RNNarrative ReviewRevista brasileira de enfermagem2025

Use of digital technologies to promote sexual health in young adults: a narrative review.

Aliete Cristina Gomes Dias Pedrosa da Cunha-Oliveira, Sagrario Gómez Cantarino, Diana Gabriela Simões Marques Dos Santos and 7 others

PMID 40561348

WHAT IT FOUND

Young adults reported better sexual health knowledge and some STI testing after texts or apps, but behavior changes were inconsistent.

Use these as educational supports, not proven treatments.

Key findings

01Four studies met the review criteria, all involving young adults and digital sexual health promotion.

02Benefits were reported in knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, including increased knowledge and some STI testing.

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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

This is a narrative review, not a systematic review or meta-analysis, and it included only four studies. The review widened the age range to 15 to 29 years because no studies were found for 15 to 24 years, so it may not speak precisely to the youngest adults. The included studies had limitations: small numbers of completed questionnaires with insufficient statistical power, need for internet access during follow-up, loss to follow-up, and urban-only samples. No studies were found in Portugal, so the evidence may not reflect local practice.

Declared interests

Funded by national funds through FCT, the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, under project UIDB/00742/2020. No commercial sponsor or competing interest is stated.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read this review as proof that digital messages or apps improve sexual health behavior. The evidence came from only four studies, some testing and condom-use comparisons did not show clear differences, and the included studies had limitations such as low statistical power and loss to follow-up.

Read it on PubMed →