Effectiveness of audiovisual interventions in increasing knowledge about sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review.
Emanoelle Fernandes Silva, Polyana Norberta Mendes, Marli Teresinha Gimeniz Galvão and 3 others
PMID 41221916WHAT IT FOUND
Included studies generally reported improved STI knowledge, but two randomized controlled studies did not find enough evidence of a gain.
The evidence was low or very low, so audiovisual education should not be assumed to prevent infections or reliably change behavior.
Key findings
01Audiovisual interventions generally increased knowledge about STIs in the included studies, but two randomized controlled studies did not show significant changes.
02The certainty of evidence was low for randomized controlled trials and very low for quasi-experimental studies, mainly because of risk of bias and imprecision.
03Only 11 studies reported outcomes other than knowledge, and only one study reported behavioral change.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
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 meta-analysis was possible because outcomes, instruments, and interventions were too varied. Many studies had serious or extremely serious risk of bias, and some results had wide confidence intervals or missing numerical data. Two randomized controlled studies did not show significant knowledge changes. Only 11 studies reported outcomes other than knowledge, so behavior change is not well supported. Five studies could not be retrieved in full, and gray literature was excluded. No studies were conducted exclusively with older adults or people needing low-vision or hearing accessibility. Most studies were from the United States or Indonesia, which may limit applicability elsewhere.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that audiovisual interventions prevent STIs or reliably change sexual behavior. The review's primary outcome was knowledge, the evidence was low or very low, and two randomized controlled studies did not show significant knowledge changes.