Next Article in Journal
Levels of Academic Engagement and Social Media Addiction Among University Students: A Comparative Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Addressing Menstrual Stigma: A Scoping Review on Menstrual Health Interventions in India
Previous Article in Journal
Who Teaches Older Adults? Pedagogical and Digital Competence of Facilitators in Mexico and Spain
Previous Article in Special Issue
“The Medical System Is Not Built for Black [Women’s] Bodies”: Qualitative Insights from Young Black Women in the Greater Toronto Area on Their Sexual Health Care Needs
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/socsci15010048
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

School-Based Health Services to Improve Youth Access to Reproductive Health Care

by
Elissa M. Barr
1,*,
Ashley Sarra Mezzano
1,
Carmen Smotherman
2,
Kassie R. Terrell
1 and
Michele J. Moore
3
1
Department of Public Health, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL 32256, USA
2
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, College of Medicine—Jacksonville, University of Florida, Jacksonville, FL 32256, USA
3
Graduate School, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL 32256, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2026, 15(1), 48; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15010048
Submission received: 17 November 2025 / Revised: 9 January 2026 / Accepted: 14 January 2026 / Published: 19 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Equity Interventions to Promote the Sexual Health of Young Adults)
Versions Notes

Abstract

School-based health centers (SBHCs) provide accessible, comprehensive healthcare to students, particularly in underserved communities, and play a critical role in addressing reproductive health needs. Despite their benefits, the availability of SBHCs remains limited across the U.S., with ongoing debates regarding their role in educational settings, especially concerning reproductive health services. This study assessed public opinion regarding reproductive health services in SBHCs within middle and high schools in Duval County, Florida. A representative sample of 605 adults was surveyed using a Random-Digit-Dialing approach, and data were weighted for analysis. Overall, support for reproductive health services was high, with 68–74% of respondents in high school and 49–57% in middle school favoring services such as STI testing and treatment, pregnancy testing, and providing condoms. Significant differences in support levels are noted across demographic groups, particularly by age and race. The findings indicate strong community support for implementing reproductive health services in SBHCs, highlighting their potential to improve access to essential health services for adolescents. This research provides valuable insights for policymakers to advocate for the expansion of SBHCs to include comprehensive reproductive health services, addressing health disparities among youth.

