Scoping review on sex education for high school-aged students with intellectual disability and/or on the autism spectrum: parents’, teachers’ and students’ perspectives, attitudes and experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex education is critical for the development of healthy sexual identity and relationships. However, students with intellectual disability and/or on the autism spectrum often receive less holistic sex education in comparison to their neurotypical counterparts. A scoping review was undertaken to determine parents’, teachers’ and students’ perspectives, attitudes and experiences related to sex education for high school-aged students with intellectual disability and/or on the autism spectrum. Findings revealed that only a few studies consulted students themselves, while most sought only parents’ and teachers’ perspectives. Teachers and parents had generally positive attitudes towards sex education for students with intellectual disability and/or on the autism spectrum. However, teachers’ beliefs may prevent them from delivering sex education as intended. Furthermore, parents reported a lack of confidence in discussing sexuality with their children. Well-designed, disability-inclusive education programmes that prioritise safety, assertiveness and self-determination can support positive outcomes. Removing barriers to sex education in schools, and learning from students with intellectual disability and/or on the autism spectrum what they think could improve things for themselves and peers, is key to supporting them with their needs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".