Healthy and Respectful Relationship Education and Sexual Abuse
What is the name of the article?
Healthy and Respectful Relationship Education and Sexual Abuse
What was the goal of the study?
The goal of this study was to look at how many high school students with disabilities got healthy and respectful relationship (HRR) education. It also looked at how experiences of sexual abuse differed for students who got HHR training compared to students who did not get HRR training.
What did we find?
Students with disabilities were less likely than students without disabilities to say they had been taught in school about HRR. Experiences of sexual abuse happened more often for all students who did not receive HRR training.
What did we learn?
Students with all types of disabilities are less likely to get HRR education at school than students without disabilities. Students with more complex disabilities were even less likely to get HHR education than other disabled students.
Why is this important?
Offering HHR education to all students is a good way to lower the risk of sexual abuse. This is an important way to improve health outcomes for young people with disabilities.
Who are the authors of the study?
Abigail Newby-Kew, MPH, and Willi Horner-Johnson, PhD
Authors are from Oregon Health & Science University and Portland State University School of Public Health, Institute on Development and Disability, School of Medicine
Who participated in the study?
Key Words:
Healthy and respectful relationship (HRR) education: teaches people how to set personal boundaries in different types of relationships.
Sexual abuse: sexual acts or sexual behavior forced on a person without their permission.
Article Citation
Newby-Kew, A., & Horner-Johnson, W. (2023). Healthy and respectful relationship education: Differences by disability status and associations with sexual abuse. Journal of School Health, 93(7), 565-572. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.13317
Note: Percentages are based on a sample and may not add to 100%. For complete demographic data, please see the original article.
| Gender | No Disability (5,473 people) | Disability (2,838 people) |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 51.9% | 34.2% |
| Female | 46.5% | 61.8% |
| Nonbinary | 1.5% | 4.0% |
| Race/Ethnicity | No Disability (5,473 people) | Disability (2,838 people) |
|---|---|---|
| American Indian/Alaska Native | 2.3% | 2.2% |
| Asian | 1.8% | 1.7% |
| Black | 1.6% | 1.8% |
| Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander | 0.8% | 0.8% |
| White | 65.8% | 62.7% |
| Multiracial or other | 4.4% | 4.4% |
| Hispanic | 23.3% | 26.3% |
| Sexual orientation | No Disability (5,473 people) | Disability (2,838 people) |
|---|---|---|
| Heterosexual | 91.3% | 72.9% |
| Lesbian, gay, bisexual | 7.1% | 23.4% |
| Questioning | 1.6% | 3.8% |
| Family Affluence Scale-II | No Disability (5,473 people) | Disability (2,838 people) |
|---|---|---|
| Low | 9.6% | 13.9% |
| Middle | 36.9% | 40.7% |
| High | 53.5% | 45.4% |