Documents to download

Stakeholders have suggested that well-taught RSE can improve public health, address inequalities, promote healthy relationships, and improve awareness of the risks posed by using digital technology. Many studies on RSE are international and there are relatively few that focus just on the UK. As RSE programmes historically focussed on public health outcomes (such as reducing the prevalence of sexually transmitted infections), more evidence is available on the effect of RSE on these outcomes than on others (such as reducing partner violence).

Key Points

  • Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) can increase knowledge about sexual risk, lead to increased use of contraceptives, and reduce young people’s number of sexual partners. Some evidence suggests that it may delay the point at which young people first have sex and decrease rates of teenage pregnancy. However, it is difficult to isolate the effect of RSE programmes on teenage pregnancy rates as studies often examine multiple interventions at the same time.
  • There are few high-quality studies on how RSE affects prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). However, available evidence suggests that RSE does not reduce STI rates among young people.
  • Evidence shows that RSE can increase young people’s knowledge about, and change attitudes towards, sexual abuse and partner violence. There is less evidence to show that RSE programmes change young people’s relationship behaviour.
  • RSE’s role in improving awareness of the risks of sharing nude images and using pornography has not yet been evaluated.
  • RSE is most effective when it is taught by trained professionals in regular sessions, delivers age-appropriate content, is inclusive of different sexual and gender identities, is embedded into school policy, and involves the input of young people and their families.

Acknowledgements

POSTnotes are based on literature reviews and interviews with a range of stakeholders, and are externally peer reviewed. POST would like to thank interviewees and peer reviewers for kindly giving up their time during the preparation of this briefing, including:

  • Against Violence and Abuse
  • Barnardo’s*
  • Brook*
  • Catholic Education Service*
  • Contact
  • Coram
  • Department for Education*
  • End Violence Against Women Coalition*
  • Equality and Human Rights Commission*
  • FPA
  • International Planned Parenthood Federation
  • Marie Stopes
  • Nation Education Union*
  • National Association of Head Teachers
  • Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Information Service*
  • Office of the Children’s Commissioner*
  • Ofsted*
  • PSHE Association*
  • Public Health England*
  • Relate
  • Restless Development
  • SafeLives
  • Scottish Parliament Information Centre
  • Sex Education Forum*
  • George W X Barker, Sexpression: UK*
  • Stonewall*
  • Tender*
  • Terrence Higgins Trust
  • Welsh Government Education*
  • White Ribbon
  • Women’s Aid
  • Welsh Assembly Research Service
  • Welsh Government Education*
  • Professor Joanna Adler, Middlesex University*
  • Dr Christine Barter, University of Central Lancashire*
  • Visiting Professor Sue Berelowitz, University of Bedfordshire
  • Professor Rona Campbell, University of Bristol*
  • Associate Professor Christopher M Fisher, La Trobe University
  • Dr Eleanor Formby, Sheffield Hallam University*
  • Professor David Gadd, University of Manchester
  • Professor David Gurnham, University of Southampton
  • Dr Miranda Horvath, Middlesex University*
  • Professor Dame Anne Johnson, University College London
  • Professor David Paton, University of Nottingham*
  • Professor Michael Reiss, University College London*
  • Professor Emma Renold, Cardiff University*
  • Professor Nicky Stanley, University of Central Lancashire*

*Denotes people and organisations who acted as external reviewers of the briefing.


Documents to download

Related posts

  • The COVID-19 Winter Plan, published 23 November, relies on three factors to provide the UK with a “route back to normality”: vaccines, treatments and testing. In addition to PCR testing, lateral flow devices are now being rolled out across England and Wales for the rapid testing of certain occupational groups, community testing and as an alternative to self-isolation following exposure to the virus. How well validated have these tests been? Are they accurate enough for their proposed purposes? And how have they performed to date in mass testing trials?

  • People’s behaviour has a major role in the success of test, trace and isolate programmes. Uncertainty about whether to report symptoms, low perceived risk of COVID-19 disease and concerns about the consequences of self-isolation are among the barriers to adherence. Has the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies looked at adherence to TTI? What evidence is there on people’s understanding and willingness to be tested, provide contact details and self-isolate? Is there anything that can be done to improve this?