1. Introduction

School-based health centers (SBHCs), located directly within or near schools, provide comprehensive, accessible care that can address the physical, mental, and preventive health needs of youth (National Voice for School-Based Health Care 2025; Nemours Kids Health 2023). They are uniquely placed to potentially reach millions of students in grades K-12 (kindergarten through 12th grade) (For Providers: Teens Visiting a Health Clinic 2025). SBHCs help ensure that students, especially those in underserved communities, receive care by removing common barriers such as cost, transportation, and limited access (National Voice for School-Based Health Care 2025; Nemours Kids Health 2023; Brittain et al. 2022; Wilkins et al. 2022). These centers are typically a partnership between a school and a healthcare organization and can offer a wide range of services including primary care, behavioral health, reproductive health, disease management, and immunizations (McCann et al. 2021). By integrating health and education systems, SBHCs promote early intervention, reduce absenteeism, and foster healthier learning environments (National Voice for School-Based Health Care 2025; Nemours Kids Health 2023).
Because SBHCs reduce structural barriers to care, they can serve as an important access point for reproductive health services among adolescents, youth aged 12 to 18 and in grades 6 to 12. Organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommend and emphasize the importance of accessible, confidential, and developmentally appropriate reproductive health care for youth (For Providers: Teens Visiting a Health Clinic 2025; Marcell et al. 2017). SBHCs can effectively meet these recommendations by offering evidence-based sexual health education, contraceptive counseling, sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing and treatment, and preventive services such as HPV vaccination (For Providers: Teens Visiting a Health Clinic 2025). It is imperative to address the heightened risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among adolescents, as individuals aged 15 to 24 are disproportionately affected and represent the most vulnerable population (Friedman et al. 2024). In Florida, STI rates among youth continue to rise. In 2023, the rate of bacterial STIs to include chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis for youth aged 13 to 18 was 1545 per 100,000, a significant increase from 1235 per 100,000 in 2013 (Florida Department of Health n.d.). As a result, there is an ongoing need for increased STI testing, prevention, advocacy efforts, and reduced stigma for sexual health services (Friedman et al. 2024). SBHCs can address these needs by connecting students with reproductive health services to reduce STI rates, in addition to providing prevention and education to reduce teen pregnancy, increase healthy relationships, and more (Jarpe-Ratner et al. 2025). Fortunately, the 2025 Florida Statutes allow school facilities to offer contraceptive services on site to students, but only with the parent’s consent (Online Sunshine 2025).
Research has consistently demonstrated that SBHCs have a positive impact on the reproductive health outcomes of adolescents. Several studies have confirmed that students with access to SBHC’s are more likely to screen for STIs, receive and use contraceptives, receive reproductive health information, and receive pregnancy and disease prevention care (Bersamin et al. 2018; Ethier et al. 2011; Minguez et al. 2015; Stein et al. 2020). Most recently, Liu et al. (2025) discovered that condom availability programs in Chicago Public Schools helped improve health equity and supported access to reproductive health services for teens. This study confirmed benefits of providing resources for marginalized communities (Liu et al. 2025). Madkour et al. (2016) confirmed improvements in infant birthweights among teen mothers when pregnancy care and on-site family planning counseling services were provided at school. Finally, Wilkins et al. (2022) proposed that by improving access to reproductive health programs and services within the school, sexual activity onset may be delayed, along with decreased engagement in risky sexual behaviors once sexual activity has been initiated. One additional unique finding by Bersamin et al. (2019) revealed that in schools with SBHCs, school connectedness was more prominent among lower socio-economic status (SES) students compared to students with higher SES. School connectedness includes students having a sense of being valued and supported, being cared for, and belonging (School Connectedness Helps Student Thrive 2024). Overall, SBHCs can help reduce unintended pregnancies and STI rates by providing confidential, youth-friendly reproductive health prevention, education, and services in a trusted environment. By integrating education, prevention, and clinical care within the school setting, SBHCs effectively bridge gaps in access and contribute to healthier, more informed adolescent populations.
Despite documented benefits of SBHCs, their availability remains limited across the United States. Only a small proportion of schools have established SBHCs, leaving most students, especially those in rural or under-resourced areas, without access to these essential services. According to Soleimanpour et al. (2023), in 2022 there were approximately 3900 SBHCs nationwide, serving about 3.6 million students. However, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), there are over 100,000 public elementary and secondary schools serving over 48 million students (NCES 2025). This lack of widespread implementation contributes to persistent inequities in adolescent health care access, particularly for low-income and minority youth who often face the greatest barriers to receiving comprehensive services. Challenges to expansion include inadequate funding, limited staffing, logistical challenges, and policy constraints related to healthcare delivery in school settings (National Voice for School-Based Health Care 2025; Nemours Kids Health 2023; Wilkins et al. 2022; Bersamin et al. 2018; MACPAC 2025).
An additional factor to the limited availability of SBHCs is the ongoing debate over their role in educational settings, particularly when reproductive health services are included (Alavi-Arjas et al. 2024; Moore et al. 2016). Similarly to the controversy surrounding comprehensive sexuality education, some parents, guardians, policymakers, and community members express concern that offering such services in schools may encourage sexual activity or conflict with personal, cultural, or religious beliefs (Alavi-Arjas et al. 2024; Moore et al. 2016; Aldrich et al. 2014). These inaccurate perceptions can create resistance to establishing SBHCs or restrict the scope of services offered. This is unfortunate since research noted above documents that access to reproductive health services promotes safer behaviors and better health outcomes. It is important to not allow political and moral debates to overshadow the strong evidence-based public health benefits and outcomes of SBHCs, limiting their expansion and potential to address critical adolescent health needs.
Currently, little research has focused on public opinion and support of SBHCs, particularly when services include reproductive health. The purpose of this study is to access and document public opinion for SBHCs offering reproductive health services in both middle school and high school. This study is part of a funded project to reduce adolescent sexual health issues in a large county in the southeast United States. Reproductive health services were to be added to existing SBHCs in schools identified as having a population at high risk for reproductive health issues such as STIs and teen pregnancy. Before implementing these new services, a survey was distributed to assess voter support for school-based reproductive health services in both middle schools and high schools. This article reports the results of the survey and analyses of factors influencing support for SBHC reproductive health services. It is hoped that these findings will clarify public opinion related to offering reproductive health care in SBHCs and will be used to encourage the expansion of other SHBCs to include reproductive health services.

2. Materials and Method

Instrument: This study used the 2022 Reproductive and Sexual Health Education Survey. A detailed description of the survey development process is provided elsewhere (Moore et al. 2016). Briefly, prior to its development, existing national and state surveys on support for school-based sex education and reproductive health services were reviewed to inform the survey’s content and structure. Then, an expert panel including health researchers, school district and health department representatives reviewed and provided feedback. The final survey included questions related to support for reproductive health education and support for reproductive health services being offered in both middle school and high school. This study focused on the reported support for reproductive health services being offered in both middle school and high school only.

2.1. Sample

Adult residents of Duval County Florida were recruited through a Random-Digit-Dialing (RDD) sampling approach that included both landline and mobile phone numbers provided by Marketing Systems Group (MSG). For landline households, the interviewer invited the first eligible adult, 18 or older, who answered to take part in the survey. For cell phone numbers, the individual who answered and met eligibility criteria was selected as the respondent. Cell phone users accounted for the majority of participants (83%), while 17% were reached through landlines.
To enhance representativeness and minimize nonresponse bias, survey responses were weighted to reflect the adult population of Duval County. Weighting was conducted in two stages: first by educational attainment for individuals aged 25 and older, followed by adjustments for age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Population parameters were based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates for Duval County (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). Voter registration data were also integrated using information obtained from local election offices. All demographic weights were applied using the rake weighting procedure in SPSS version 27, which excludes cases with missing demographic variables from weighting. Respondents with missing demographic information were assigned a default weight of 1.

