Does Menstrual Health and Endometriosis Education Affect Knowledge Among Middle and Secondary School Students? A Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether endometriosis and menstrual health education improves knowledge and attitudes among adolescents and is acceptable. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomised controlled trial in a Canadian school district. Eligible classes were grades 8-12, co-educational, and English. Classes were randomly assigned either to a 60-minute virtual menstrual health and endometriosis education program before (intervention) or after (waitlist control) primary data collection. The primary outcome was change in endometriosis knowledge from baseline to follow-up (∼4 weeks later, 6-item questionnaire). Secondary outcomes were changes in confidence in endometriosis knowledge, prioritisation of menstrual health knowledge, and comfort in discussing menstrual health, as well as intervention acceptability. The sexual health educator and statistician were masked. RESULTS: In April and May 2021, 2 intervention classes and 2 control classes completed the study. In total, 71 students enrolled, and 48 were present on both baseline and follow-up days. Mean age was 15.7 ± 1.6 years, 55% identified as non-White ethnicities, and 53% were female. The knowledge score increased by 1.86 points in the intervention classes compared with 0.30 points in the control classes, with an estimated mean difference of 1.56 (95% CI 1.12-2.00). The intervention classes showed increased confidence in endometriosis knowledge, prioritisation of menstrual health knowledge, and comfort in discussing menstrual health, compared to the control classes. The mean acceptability index was 80 (SD = 10) in the intervention classes and 70 (SD = 20) in the control classes. CONCLUSIONS: A brief menstrual health and endometriosis education program improved knowledge and attitudes among adolescents, who considered the program acceptable.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".