Our Commitment to Inclusive, Accurate Sexual Health Education

At Evidentia Sexual Health Education Center, we believe that high-quality research isn’t just about strong methods—it’s also about who gets studied. A research project that claims to represent a broad population must include participants from diverse racial, ethnic, geographic, age, gender, and ability backgrounds. If a study is meant to focus on one specific group (such as college-aged women or Native American youth), then its participant pool should at least reflect the internal diversity of that group.

We want to maximize both scientific reliability and cultural relevance. In other words, any “evidence” we rely on should respect the full range of human experiences in sexual health.

Our Guiding Philosophy:

1. Existence is Not a Hypothesis
   Certain truths do not need to be proven through clinical trials to be valid. When researchers exclude or question these realities, it can cause real harm. This is why we thoroughly label our sources.

2. Diversity in Research = Better Evidence
   Studies that only include one privileged demographic can be misleading or fail to apply to broader communities. To earn our highest evidence rating, research must demonstrate it has included meaningful diversity among participants—unless it is intentionally about one specific population.

3. Community Knowledge is Foundational
   We value the lived experiences, cultural traditions, and practices that have worked for communities over generations. These forms of “unofficial” or traditional knowledge are still valid and important.

4. High Standards, Fewer “Top-Tier” Studies
   We acknowledge that not many existing studies meet our strict standards right now. That’s okay. By setting a high bar, we want to encourage future research to become more inclusive and culturally competent.

Special Clause: Population-Specific Studies

Sometimes, a study focuses on a smaller group—like “birth control use among college-aged women” or “HIV prevention in Native American youth.” If it meets certain criteria, it can still earn our top rating (A1) within that specific group, but should not be generalized to everyone else without additional data. The criteria include:

1. Adequate Sample Size
   At least 1,000 participants (or a design that’s proven to have enough statistical power) within that specific group.

2. Relevant Diversity Within the Group
   For example, if the study is on Native American youth, it should reflect different tribes, different regions, and the full age range being studied (e.g., 13–19).

3. High-Quality Methods and Consistent Results
   The study must be conducted with strong scientific rigor, show minimal bias, and deliver consistent or explainable findings.

How We Determine “Evidentia”

1. Dimension A: Academic Evidence (A-Tiers)

   • Based on formal research like clinical studies and systematic reviews.

   • Focuses on study design quality (methodological rigor), how diverse the participants are, how large the sample size is, and how consistent the outcomes are.

2. Dimension B: Community & Cultural Evidence (B-Tiers)

   • Based on knowledge that communities themselves develop and validate, such as cultural traditions, generational practices, and shared lived experiences.

   • Focuses on community consensus, cultural relevance, and realities that are self-evident or historically established and/or documented.

DIMENSION A: Academic Evidence

We’ve adapted well-known standards of evidence-based medicine (like those from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine) and added extra criteria for demographic and cultural inclusivity. This ensures that if a study claims to be “universal,” it truly includes a broad, diverse range of people.

A1 (Gold Standard Academic Evidence)

• Study Types: Large, multi-center randomized controlled trials (RCTs), high-quality systematic reviews, or meta-analyses of RCTs.

• Key Features:

  • Robust Methodology: Proper randomization, blinding, and minimal risk of bias.

  • Broad Demographic Diversity: Matches the population the study claims to represent (e.g., reflects U.S. Census data if it’s about the U.S. population).

  • Sample Size: Generally 1,000 or more participants (or a justified size if population-specific).

  • High Consistency: Low heterogeneity (in meta-analyses, an I² < ~50%) or a solid explanation for any variation.

A2 (Strong Academic Evidence)

• Study Types: Well-designed cohort or case-control studies, smaller or limited-site RCTs, moderate-quality systematic reviews.

• Key Features:

  • Sound Methodology: Likely fewer controls or a narrower scope than A1 studies.

  • Some Diversity: Certain groups might be underrepresented, but there’s still an effort to include more than one demographic.

  • Sample Size: Roughly 100–999 participants, or sufficient power for the specific question.

  • Moderate Consistency: Findings are mostly in agreement, though minor unexplained differences may exist.

A3 (Moderate Academic Evidence)

• Study Types: Single-site observational studies, quasi-experimental studies, or systematic reviews with notable variability in results.

• Key Features:

  • Fair but Limited Methodology: Possible confounding factors or a moderate risk of bias.

  • Partial or Limited Diversity: Not a fully representative participant pool.

  • Smaller Sample: Under 100–200 participants or very narrow in scope.

  • Inconsistencies: Results might be unclear or partially conflicting.

A4 (Preliminary Academic Evidence)

• Study Types: Case series, descriptive cross-sectional studies with minimal controls, single-case experiments.

• Key Features:

  • High Risk of Bias: Often lacking control groups or randomization.

  • Minimal Demographic Reporting: Very homogenous samples or too small to assess diversity.

  • Small Sample Size: Often fewer than 50 participants.

  • Uncertain Consistency: The data might be incomplete or not peer-reviewed.

DIMENSION B: Community & Cultural Evidence

This dimension honors the reality that some knowledge doesn’t come from formal academic studies. Instead, it arises from real-world community practices, cultural traditions, and collective lived experiences. At Evidentia, we view this community-based wisdom as just as important—especially when it has demonstrated its value over many years or generations.

B1: Foundational / Self-Evident Realities

• Key Features:

  • Undeniable or Observable Facts: These are truths that don’t need to be “proven” in the same way as a new drug trial. Denying them can be harmful or illogical.

  • Historical and Cross-Cultural Recognition: Often recognized across different societies or throughout history.

  • Foundational Human Behaviors: Widespread, consistently observed phenomena.

• Examples:

  • The existence of family and community in many forms.

  • Identities such as Nonbinary, Gender Queer, Two-Spirit, or Hijra, which are historically documented in various cultures.

  • Philosophical or social concepts recognized across cultures (e.g., approach vs. avoidance behaviors).

B2: Community-Validated Practices

• Key Features:

  • Cultural Endorsement: A practice is widely recognized by local leaders or community members as effective or beneficial.

  • Observational / Informal Data: While there may not be randomized trials, there are often consistent testimonials, community records, or repeated examples of success.

  • Ethical & Respectful Governance: Knowledge is shared and managed in a way that respects the community’s ownership (for example, following OCAP® principles in Indigenous communities).

  • Context-Specific or Adaptable: Some practices may only work in the exact cultural setting where they originated; others might be adapted more broadly if the community agrees.

• Examples:

  • Traditional healing methods passed down through generations within an Indigenous group.

  • Grassroots sexual health interventions (e.g., peer outreach programs) that emerged from within a community and have strong local support.

B3 (Expert/Bench Opinion)

• Study Types: Expert consensus statements, theoretical models, position papers without direct human data.

• Key Features:

  • No Participant Data: Based on theory, lab research, or professional opinion.

  • Diversity Not Applicable: No actual study participants; potential biases should be openly acknowledged.

  • Not Definitive: Useful for background info or forming new hypotheses, but not for final conclusions on effectiveness.

Why This Matters

By setting high standards for both academic research (Dimension A) and community-driven knowledge (Dimension B), we ensure that “evidence” truly reflects diverse voices and experiences. We believe this approach leads to more accurate, more respectful, and ultimately more effective sexual health education.

If you have any questions about how we classify a particular study or piece of community knowledge, please reach out. We’re committed to transparency in our evaluations, and we welcome feedback from all communities.

More From Evidentia: