项试验提供了一个为期两年的多方面项目。在第一年结束后及第二年结束后12个月时,干预组比标准课程组更有可能报告在上次性行为时使用有效避孕措施(报告的调整后OR为1.62±标准误(SE)0.22和1.76±SE 0.29)、在上次性行为时使用避孕套(报告的调整后OR为1.91±SE 0.27和1.68±SE 0.25),且在过去三个月内无避孕套性行为的频率更低(报告的调整后均数比为0.50±SE 0.31和0.63±SE 0.23)。另一项试验比较了关于降低性风险和避免风险(以禁欲为重点)的多方面两年期项目与常规健康教育。在3个月时,降低风险组比常规教育组更不可能报告在上次性交时未使用避孕套(报告的调整后OR为0.67,95%CI为0.47至0.96)以及在过去三个月内有无避孕套性行为(报告的调整后OR为0.59,95%CI为0.36至0.95)。在3个月及15个月后,避免风险组比常规教育组也更不可能报告在上次性交时未使用避孕套(报告的调整后OR分别为0.70,95%CI为0.52至0.93;以及0.61,95%CI为0.45至0.85)。在相同时间点,降低风险组在避孕套知识方面的得分高于常规教育组。第三项试验提供了一个由同伴主导的项目,包括八次互动课程。在17个月时,干预组比教师主导组更不可能报告在上次性行为时使用口服避孕药(OR为0.57,95%CI为0.36至0.91)。如果研究人员对群组进行了调整,这种差异可能不显著。在5个月和17个月时,与对照组相比,同伴主导组在HIV和妊娠预防知识方面的平均增加幅度更大。另一项试验仅显示了对知识的影响。接受紧急避孕(EC)课程的组比未设EC单元的组更有可能了解使用激素EC(药片)和非激素宫内节育器作为EC的时间限制。
由于大多数试验旨在预防性传播感染/艾滋病病毒和妊娠,因此强调使用避孕套。然而,几项研究涵盖了一系列避孕方法。证据的总体质量较低。证据降级的主要原因是干预保真度信息有限、分析的是子样本而非所有随机分组的对象,以及失访率较高。