J Stryker1, S E Samuels, M D Smith. 1. Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, University of California at San Francisco.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article examines the impact of contentious local debates on the design and implementation of school-based condom availability programs. METHODS: Information about condom availability in schools was reviewed by 50 leading educators and health officials at a 1992 forum held in Menlo Park, Calif. RESULTS: Few existing condom availability programs were designed to yield definitive data on sexual risk-taking behavior or other measures of program effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: In the debate over school-based condom availability programs, as in many aspects of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention programs, scientific, moral, and political concerns overlap. Behavioral research into the potential effectiveness of such programs can help inform debates about fundamental values concerning sexual decision making and privacy, family integrity and parental autonomy, and public health.
OBJECTIVES: This article examines the impact of contentious local debates on the design and implementation of school-based condom availability programs. METHODS: Information about condom availability in schools was reviewed by 50 leading educators and health officials at a 1992 forum held in Menlo Park, Calif. RESULTS: Few existing condom availability programs were designed to yield definitive data on sexual risk-taking behavior or other measures of program effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: In the debate over school-based condom availability programs, as in many aspects of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention programs, scientific, moral, and political concerns overlap. Behavioral research into the potential effectiveness of such programs can help inform debates about fundamental values concerning sexual decision making and privacy, family integrity and parental autonomy, and public health.
Authors: Susan M Blake; Rebecca Ledsky; Carol Goodenow; Richard Sawyer; David Lohrmann; Richard Windsor Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 9.308