ArticleHealth education research2025
Sexual health literacy and education programs for culturally and linguistically diverse young people living in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom: a scoping review of content evaluations.
Article in Health education research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Young people from key priority communities, represent an important focus for enhancing sexual and reproductive health (SRH). There is an abundance of literature indicating that sexual health programs designed to improve sexual health literacy (SHL) for young people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds are often developed using established health behaviour models and community involvement models. However, little evidence exists on the processes or standards used to evaluate program effectiveness or update content to remain relevant and appealing. This scoping review of academic literature, and government and not-for-profit organizations reports in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (countries with similar healthcare systems, immigration patterns and socioeconomic status), was conducted to determine if and how program content was reviewed and evaluated for currency and effectiveness. No academic or grey literature reports were identified that described the assessment of SHL program content or resources targeting young people from CALD backgrounds. Organizations and authors were contacted for further details of program content assessment with little success. This suggests a gap in the literature and lack of program evaluation or processes for updating of program content. This review highlights recommendations regarding advancing future research and enhancing program content evaluation.
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.