4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Design, Content and Delivery of Relationship and Sexuality Education Programmes for People with Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Review of the International Evidence

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There is growing empirical evidence regarding the relationship and sexuality experiences and needs of children, young people and adults with intellectual disabilities. A total of twelve papers met the inclusion criteria regarding relationship and sexuality education (RSE) programmes specific to the needs of this population. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and quality appraisal undertaken. The four themes identified were principles informing RSE programme development, design and content of RSE programmes, delivery of RSE programmes and evaluation of RSE programmes. The discussion presents areas that need to be addressed to ensure that people with intellectual disabilities, their families, carers and professionals are fully involved in the design and delivery of RSE programmes. Further research is required to identify the impact of the programmes and the sustained outcomes achieved. Recommendations are made regarding the activities required to enable the development of evidence-based and person-centred approaches to relationship and sexuality programmes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

          Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Theoretical explanations for maintenance of behaviour change: a systematic review of behaviour theories

              ABSTRACT Background: Behaviour change interventions are effective in supporting individuals in achieving temporary behaviour change. Behaviour change maintenance, however, is rarely attained. The aim of this review was to identify and synthesise current theoretical explanations for behaviour change maintenance to inform future research and practice. Methods: Potentially relevant theories were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO). In addition, an existing database of 80 theories was searched, and 25 theory experts were consulted. Theories were included if they formulated hypotheses about behaviour change maintenance. Included theories were synthesised thematically to ascertain overarching explanations for behaviour change maintenance. Initial theoretical themes were cross-validated. Findings: One hundred and seventeen behaviour theories were identified, of which 100 met the inclusion criteria. Five overarching, interconnected themes representing theoretical explanations for behaviour change maintenance emerged. Theoretical explanations of behaviour change maintenance focus on the differential nature and role of motives, self-regulation, resources (psychological and physical), habits, and environmental and social influences from initiation to maintenance. Discussion: There are distinct patterns of theoretical explanations for behaviour change and for behaviour change maintenance. The findings from this review can guide the development and evaluation of interventions promoting maintenance of health behaviours and help in the development of an integrated theory of behaviour change maintenance.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                18 October 2020
                October 2020
                : 17
                : 20
                : 7568
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland BT9 7BL, UK; m.linden@ 123456qub.ac.uk (M.L.); l.marsh@ 123456qub.ac.uk (L.M.)
                [2 ]School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland; mccanned@ 123456tcd.ie
                [3 ]Institute of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland G12 0XH, UK; maria.truesdale@ 123456glasgow.ac.uk
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: m.j.brown@ 123456qub.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3230-401X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3548-4204
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3832-4102
                Article
                ijerph-17-07568
                10.3390/ijerph17207568
                7589668
                33080975
                eb31567a-e57b-4c90-8a89-be6a85ed8c03
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 25 September 2020
                : 15 October 2020
                Categories
                Review

                Public health
                intimate relationships,sexuality,programme content,programme delivery,intellectual disabilities

                Comments

                Comment on this article