Mixed methods study shows educators found reproductive identity relevant and novel in curricula, suggesting its integration may enhance SRH education.
Sexual and reproductive health (SRH) education in the United States has undergone significant change in the past fifty years, driven by shifting global fertility trends and an increased emphasis on identity-related topics. It has traditionally emphasized biological function, disease prevention, and risk reduction, often overlooking identity development and the psychosocial dimensions of reproductive decision-making. Reproductive Identity (RI) is an emerging construct that may provide a new direction that expands SRH education by integrating reproductive self-concept, future reproductive intentions and social justice perspectives that is strengths-based and inclusive of all genders and sexualities. This study examined how SRH educators conceptualize RI, its perceived novelty, familiarity and relevance for SRH curricula, and its alignment with the National Sex Education Standards (NSES). A mixed methods design analyzed survey responses from SRH educators who participated in a fully-funded, six-week, online professional development training programme in RI. Findings indicate that while RI was largely unfamiliar pre-training (62%), it was considered somewhat novel (65%) and relevant (78%) for SRH curricula post-training. Thematic analysis of pre- and post-training responses demonstrated that educators shifted their conceptualizations of RI from viewing RI through biologically-oriented perspectives to recognizing its broader relevance to self-concept, decision-making and reproductive justice. Although RI demonstrated partial alignment with the NSES, gaps remained in areas such as reproductive life planning and future parenting intentions. RI complements existing approaches by addressing the psychosocial and developmental aspects of reproductive decision-making. While RI has not yet been tested with adolescents, the parallel learning process observed among educators suggests its feasibility for integration into SRH curricula.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Butt et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: