Laura D Lindberg1, Leslie M Kantor2. 1. Guttmacher Institute, New York, New York. Electronic address: llindberg@guttmacher.org. 2. Department of Urban-Global Public Health, Rutgers University, Rutgers School of Public Health, New York, New Jersey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Updated estimates of adolescents' receipt of sex education are needed to monitor trends and potential inequities. METHODS: Using nationally representative data from the 2011-2015 and 2015-2019 National Survey of Family Growth, we use logistic regression to examine changes in the receipt of formal sex education by gender. For 2015-2019, we estimate patterns by gender and race/ethnicity for content, timing, and location of instruction. RESULTS: Between 2011-2015 and 2015-2019, there were few significant changes in adolescents' receipt of formal sex education. Between these periods, instruction on waiting until marriage to have sex declined (73%-67% female [F.], p = .005; 70%-58% males [M.], p < .001). In both the periods, about half of the adolescents received sex education that meets the minimum standard articulated in national goals. In 2015-2019, there were significant gender differences in the instruction about waiting until marriage to have sex (67% F., 58% M., p < 001) and condom skills (55% F., 60% M., p = .003). Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic males were less likely than non-Hispanic White males to receive formal instruction before the first sex on sexually transmitted infection/HIV, birth control, or where to get birth control. Many adolescents reported religious settings as the sources of instruction about waiting until marriage to have sex (56% F. and 49% M.), but almost none received instruction about birth control from those settings. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the receipt of sex education, by gender, race/ethnicity, and the location of instruction, leave many adolescents without critical information. Gaps in meeting national objectives indicate the need to expand the provision of sex education.
PURPOSE: Updated estimates of adolescents' receipt of sex education are needed to monitor trends and potential inequities. METHODS: Using nationally representative data from the 2011-2015 and 2015-2019 National Survey of Family Growth, we use logistic regression to examine changes in the receipt of formal sex education by gender. For 2015-2019, we estimate patterns by gender and race/ethnicity for content, timing, and location of instruction. RESULTS: Between 2011-2015 and 2015-2019, there were few significant changes in adolescents' receipt of formal sex education. Between these periods, instruction on waiting until marriage to have sex declined (73%-67% female [F.], p = .005; 70%-58% males [M.], p < .001). In both the periods, about half of the adolescents received sex education that meets the minimum standard articulated in national goals. In 2015-2019, there were significant gender differences in the instruction about waiting until marriage to have sex (67% F., 58% M., p < 001) and condom skills (55% F., 60% M., p = .003). Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic males were less likely than non-Hispanic White males to receive formal instruction before the first sex on sexually transmitted infection/HIV, birth control, or where to get birth control. Many adolescents reported religious settings as the sources of instruction about waiting until marriage to have sex (56% F. and 49% M.), but almost none received instruction about birth control from those settings. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the receipt of sex education, by gender, race/ethnicity, and the location of instruction, leave many adolescents without critical information. Gaps in meeting national objectives indicate the need to expand the provision of sex education.