Cochrane · systematic review · CD006417
School‐based interventions for preventing HIV, sexually transmitted infections, and pregnancy in adolescents
Mason‐Jones, AJ, Sinclair, D, Mathews, C, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
Infectious DiseasesAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
12
current version
GRADE rated
11
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 1 · 8.3%Very low 2 · 16.7%Low 7 · 58.3%Moderate 2 · 16.7%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Educational interventions versus no intervention
Population: adolescents
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
HIV prevalence Educational interventions vs no intervention | RR 1.03 [0.8, 1.32] | 3 studies · 14163 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
HSV2 prevalence Educational interventions vs no intervention | RR 1.04 [0.94, 1.15] | 3 studies · 17445 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Syphillis prevalence Educational interventions vs no intervention | RR 0.81 [0.47, 1.39] | 1 study · 6977 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Pregnant at end of trial Educational interventions vs no intervention | RR 0.99 [0.85, 1.16] | 3 studies · 8280 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Incentive‐based programmes versus no intervention
Population: adolescents
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
HIV prevalence Incentive‐based programmes vs no intervention | RR 1.23 [0.51, 2.96] | 2 studies · 3805 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
HSV2 prevalence Incentive‐based programmes vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 7229 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness |
Syphillis prevalence Incentive‐based programmes vs no intervention | RR 0.41 [0.05, 3.27] | 1 study · 1291 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Pregnant at end of trial Incentive‐based programmes vs no intervention | RR 0.76 [0.58, 0.99] | 2 studies · 4200 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Combined incentive‐based and educational interventions versus no intervention
Population: adolescents
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
HIV prevalence Combined incentive‐based and educational interventions vs no intervention | RR 1.53 [0.45, 5.13] | 1 study · 2506 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
HSV2 prevalence Combined incentive‐based and educational interventions vs no intervention | RR 0.82 [0.68, 0.99] | 1 study · 5899 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Syphillis prevalence Combined incentive‐based and educational interventions vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Pregnant at end of trial Combined incentive‐based and educational interventions vs no intervention | RR 0.9 [0.67, 1.19] | 1 study · 2782 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |