Search

Introduction: Health interventions that require significant change to individual lifestyles or social norms can pose a challenge for widespread public acceptability and uptake. At the same time, over the last two decades, there has been increasing attention paid to the rise of populist movements globally, defined by 'the people' pushing against 'an elite' viewed as depriving the people of their sovereignty. To understand potential overlap in these two areas, this study aims to synthesise existing international evidence on linkages between populist attitudes and reduced uptake, acceptability, adherence and/or effectiveness of public health interventions. The goal of this work is to create a conceptual framework that can be used to inform policy strategies aimed at widening the impact of public health interventions., Methods and Analysis: A systematic review will be performed via searches across databases and websites relevant to public health and social science research, informed by preliminary searches on the topic. There will be no language restrictions, but included studies will be limited to those produced since 2008, the year of the global financial crisis, from which most current literature on populism dates. Risk of bias will be assessed using validated tools according to study design. Due to expected heterogeneity across included studies, this will be a systematic review without meta-analysis. Findings will be synthesised narratively, and the strength of the evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The review will be reported according to the Systematic Reviews without Meta-Analysis reporting guidelines., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical review is not required for this study. Public dissemination will be informed via consultation with our Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Strategy Group, along with reporting via peer-reviewed publication, relevant international conferences, a policy brief and a workshop with public health and communications experts., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42024513124., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: No whole-school interventions which seek to reduce physical, sexual and emotional violence from peers, intimate partners and teachers have been trialled with adolescents. Here, we report a protocol for a pilot trial of the Good School Toolkit-Secondary Schools intervention, to be tested in Ugandan secondary schools. Our main objectives are to (1) refine the intervention, (2) to understand feasibility of delivery of the intervention and (3) to explore design parameters for a subsequent phase III trial., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial, with two arms and parallel assignment. Eight schools will be randomly selected from a stratified list of all eligible schools in Kampala and Wakiso Districts. We will conduct a baseline survey and endline survey 18 months after the baseline, with 960 adolescents and 200 teachers. Qualitative data and mixed methods process data collection will be conducted throughout the intervention. Proportion of staff and students reporting acceptability, understanding and implementing with fidelity will be tabulated at endline for intervention schools. Proportions of schools consenting to participation, randomisation and proportions of schools and individual participants completing the baseline and endline surveys will be described in a Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials diagram., Ethics and Dissemination: The ethical requirements of our project are complex. Full approvals have been received from the Mildmay Ethics Committee (0407-2019), the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (SS 6020) and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (16212). Results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed academic journals, and shared with public bodies, policy makers, study participants and the general public in Uganda., Trial Registration Number: PACTR202009826515511., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DN, JN, BN and YL are employed by Raising Voices, and are all involved in the design and implementation of the Good School Toolkit-Secondary Schools., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Contraceptive services were significantly disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic in Britain. We investigated contraception-related health inequalities in the first year of the pandemic., Methods: Natsal-COVID Wave 2 surveyed 6658 adults aged 18-59 years between March and April 2021, using quotas and weighting to achieve quasi-representativeness. Our analysis included sexually active participants aged 18-44 years, described as female at birth. We analysed contraception use, contraceptive switching due to the pandemic, contraceptive service access, and pregnancy plannedness., Results: Of 1488 participants, 1619 were at risk of unplanned pregnancy, of whom 54.1% (51.0%-57.1%) reported routinely using effective contraception in the past year. Among all participants, 14.3% (12.5%-16.3%) reported switching or stopping contraception due to the pandemic. 3.2% (2.0%-5.1%) of those using effective methods pre-pandemic switched to less effective methods, while 3.8% (2.5%-5.9%) stopped. 29.3% (26.9%-31.8%) of at-risk participants reported seeking contraceptive services, of whom 16.4% (13.0%-20.4%) reported difficulty accessing services. Clinic closures and cancelled appointments were commonly reported pandemic-related reasons for difficulty accessing services. This unmet need was associated with younger age, diverse sexual identities and anxiety symptoms. Of 199 pregnancies, 6.6% (3.9%-11.1%) scored as 'unplanned'; less planning was associated with younger age, lower social grade and unemployment., Conclusions: Just under a third of participants sought contraceptive services during the pandemic and most were successful, indicating resilience and adaptability of service delivery. However, one in six reported an unmet need due to the pandemic. COVID-induced inequalities in service access potentially exacerbated existing reproductive health inequalities. These should be addressed in the post-pandemic period and beyond., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: We assess different approaches to seeking consent