‘We expected more about sex in the sex week’ - A qualitative study about students’ experiences with a sexual health education programme, from a health-promotion perspective

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore adolescents’ experiences with participation in a sexual health education programme named «Week 6», from a health-promotion perspective. Methods Six focus group interviews were conducted with adolescents aged 15–16 in Norway. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyse the data material. Results The results can be summed up by the main theme: “We like «Week 6» but … we expected more about sex in the sex week”. The main theme consisted of two main analysis-derived themes: “The students want a topical sexual health education, with realistic and relevant learning subjects and exercises”, and “The students want to contribute to the content and implementation, in order to improve the learning outcomes of «Week 6»”. Further, four categories were identified: organization and content, positive experiences, the potential for improvement, and learning outcome. «Week 6» is desirable, but students expect to learn more. Teaching should have a positive approach, and adolescents do not want their educators to get embarrassed. Conclusion Although the teaching methods with active participation are enjoyable, it is necessary with more time for discussions and questions. Student participation in planning and implementation of the programme seems crucial for promoting salutogenic teaching processes.

Contents, Methods, and Outcomes of Adolescent Sexual Health Promotion in School Environments: A Scoping Review*

“…The total number of studies included was 25 (Table 1). The selected studies were conducted in the United States [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] (n = 16), China 45,46 (n = 2), the Netherlands 47,48 (n = 2), Spain 49,50 (n = 2), Finland 51,52 (n = 2), Brazil 53 (n = 1), Norway 54 (n = 1), and the United Kingdom 55 (n = 1). The studies were conducted between 2013 and 2021.…”

“…The studies were conducted between 2013 and 2021. The data were collected from surveys [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][49][50][51][52]54 (n = 22), interviews 33,46,48,53,54 (n = 5), observation 36 (n = 1), writings in an internet forum 53 (n = 1), feedback 32 (n = 1), and diaries 55 (n = 1). The study design was classified as quantitative 31,34,35,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][49][50][51][52] (n = 18), as qualitative 33,…”

“…Most of the promotion programs included contents about STDs 31,32,[35][36][37][39][40][41][42][43]45,46,[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] and pregnancy and contraception. 31,32,[34][35][36][39][40][41][42][43]46,[49][50][51][52][53][54][55] Decision-making and communication skills 31,[34][35][36][37]39,[41][42][43][44]46,49,50,54...…”

“…31,32,[34][35][36][39][40][41][42][43]46,[49][50][51][52][53][54][55] Decision-making and communication skills 31,[34][35][36][37]39,[41][42][43][44]46,49,50,54 were also addressed in half of the programs. In turn, porn 54 and cultural factors 54 were only addressed in one program. The contents of the programs are described in Table 2.…”

“…Traditional methods. Traditional methods included classroom lecturing, [31][32][33][40][41][42][43][44][45]49,51,52,54 small group teaching, 34,35,42 assignments, 35 videos, 32,35,48,49 Pow-erPoint presentations, 51,52 and quizzes. 45 Video presentations considered STDs, 49 and PowerPoint presentations addressed sexuality, sex, safe sex, condom use and STDs.…”