Feasibility and acceptability of a whole-school social-marketing intervention to prevent unintended teenage pregnancies and promote sexual health: evidence for progression from a pilot to a phase III randomised trial in English secondary schools.
Adolescent health
Evaluation
School intervention
Sex education
Sexual health
Teenage pregnancy
Journal
Pilot and feasibility studies
ISSN: 2055-5784
Titre abrégé: Pilot Feasibility Stud
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101676536
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Mar 2022
04 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
08
05
2020
accepted:
06
01
2022
entrez:
5
3
2022
pubmed:
6
3
2022
medline:
6
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Reducing unintended teenage pregnancy and promoting adolescent sexual health remains a priority in England. Both whole-school and social-marketing interventions are promising approaches to addressing these aims. However, such interventions have not been rigorously trialled in the UK and it is unclear if they are appropriate for delivery in English secondary schools. We developed and pilot trialled Positive Choices, a new whole-school social marketing intervention to address unintended teenage pregnancy and promote sexual health. Our aim was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and trial methods in English secondary schools against pre-defined progression criteria (relating to randomisation, survey follow-up, intervention fidelity and acceptability and linkage to birth/abortion records) prior to carrying out a phase III trial of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Pilot RCT with integral process evaluation involving four intervention and two control schools in south-east England. The intervention comprised a student needs survey; a student/staff-led school health promotion council; a classroom curriculum for year-9 students (aged 13-14); whole-school student-led social-marketing activities; parent information; and a review of local and school-based sexual health services. Baseline surveys were conducted with year 8 (aged 12-13) in June 2018. Follow-up surveys were completed 12 months later. Process evaluation data included audio recording of staff training, surveys of trained staff, staff log books and researcher observations of intervention activities. Survey data from female students were linked to records of births and abortions to assess the feasibility of these constituting a phase III primary outcome. All six schools were successfully randomised and retained in the trial. Response rates to the survey were above 80% in both arms at both baseline and follow-up. With the exception of the parent materials, the fidelity target for implementation of essential elements in three out of four schools was achieved. Student surveys indicated 80% acceptability among those who reported awareness of the programme and interviews with staff suggested strong acceptability. Linkage to birth/abortion records was feasible although none occurred among participants. The criteria for progression to a phase III trial were met. Our data suggest that a whole-school social-marketing approach may be appropriate for topics that are clearly prioritised by schools. A phase III trial of this intervention is now warranted to establish effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Births and terminations are not an appropriate primary outcome measure for such a trial. ISRCTN65324176.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Reducing unintended teenage pregnancy and promoting adolescent sexual health remains a priority in England. Both whole-school and social-marketing interventions are promising approaches to addressing these aims. However, such interventions have not been rigorously trialled in the UK and it is unclear if they are appropriate for delivery in English secondary schools. We developed and pilot trialled Positive Choices, a new whole-school social marketing intervention to address unintended teenage pregnancy and promote sexual health. Our aim was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and trial methods in English secondary schools against pre-defined progression criteria (relating to randomisation, survey follow-up, intervention fidelity and acceptability and linkage to birth/abortion records) prior to carrying out a phase III trial of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
METHODS
METHODS
Pilot RCT with integral process evaluation involving four intervention and two control schools in south-east England. The intervention comprised a student needs survey; a student/staff-led school health promotion council; a classroom curriculum for year-9 students (aged 13-14); whole-school student-led social-marketing activities; parent information; and a review of local and school-based sexual health services. Baseline surveys were conducted with year 8 (aged 12-13) in June 2018. Follow-up surveys were completed 12 months later. Process evaluation data included audio recording of staff training, surveys of trained staff, staff log books and researcher observations of intervention activities. Survey data from female students were linked to records of births and abortions to assess the feasibility of these constituting a phase III primary outcome.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All six schools were successfully randomised and retained in the trial. Response rates to the survey were above 80% in both arms at both baseline and follow-up. With the exception of the parent materials, the fidelity target for implementation of essential elements in three out of four schools was achieved. Student surveys indicated 80% acceptability among those who reported awareness of the programme and interviews with staff suggested strong acceptability. Linkage to birth/abortion records was feasible although none occurred among participants.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The criteria for progression to a phase III trial were met. Our data suggest that a whole-school social-marketing approach may be appropriate for topics that are clearly prioritised by schools. A phase III trial of this intervention is now warranted to establish effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Births and terminations are not an appropriate primary outcome measure for such a trial.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ISRCTN65324176.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35246272
doi: 10.1186/s40814-022-00971-y
pii: 10.1186/s40814-022-00971-y
pmc: PMC8895534
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
52Subventions
Organisme : NIHR
ID : 14/184/02
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Adolesc Health. 2010 Mar;46(3 Suppl):S75-91
pubmed: 20172462
Syst Rev. 2018 Dec 6;7(1):227
pubmed: 30522529
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2002 Sep-Oct;34(5):244-51
pubmed: 12392217
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 07;(4):CD005215
pubmed: 19821341
Health Psychol Rev. 2017 Mar;11(1):33-52
pubmed: 27677440
Health Educ Behav. 2001 Apr;28(2):166-85
pubmed: 11265827
Econ J (London). 2013 Sep 1;123(571):875-905
pubmed: 24443589
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 Mar;59(3):223-30
pubmed: 15709083
Am J Public Health. 2006 Sep;96(9):1582-7
pubmed: 16873760
Am Psychol. 1988 Nov;43(11):914-20
pubmed: 3214003
BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 2;7(5):e014791
pubmed: 28669970
Lancet. 2004 Jul 24-30;364(9431):338-46
pubmed: 15276393
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 08;11:CD006417
pubmed: 27824221
BMJ. 2007 Jan 20;334(7585):133
pubmed: 17118950
J Sch Health. 1999 May;69(5):181-8
pubmed: 10363221
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2021 Feb 17;7(1):50
pubmed: 33597013
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018 May 23;4:102
pubmed: 29850026
BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2019 Jan 14;:
pubmed: 30642889
BMJ. 2002 Jun 15;324(7351):1426
pubmed: 12065267
Lancet. 2016 Aug 6;388(10044):586-95
pubmed: 27229190
J Sex Res. 2017 Jan;54(1):91-104
pubmed: 26891245
J Sex Res. 2002 Feb;39(1):27-33
pubmed: 12476253
Public Health Rep. 2001;116 Suppl 1:82-93
pubmed: 11889277
J Prim Prev. 1985 Dec;6(2):73-97
pubmed: 24271382
BMJ. 2012 Sep 04;345:e5661
pubmed: 22951546
Health Technol Assess. 2010 Feb;14(7):1-206, iii-iv
pubmed: 20178696
Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2018 Sep 1;44(3):111-131
pubmed: 31251724
J Adolesc Health. 2016 Apr;58(4):382-396
pubmed: 27013271
Reprod Health. 2016 Nov 22;13(1):139
pubmed: 27876052
Implement Sci. 2013 Feb 13;8:18
pubmed: 23406398
BMJ. 2006 May 20;332(7551):1210-2
pubmed: 16710004
BMJ. 2014 May 13;348:g3078
pubmed: 25134103