A systematic review of relationships and sex education outcomes for students with intellectual disability reported in the international literature.
L Paulauskaite, C Rivas, A Paris and 1 others
PMID 35698311WHAT IT FOUND
Most measured outcomes are knowledge-based, not skills.
Students want practical skills like contraception use, while teachers and parents focus on safety and behaviour. No validated tools exist to measure these outcomes in this age group.
Key findings
01The majority of identified outcomes for students aged 11-16 and 16-25 were knowledge-based rather than skills or behaviour-based.
02Students with intellectual disability prioritized practical skills like applying contraception and managing relationships, whereas parents and teachers prioritized safety and appropriate behaviour.
03No outcome measurement instruments were found to be validated for use with students with intellectual disability aged 5-25 years.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
No studies reported outcomes specifically for primary school-aged children (5-10 years), leaving a gap in evidence for this group. The review was limited to studies where at least 75% of participants had intellectual disability, potentially excluding insights from integrated settings. Most included studies were conducted in Western countries, limiting generalizability to other cultural contexts. No validated measurement instruments were found for this population, meaning the quality of outcome data in the included studies is difficult to assess. The views of students with severe intellectual disability and those with significant verbal communication difficulties were underrepresented, as most studies relied on interviews with verbal participants.
Declared interests
The work was supported by an Economic and Social Research Council PhD studentship awarded to one author. The funder had no role in the design, writing, or decision to publish. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that the lack of validated tools means RSE outcomes cannot be measured. The review found no existing validated instruments for this specific age and ability group, but it did identify a comprehensive list of outcomes. Clinicians should not abandon measurement but rather recognize that they must adapt or create context-specific methods to track the skills and knowledge changes described in the review.