in research in secondary schools., Design: We review evidence on seeking active versus passive parent/carer consent on participant response rates and profiles. We explore the legal and regulatory requirements governing student and parent/carer consent in the UK., Results: Evidence demonstrates that requiring parent/carer active consent reduces response rates and introduces selection biases, which impact the rigour of research and hence its usefulness for assessing young people's needs. There is no evidence on the impacts of seeking active versus passive student consent but this is likely to be marginal when researchers are directly in communication with students in schools. There is no legal requirement to seek active parent/carer consent for children's involvement in research on non-medicinal intervention or observational studies. Such research is instead covered by common law, which indicates that it is acceptable to seek students' own active consent when they are judged competent. General data protection regulation legislation does not change this. It is generally accepted that most secondary school students age 11+ are competent to provide their own consent for interventions though this should be assessed individually., Conclusion: Allowing parent/carer opt-out rights recognises their autonomy while giving primacy to student autonomy. In the case of intervention research, most interventions are delivered at the level of the school so consent can only practically be sought from head teachers. Where interventions are individually targeted, seeking student active consent for these should be considered where feasible., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Access to quality sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services remains imperative even during a pandemic. Our objective was to understand experiences of delayed or unsuccessful access to SRH services in Britain during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: In October and November 2020 we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 14 women and six men reporting an unmet need for SRH services in the Natsal-COVID survey, a large-scale quasi-representative web-panel survey of sexual health and behaviour during COVID-19 (n=6654). We purposively sampled eligible participants using sociodemographic quotas. Inductive thematic analysis was used to explore service access and quality and to identify lessons for future SRH service delivery., Results: Twenty participants discussed experiences spanning 10 SRH services including contraception and antenatal/maternity care. Participants reported hesitancy and self-censorship of need. Accessing telemedicine and 'socially-distanced' services required tenacity. Challenges included navigating changing information and procedures; perceptions of gatekeepers as obstructing access; and inflexible appointment systems. Concerns about reconfigured services included reduced privacy; decreased quality of interactions with professionals; reduced informal support; and fewer preventive SRH practices. However, some participants also described more streamlined services and staff efforts to compensate for disruptions. Many viewed positively the ongoing blending of telemedicine with in-person care., Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted access and quality of SRH services. Participants' accounts revealed self-censorship of need, difficulty navigating shifting service configurations and perceived quality reductions. Telemedicine offers potential if intelligently combined with in-person care. We offer initial evidence-based recommendations for promoting an equitable restoration and future adaption of services., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To assess implementation and ease of implementation of control measures in schools as reported by staff and parents., Design: A descriptive cross-sectional survey., Setting: Staff and parents/guardians of the 132 primary schools and 19 secondary schools participating in COVID-19 surveillance in school kids (sKIDs and sKIDsPLUS Studies)., Main Outcome Measure: Prevalence of control measures implemented in schools in autumn 2020, parental and staff perception of ease of implementation., Results: In total, 56 of 151 (37%) schools participated in this study, with 1953 parents and 986 staff members completing the questionnaire. Most common measures implemented by schools included regular hand cleaning for students (52 of 56, 93%) and staff (70 of 73, 96%), as reported by parents and staff, respectively, and was among the easiest to implement at all times for students (57%) and even more so, for staff (78%). Maintaining 2-metre distancing was less commonly reported for students (24%-51%) as it was for staff (81%-84%), but was one of the most difficult to follow at all times for students (25%) and staff (16%) alike. Some measures were more commonly reported by primary school compared to secondary school parents, including keeping students within the same small groups (28 of 41, 68% vs 8 of 15, 53%), ensuring the same teacher for classes (29 of 41, 71% vs 6 of 15, 40%). On the other hand, wearing a face covering while at school was reported by three-quarters of secondary school parents compared with only parents of 4 of 41 (10%) primary schools. Other measures such as student temperature checks (5%-13%) and advising staff work from home if otherwise healthy (7%-15%) were rarely reported., Conclusions: Variable implementation of infection control measures was reported, with some easier to implement (hand hygiene) than others (physical distancing)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Physical distancing as a non-pharmaceutical intervention aims to reduce interactions between people to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Intimate physical contact outside the household (IPCOH) may expand transmission networks by connecting households. We aimed to explore whether intimacy needs impacted adherence to physical distancing following lockdown in Britain in March 2020., Methods: The Natsal-COVID web-panel survey (July-August 2020) used quota-sampling and weighting to achieve a quasi-representative population sample. We estimate reporting of IPCOH with a romantic/sexual partner in the 4 weeks prior to interview, describe the type of contact, identify