ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) is critical in addressing negative sexual and reproductive health (SRH) outcomes among adolescents. Yet in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) including Zambia, little is known about the impact, realities of CSE implementation, the quality of teaching and the comprehensiveness of the content covered. METHODS: Our approach was informed by a process evaluation incorporating recommendations by the European Expert Group guidance on evaluating sexuality education programmes and the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines on process evaluation. The development process and quality of CSE implementation were assessed using eight and six quality criteria respectively. In-depth interviews (IDIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), document analysis and classroom observation were employed to assess contextual factors, implementation process and mechanisms of impact of CSE. In-depth interviews (50) and focus group discussions (2) with seven pupils in each group were conducted among 64 purposefully selected participants. The sample comprised pupils (35), parents (4) and teachers (17) from nine secondary schools (four peri-urban, four urban and one rural), policymakers (4), and religious leaders (4). We employed deductive content analysis to analyse the data. RESULTS: Contextual factors that influenced the implementation of CSE included: (1) piecemeal funding for the CSE programme; (2) lack of monitoring programmes in schools; (3) lack of community engagement; (4) religious and socio-cultural barriers; (5) lack of skills and competency to teach CSE; and (6) insufficient time allocation for CSE. The assessment of the quality of the development of CSE revealed: (1) a lack of sexual diversity; (2) no meaningful participation of pupils in programme implementation; (3) a lack of stakeholder engagement during programme implementation; (4) lack of gender sensitivity; and (5) lack of human rights approach. Assessment of the quality of the implementation of CSE revealed: (1) no evidence of skill-based CSE teaching; (2) no linkage between CSE and SRH services in the communities; and (3) a lack of incorporation of multiple delivery methods during CSE teaching. The mechanisms of impact of CSE were related to the acceptability and positive changes in pupils' SRH practices. CONCLUSION: The complex influences of contextual factors during CSE implementation highlight the need for contextual analysis during the interventional design. Co-creation of the CSE programme through stakeholder participation could reduce social opposition and enable a culturally sensitive CSE. Comprehensive teacher training, a guiding curriculum as well as setting of appropriate monitoring tools and indicators are likely to enhance the quality of CSE implementation.
