Trial reportBMC public health2025
Impacts of a puberty and period education intervention among 9- to 12-year-old girls in the New York metropolitan area: a randomized trial.
Trial report in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the immediate impacts of an illustrated book on puberty and periods for girls in the United States (US).
methodsWe conducted a randomized educational intervention between February-May 2023 among girls ages 9-12 years in after-school programs in the New York metropolitan area (n = 123). Girls were assigned to read a book on puberty and periods or an alternative book on healthy eating. We conducted multivariate linear and logistic models to examine changes in knowledge, beliefs/attitudes, and comfort in communicating about puberty and periods between treatment groups using pre- and post-test surveys. We also examined for effect measure modification to assess if changes in knowledge about puberty and periods significantly differed by menarchal status.
resultsThe intervention produced an increase in knowledge score (p < 0.05). Girls in the treatment group compared to the control group were more likely to report positive shifts in beliefs/attitudes towards physical activity during their period and asking questions about periods. Knowledge scores were significantly higher among girls of pre-menarche status compared to girls who had already experienced their first period (p = 0.05).
conclusionFindings from our educational intervention demonstrated that a simple distribution of an illustrated puberty and period book, without the support of formal instruction, had positive attitude shifts and educational impacts among girls ages 9-12 years. The intervention was efficacious in improving knowledge, particularly among girls who had not yet experienced their first period. Follow-up is needed to assess long-term health and social impacts of simple delivery of pubertal content to adolescents. Our study contributes to filling the gap in understanding the utility of puberty education in the US and our findings underscore the importance of appropriately timed puberty education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.