demographic and behavioural factors associated with IPCOH and present age-adjusted ORs (aORs). Qualitative interviews (n=18) were conducted to understand the context, reasons and decision making around IPCOH., Results: Of 6654 participants aged 18-59 years, 9.9% (95% CI 9.1% to 10.6%) reported IPCOH. IPCOH was highest in those aged 18-24 (17.7%), identifying as gay or lesbian (19.5%), and in steady non-cohabiting relationships (56.3%). IPCOH was associated with reporting risk behaviours (eg, condomless sex, higher alcohol consumption). IPCOH was less likely among those reporting bad/very bad health (aOR 0.54; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.93) but more likely among those with COVID-19 symptoms and/or diagnosis (aOR 1.34; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.65). Two-thirds (64.4%) of IPCOH was reported as being within a support bubble. Qualitative interviews found that people reporting IPCOH deliberated over, and made efforts to mitigate, the risks., Conclusions: Given 90% of people did not report IPCOH, this contact may not be a large additional contributor to SARS-CoV-2 transmission, although heterogeneity exists within the population. Public health messages need to recognise how single people and partners living apart balance sexual intimacy and relationship needs with adherence to control measures., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To systematically reivew the observational evidence of the effect of school closures and school reopenings on SARS-CoV-2 community transmission., Setting: Schools (including early years settings, primary schools and secondary schools)., Intervention: School closures and reopenings., Outcome Measure: Community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (including any measure of community infections rate, hospital admissions or mortality attributed to COVID-19)., Methods: On 7 January 2021, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, the WHO Global COVID-19 Research Database, ERIC, the British Education Index, the Australian Education Index and Google, searching title and abstracts for terms related to SARS-CoV-2 AND terms related to schools or non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool to evaluate bias., Results: We identified 7474 articles, of which 40 were included, with data from 150 countries. Of these, 32 studies assessed school closures and 11 examined reopenings. There was substantial heterogeneity between school closure studies, with half of the studies at lower risk of bias reporting reduced community transmission by up to 60% and half reporting null findings. The majority (n=3 out of 4) of school reopening studies at lower risk of bias reported no associated increases in transmission., Conclusions: School closure studies were at risk of confounding and collinearity from other non-pharmacological interventions implemented around the same time as school closures, and the effectiveness of closures remains uncertain. School reopenings, in areas of low transmission and with appropriate mitigation measures, were generally not accompanied by increasing community transmission. With such varied evidence on effectiveness, and the harmful effects, policymakers should take a measured approach before implementing school closures; and should look to reopen schools in times of low transmission, with appropriate mitigation measures., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic represents a major societal challenge that requires large-scale behaviour change, widespread collective action and cooperation to reduce viral transmission. Existing literature indicates that several messaging approaches may be effective, including emphasising the benefits to the recipient, aligning with the recipient's moral values and focusing on protecting others. Current research suggests that prosocial public health messages that highlight behaviours linked to societal benefits (eg, protecting 'each other'), rather than focusing on behaviours that protect oneself (eg, protecting 'yourself'), may be a more effective method for communicating strategies related to infectious disease. To investigate this we will conduct a systematic review that will identify what messages and behaviour change techniques have the potential to optimise the effect on population behaviour in relation to reducing transmission of respiratory infections., Methods and Analysis: A systematic literature search of published and unpublished studies (including grey literature) in electronic databases will be conducted to identify those that meet our inclusion criteria. The search will be run in four electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Scopus. We will also conduct supplementary searches in databases of 'grey' literature such as PsycEXTRA, Social Science Research Network and OSF PREPRINTS, and use the Google Scholar search engine. A systematic approach to searching, screening, reviewing and data extraction will be applied based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Titles, abstracts and full texts for eligibility will be examined independently by researchers. The quality of the included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions tool. Disagreements will be resolved by a consensus procedure., Ethics and Dissemination: This protocol has been registered with PROSPERO. No ethical approval is required, as there will be no collection of primary data. The synthesised findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42020198874., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

