9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effectiveness of school-based child sexual abuse intervention among school children in the new millennium era: Systematic review and meta-analyses

      systematic-review

      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

          Introduction

          School-based child sexual abuse intervention programs were developed to educate the school children to protect them from sexual abuse. The programs were evaluated to make sure the interventions were effective in reducing child sexual abuse cases (CSA). This review aimed to determine the effectiveness of the school-based child sexual abuse intervention programs in the new millennium era (2000–2021) in improving the knowledge, skills, and attitude of school children under 18 years old toward child sexual abuse.

          Methods

          A systematic search was conducted through MEDLINE (PubMed), EBSCO, and SCOPUS databases to collect full English articles related to school-based CSA intervention programs published from 2000 to 2021.

          Results

          A total of 29 studies from randomized control trial and quasi-experimental from several countries was analyzed. Comparisons within group of pre-post intervention for knowledge, skills, and attitude were measured by standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI of −1.06 (95% CI: −1.29, −0.84), −0.91 (95% CI: −1.2, −0.61), and −0.51 (95% CI: −3.61, 0.58), respectively. Meanwhile for between intervention and control group comparisons, the SMD of knowledge was 0.9 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.18), skills was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.71), and attitude was 1.76 (95% CI: 0.46, 3.07).

          Conclusion

          The programs were found to be effective in improving the knowledge, skills, and attitude of the students from pre-intervention to post-intervention and between the intervention and control groups.

          Systematic Review Registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022312383, identifier: CRD42022312383.

          Related collections

          Most cited references64

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

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

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

              ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

              Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Public Health
                Front Public Health
                Front. Public Health
                Frontiers in Public Health
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-2565
                22 July 2022
                2022
                : 10
                : 909254
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Family Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia , Kubang Kerian, Malaysia
                [2] 2Medical Practice Division, Ministry of Health, Level 7, Block E1, Parcel E, Federal Government Administrative Centre , Putrajaya, Malaysia
                Author notes

                Edited by: Antonio Oliva, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Italy

                Reviewed by: Jose A. Piqueras, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Spain; S. Maria Awaluddin, Ministry of Health, Malaysia

                *Correspondence: Mohd Noor Norhayati hayatikk@ 123456usm.my

                This article was submitted to Children and Health, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health

                †These authors have contributed equally to this work

                Article
                10.3389/fpubh.2022.909254
                9355675
                35937243
                8aa3c080-eb11-4bf8-a746-409ad161c034
                Copyright © 2022 Che Yusof, Norhayati and Mohd Azman.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 31 March 2022
                : 28 June 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 2, Equations: 1, References: 64, Pages: 0, Words: 7347
                Categories
                Public Health
                Systematic Review

                school-based intervention,child sexual abuse,knowledge,skills,attitude

                Comments

                Comment on this article