School‐based Education Programmes for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse: A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness of school-based education programmes for the prevention of child sexual abuse. The review summarises findings from 24 trials, conducted in the U.S., Canada, China, Germany, Taiwan and Turkey. Six metaanalyses are included assessing evidence of moderate quality. This study is an update to a previous review and covers publications up to September 2014. School-based education programmes for the prevention of child sexual abuse are more effective than alternative programmes or no programme at all in strengthening children's knowledge about child sexual abuse prevention and their protective behaviours. Children retain the knowledge gained from programme participation, though no study has assessed retention over a period of longer than six months. No studies examined the retention of protective behaviours over time. Disclosures of previous and current occurrences of child sexual abuse increase for participants of school-based education programmes. However, the evidence supporting this finding is weak and should be interpreted with caution. Abstract BACKGROUND Child sexual abuse is a significant global problem in both magnitude and sequelae. The most widely used primary prevention strategy has been the provision of school-based education programmes. Although programmes have been taught in schools since the 1980s, their effectiveness requires ongoing scrutiny. OBJECTIVES To systematically assess evidence of the effectiveness of school-based education programmes for the prevention of child sexual abuse. Specifically, to assess whether: programmes are effective in improving students' protective behaviours and knowledge about sexual abuse prevention; behaviours and skills are retained over time; and participation results in disclosures of sexual abuse, produces harms, or both. SEARCH METHODS In September 2014, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and 11 other databases. We also searched two trials registers and screened the reference lists of previous reviews for additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and quasi-RCTs of school-based education interventions for the prevention of child sexual abuse compared with another intervention or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We summarised data for six outcomes: protective behaviours; knowledge of sexual abuse or sexual abuse prevention concepts; retention of protective behaviours over time; retention of knowledge over time; harm; and disclosures of sexual abuse. MAIN RESULTS This is an update of a Cochrane Review that included 15 trials (up to August 2006). We identified 10 additional trials for the period to September 2014. We excluded one trial from the original review. Therefore, this update includes a total of 24 trials (5802 participants). We conducted several meta-analyses. More than half of the trials in each meta-analysis contained unit of analysis errors. Meta-analysis of two trials (n = 102) evaluating protective behaviours favoured intervention (odds ratio (OR) 5.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.98 to 16.51), with borderline low to moderate heterogeneity (Chi 2 = 1.37, df = 1, P value = 0.24, I 2 = 27%, Tau 2 = 0.16). The results did not change when we made adjustments using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to correct errors made in studies where data were analysed without accounting for the clustering of students in classes or schools. Meta-analysis of 18 trials (n = 4657) evaluating questionnaire-based knowledge favoured intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.78), but there was substantial heterogeneity (Chi 2 = 104.76, df = 17, P value < 0.00001, I 2 = 84%, #Tau 2 = 0.10). The results did not change when adjusted for clustering (ICC: 0.1 SMD 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.81; ICC: 0.2 SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.77). Meta-analysis of 11 trials (n =1688) evaluating vignette-based knowledge favoured intervention (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.65), but there was substantial heterogeneity (Chi 2 = 34.25, df = 10, P value < 0.0002, I 2 = 71%, Tau 2 = 0.08). The results did not change when adjusted for clustering (ICC: 0.1 SMD 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.74; ICC: 0.2 SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.89). We included four trials in the meta-analysis for retention of knowledge over time. The effect of intervention seemed to persist beyond the immediate assessment (SMD 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.17; I 2 = 84%, Tau 2 = 0.13, P value = 0.0003; n = 956) to six months (SMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.87; I 2 = 25%; Tau 2 = 0.01, P value = 0.26; n = 929). The results did not change when adjustments were made using ICCs. We included three studies in the meta-analysis for adverse effects (harm) manifesting as child anxiety or fear. The results showed no increase or decrease in anxiety or fear in intervention participants (SMD −0.08, 95% CI −0.22 to 0.07; n = 795) and there was no heterogeneity (I 2 = 0%, P value = 0.79; n=795). The results did not change when adjustments were made using ICCs. We included three studies (n = 1788) in the meta-analysis for disclosure of previous or current sexual abuse. The results favoured intervention (OR 3.56, 95% CI 1.13 to 11.24), with no heterogeneity (I 2 = 0%, P value = 0.84). However, adjusting for the effect of clustering had the effect of widening the confidence intervals around the OR (ICC: 0.1 OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 12.33; ICC: 0.2 OR 2.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 12.61). Insufficient information was provided in the included studies to conduct planned subgroup analyses and there were insufficient studies to conduct meaningful analyses. The quality of evidence for all outcomes included in the meta-analyses was moderate owing to unclear risk of selection bias across most studies, high or unclear risk of detection bias across over half of included studies, and high or unclear risk of attrition bias across most studies. The results should be interpreted cautiously. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The studies included in this review s
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,035 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».