While large-scale changes in population behaviour are required to reduce the transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus, the emergency context is not conducive to the sort of careful communications planning that would normally be required to meet such a task. Rapid strategic communications planning in a pandemic by governments is, however, possible and necessary. Steps include setting up a dedicated communications task force, mobilising partners and resources, developing a creative brief and theory of change and overseeing the creation, testing, roll out and revision of content. In this short guide, we argue that a minimum of strategic planning can be undertaken rapidly, and that good use can be made of simple principles of behaviour change, even during pandemics. Our aim here is to provide a blueprint that governments and their partners, especially in low-income settings, can follow to design, coordinate and resource national communications efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic immediately and for the longer term., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: We have previously reported benefits for reduced bullying, smoking, alcohol and other drug use and mental health from a trial of 'Learning Together', an intervention that aimed to modify school environments and implement restorative practice and a social and emotional skill curriculum., Objectives: To conduct post hoc theory-driven analyses of broader impacts., Design: Cluster randomised trial., Settings: 40 state secondary schools in southern England., Participants: Students aged 11/12 years at baseline., Outcomes: Student self-reported measures at 24 and 36 months of: cyberbullying victimisation and perpetration; observations of other students perpetrating aggressive behaviours at school; own perpetration of aggressive behaviours in and outside school; perceived lack of safety at school; participation in school disciplinary procedures; truancy and e-cigarette use., Results: We found evidence of multiple impacts on other health (reduced e-cigarette use, cyberbullying perpetration, perpetration of aggressive behaviours) and educational (reduced participation in school disciplinary procedures and truancy) outcomes., Conclusion: These analyses suggested that the intervention was effective in bringing about a broader range of beneficial outcomes, adding to the evidence that the intervention is a promising approach to promote adolescent health via an intervention that is attractive to schools., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN10751359., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Achieving good menstrual health and hygiene (MHH) is a public health challenge and there is little evidence to inform interventions. The aim of this study was to pilot test an intervention to improve MHH and school attendance in Uganda, in preparation for a future cluster-randomised trial., Design: Longitudinal study with pre-post evaluation of a pilot intervention., Setting: Two secondary schools in Entebbe, Uganda., Participants: Of the 473 eligible students in secondary 2 (S2) at baseline, 450 (95.1%; 232 girls and 218 boys) consented/assented. 369 students (188 girls; 81.0%; and 181 boys; 83.0%) participated in the endline survey., Intervention: The intervention comprised training teachers to improve delivery of government guidelines for puberty education, training in use of a menstrual kit and pain management, a drama skit, provision of analgesics and improvements to school water and sanitation hygiene facilities., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Feasibility and acceptability of delivering the intervention. Baseline and endline quantitative surveys were conducted, with qualitative interviews conducted at endline. School attendance was assessed using self-completed daily diaries among a nested cohort of 100 female students., Results: There were high levels of uptake of the individual and behavioural intervention components (puberty education, drama skit, menstrual hygiene management (MHM) kit and pain management). The proportion of girls reporting anxiety about next period decreased from 58.6% to 34.4%, and reported use of effective pain management increased from 76.4% to 91.4%. Most girls (81.4%) reported improved school toilet facilities, which improved their comfort managing menstruation. The diary data and qualitative data indicated a potential intervention impact on improving menstrual-related school absenteeism., Conclusions: The pilot study showed that the multicomponent MHM intervention was acceptable and feasible to deliver, and potentially effective in improving menstruation knowledge and management. A cluster-randomised trial is needed to evaluate rigorously the intervention effects on MHM and school attendance., Trial Registration Number: NCT04064736; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Sexual health includes pleasurable, safe, sexual experiences free from coercion, discrimination and violence. In the UK, many young people's experiences fall short of this definition. This study aimed to inform the development of a safer sex and healthy relationships intervention for those aged 16-19 years studying in further education (FE) settings., Design: A formative mixed-method multicase study explored if and how to implement four components within a single intervention., Setting: Six FE settings in England and Wales and one sexual health charity participated between October and July 2015., Participants: Focus groups with 134 FE students and 44 FE staff, and interviews with 11 FE managers and 12 sexual health charity staff, first explored whether four candidate intervention components were acceptable and could have sustained implementation. An e-survey with 2105 students and 163 staff then examined potential uptake and acceptability of components shortlisted in the first stage. Stakeholder consultation was then used to refine the intervention., Intervention: Informed by a review of evidence of effective interventions delivered in other settings, four candidate intervention components were identified which could promote safer sex and healthy relationships among those aged 16-19 years: 1) student-led sexual health action groups; 2) on-site sexual health and relationships services; 3) staff safeguarding training about sexual health and relationships and 4) sex and relationships education., Results: On-site sexual health and relationships services and staff safeguarding training about sexual health and relationships were key gaps in current FE provision and welcomed by staff, students and health professionals. Sex and relationships education and student-led sexual health action groups were not considered acceptable., Conclusions: The SaFE intervention, comprising on-site sexual health and relationships services and staff safeguarding training in FE settings, may have potential promoting sexual health among FE students. Further optimisation and refinement with key stakeholders is required before piloting via cluster randomised controlled trial., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To