1 / 16

Sanne van Lieshout, MSc. Global Health October 16th, 2012

Why did sexuality education programme The World Starts With Me not show to be effective? In discussion with students, teachers and principals in Nairobi, Kenya. Sanne van Lieshout, MSc. Global Health October 16th, 2012. Table of content. What is The World Starts With Me (WSWM)?

tass
Download Presentation

Sanne van Lieshout, MSc. Global Health October 16th, 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Why did sexuality education programme The World Starts With Me not show to be effective?In discussion with students, teachers and principals in Nairobi, Kenya Sanne van Lieshout, MSc. Global Health October 16th, 2012

  2. Table of content • What is The World Starts With Me (WSWM)? • Prior evaluation outcomes • Research questions • Hypotheses • Theoretical framework • Data collection • Results • Conclusions and recommendations 2-11-2012 / dia 2

  3. The World Starts With Me Computer-based sexuality educationprogramme Rights-based approach Rutgers WPF and SchoolNet Uganda Culturally adapted to othercountries, among which Kenya 2-11-2012 / dia 3

  4. Prior evaluation outcomes • Processevaluation was positive • Outcome evaluation disappointing: - No significant improvements - Even a móre negative attitude towards consistent condom use after WSWM participation 2-11-2012 / dia 4

  5. Research questions • What goes wrong in the correct adoption and implementation of the programme, regarded as an innovation? - Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation (2003) • Why are there no positive outcomes with regard to sexual behaviour of WSWM participants? • Delay • Consistent condomuse - Fishbein& Ajzen, Reasoned Action Approach 2-11-2012 / dia 5

  6. Hypotheses Severalpossibleexplanationsfor these outcomes: • The programme itself • The implementation (completeness and fidelity) • Research methods • Living environment of the students and the current social norms about sexuality 2-11-2012 / dia 6

  7. Theoretical framework:Diffusion of Innovations. Rogers (2003) 2-11-2012 / dia 7

  8. Data Collection Table 1: distribution of the interviewed participants per school. 2-11-2012 / dia 8

  9. Results (1) Principals and WSWM teachersaboutadoption and implementation • Principalsneed to representCatholicchurch • Shift of priorities • Teachers do getincentivesforotherafter-school clubs • Computers break down and power costs money • Students are sometimes sent home for school fees • “Don’t expect results too soon. These studentscomefrom families thatdon’t talk aboutsex. This is a process that takes time.” • Femaleteachersfinditdifficult to discusscondomusewith the girls • Teacher transfer 2-11-2012 / dia 9

  10. Results (2) WSWM participantsabout the programme • Whydecided to join WSWM: • “I expected to get to change my life“ • “To gain knowledge and self-control” • “I wanted to know more about some questions which go unanswered, so I can help other people” • “Tounderstand myself better, deliver that to others, that can make them change” • Parents • Spreading the message: • Individually and in groups. At school, butalso in the neighbourhood and at the church • “I discusswithfriendswho never got the chance to get to school” 2-11-2012 / dia 10

  11. Results (3) Studentsaboutdelay and condoms • (dis)advantages of delay are clear, but different viewpoints: “ premaritalsexcheapensyour soul and demotesyourcharacter” “ifyouwaituntil 25, yourchildrenwillget a betterlife and iteradicatespoverty” • Knowledgeableaboutcondoms, but… • Abuse, storing, man-madeinstead of God-made, holes, oils, • “we don’t do condoms in our home area” • Peer pressure and myths 2-11-2012 / dia 11

  12. Results (4) Principals and WSWM teachers about youth’s sexuality • Media and porn have a bad influenceon the youth • “society is rotten” • Interviewed men seemed more open thanwomen • “parents have forgotten to assist these people in growing up” 2-11-2012 / dia 12

  13. Confusion: At one school principal, WSWM teacher and students were interviewed • Principal: later appeared to be a WSWM trainer, didn’t mention it • WSWM teacher: seemed very dedicated • Student: “condoms, they contain some, what are theycalled? … whichmightcauseharmtoyour body. So in WSWM we are advisednottousethem” 2-11-2012 / dia 13

  14. Conclusions and recommendations Withregard to the theoreticalframework: • Character of WSWM is very different fromprevailingreligiousnorms(compatibility) • This, and time contraintsmakeadoption and implementation of WSWM verydifficult(complexity) • Relativeadvantagepotentiallyfor the youth’shealth, certainlynotfor image of the school • Observability: schools are invited to WSWM expositions at other schools • Trialability: - • Recommendations werecommunicated with Rutgers WPF and The Centre for the Study of Adolescence 2-11-2012 / dia 14

  15. Conclusions (2) • Despite multiple problems, everyone interviewed was very enthusiastic about WSWM • Outcome measures of previous effect evaluation seem to have been too ambitious and take more time • Narratives of students, WSWM teachers and principals can be very helpful for Rutgers WPF and local partner CSA to adapt and optimize the programme and its implementation 2-11-2012 / dia 15

  16. Thank you for your attention! Questions? s.vanlieshout@maastrichtuniversity.nl 2-11-2012 / dia 16

More Related