systematically review evidence on the effectiveness of interventions including integration of academic and health education for reducing physical aggression and violence, and describe the content of these interventions., Data Sources: Between November and December 2015, we searched 19 databases and 32 websites and consulted key experts in the field. We updated our search in February 2018., Eligibility Criteria: We included randomised trials of school-based interventions integrating academic and health education in students aged 4-18 and not targeted at health-related subpopulations (eg, learning or developmental difficulties). We included evaluations reporting a measure of interpersonal violence or aggression., Data Extraction and Analysis: Data were extracted independently in duplicate, interventions were analysed to understand similarities and differences and outcomes were narratively synthesised by key stage (KS)., Results: We included 13 evaluations of 10 interventions reported in 20 papers. Interventions included either full or partial integration, incorporated a variety of domains beyond the classroom, and used literature, local development or linking of study skills and health promoting skills. Evidence was concentrated in KS2, with few evaluations in KS3 or KS4, and evaluations had few consistent effects; evaluations in KS3 and KS4 did not suggest effectiveness., Discussion: Integration of academic and health education may be a promising approach, but more evidence is needed. Future research should consider the 'lifecourse' aspects of these interventions; that is, do they have a longitudinal effect? Evaluations did not shed light on the value of different approaches to integration., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Teenage pregnancy remains a worldwide health concern which is an outcome of, and contributor to, health inequalities. The need for gender-aware interventions with a focus on males in addressing teenage pregnancy has been highlighted as a global health need by WHO and identified in systematic reviews of (relationship and sexuality education (RSE)). This study aims to test the effectiveness of an interactive film-based RSE intervention, which draws explicit attention to the role of males in preventing an unintended pregnancy by reducing unprotected heterosexual teenage sex among males and females under age 16 years., Methods and Analysis: A phase III cluster randomised trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. If I Were Jack encompasses a culturally sensitive interactive film, classroom materials, a teacher-trainer session and parent animations and will be delivered to replace some of the usual RSE for the target age group in schools in the intervention group. Schools in the control group will not receive the intervention and will continue with usual RSE. Participants will not be blinded to allocation. Schools are the unit of randomisation stratified per country and socioeconomic status. We aim to recruit 66 UK schools (24 in Northern Ireland; 14 in each of England, Scotland and Wales), including approximately 7900 pupils. A questionnaire will be administered at baseline and at 12-14 months postintervention. The primary outcome is reported unprotected sex, a surrogate measure associated with unintended teenage pregnancy. Secondary outcomes include knowledge, attitudes, skills and intentions relating to avoiding teenage pregnancy in addition to frequency of engagement in sexual intercourse, contraception use and diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained from Queen's University Belfast. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated to stakeholders. Funding is from the National Institute for Health Research., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN99459996., Competing Interests: Competing interests: QUB holds copyright and the researchers do not benefit financially from its evaluation or use., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Sex and relationship education (SRE) is regarded as vital to improving young people's sexual health, but a third of schools in England lacks good SRE and government guidance is outdated. We aimed to identify what makes SRE programmes effective, acceptable, sustainable and capable of faithful implementation., Design: This is a synthesis of findings from five research packages that we conducted (practitioner interviews, case study investigation, National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, review of reviews and qualitative synthesis). We also gained feedback on our research from stakeholder consultations., Settings: Primary research and stakeholder consultations were conducted in the UK. Secondary research draws on studies worldwide., Results: Our findings indicate that school-based SRE and school-linked sexual health services can be effective at improving sexual health. We found professional consensus that good programmes start in primary school. Professionals and young people agreed that good programmes are age-appropriate, interactive and take place in a safe environment. Some young women reported preferring single-sex classes, but young men appeared to want mixed classes. Young people and professionals agreed that SRE should take a 'life skills' approach and not focus on abstinence. Young people advocated a 'sex-positive' approach but reported this was lacking. Young people and professionals agreed that SRE should discuss risks, but young people indicated that approaches to risk need revising. Professionals felt teachers should be involved in SRE delivery, but many young people reported disliking having their teachers deliver SRE and we found that key messages could become lost when interpreted by teachers. The divergence between young people and professionals was echoed by stakeholders. We developed criteria for best practice based on the evidence., Conclusions: We identified key features of effective and acceptable SRE. Our best practice criteria can be used to evaluate existing programmes, contribute to the development of new programmes and inform consultations around statutory SRE., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AMJ has been a Governor of the Wellcome Trust since 2011. All other authors have no competing interest to decline., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)