2.2. Data Collection

Data were gathered by the Public Opinion Research Laboratory (PORL) at a state university in Florida over an eight-day period from 10 to 18 November 2022. Interviews were administered using the lab’s 27-station Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system. Trained interviewers placed live calls to potential participants between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. each day, making up to three contact attempts per number. Prior to beginning the survey, callers confirmed the participants were 18 years of age or older and obtained verbal consent by confirming their willingness to participate. The final response rate was 7.4%, according to the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) Response Rate 3 (RR3) calculations. The overall margin of error was ±4.0 percentage points.

2.3. Data Analysis

Participants’ demographic characteristics were summarized using crude (unweighted) frequencies and percentages, while the reported overall levels of support for the four reproductive health services were estimated using weighted frequencies and percentages. Services included (1) testing for STIs/HIV, (2) treatment for STIs/HIV, (3) pregnancy testing, and (4) providing condoms, as these are the four most common services offered at existing SBHCs. To assess perceptions of the importance of offering these services within SBHCs at both high school and middle school levels, responses were collapsed into two categories: “Strongly or somewhat support” and “Strongly or somewhat oppose”. Pearson’s Chi-square tests were then used to examine associations between support levels and participant characteristics. All statistical analyses were conducted using weighted data, and the reported results reflect those weighted estimates. A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was applied. Analyses were performed using SAS® 9.4 for Windows software.

3. Results

A total of 605 adults aged 18 and older completed the survey. Most participants were females (57%), 45 years of age or older (55%), White (65%), not Hispanic (91%), and had completed college or higher education (50%) (Table 1).
Our results indicated that most participants supported offering reproductive health services in school. In high school, support for services ranged from 68% for providing condoms to 74% for testing for STIs/HIV, while in middle school, support ranged from 49% for providing condoms to 57% for pregnancy testing (Table 2).
Support for offering reproductive health services in both high school and middle school ranged from almost 50% to 74% among respondents, regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, and education. However, there were several significant differences to be noted. There were significant differences in the distribution of responses to strongly support or somewhat support services offered in high school by age and race, respectively. We found that respondents aged 54 and younger were more likely to support offering all four services in high school to include testing for STIs/HIV (p = 0.001), treatment for STIs/HIV (p = 0.001), pregnancy testing (p = 0.001), and providing condoms (p = 0.001) compared to those 55 and older. Our results also indicated highest support for testing for STIs/HIV (p = 0.022) and for treatment for STIs/HIV (p = 0.008) was among Black respondents (Table 3).
Regarding support for services offered in middle school, there were significant difference in the distribution of responses to strongly support or somewhat support some of the services by age and ethnicity. For example, respondents aged 54 and were again more likely to support offering all four services in middle school to include testing for STIs/HIV (p = 0.001), treatment for STIs/HIV (p = 0.001), pregnancy testing (p = 0.001), and providing condoms (p = 0.007) younger compared to those 55 and older. Regarding ethnicity, the highest support for pregnancy testing (p = 0.012) was among Hispanic respondents (Table 4).

4. Discussion

Results of this descriptive study document overwhelming support for reproductive health services for both middle and high school students in a large southeastern U.S. district. These services include STI/HIV testing and treatment, pregnancy testing, and access to condoms at school. These findings contribute to the limited research on community support for SBHCs. However, findings are exploratory in nature and cannot be generalized to other districts or populations. A comparable study conducted approximately 10 years earlier found similar levels of support for three key services: STI/HIV testing, STI/HIV treatment, and providing condoms (Moore et al. 2016). In that earlier study, 61% of participants supported STI/HIV testing, 60% supported treatment, and 44% supported providing condoms in middle schools. In the current study, support for middle school was slightly lower for STI/HIV testing (56%) and treatment (54%), but slightly higher for condom provision (49%). Support for these same services in high school in this study was 74% for testing, 70% for treatment, and 68% for condom provision, closely aligning with the previous findings of 76%, 75%, and 63%, respectively (Moore et al. 2016). More recently in a statewide study of Florida, Moore et al. (2022) found that among participants, the majority supported STI/HIV testing (54%), STI/HIV treatment (61%), pregnancy testing (56%) and providing condoms (52%) in middle school (Moore et al. 2022). Higher levels of support were reported for high school: STI/HIV testing (82%), STI/HIV treatment (82%), pregnancy testing (74%), and providing condoms (76%). Support for reproductive health services in schools has remained high in Florida, a traditionally conservative state, over the last decade despite the political climate (Moore et al. 2016, 2022). This level of support may be explained by the majority of people understanding the high costs of health care, the health care needs of the underserved, and the increasing rates of STIs among youth. This data could be used to help dispute assumptions of community opposition for reproductive health services in Florida schools and beyond. Additionally, resistance to school-based reproductive services may be the result of conservative political ideas, strict religious beliefs, or misinformation suggesting youth do not need such services.
There were several significant differences in support of services across demographic variables. Regarding age, those 54 and younger were more supportive of all four reproductive health services being offered in both middle school and high school, compared to those 55 and older. This may indicate that younger people are less likely to view these services as controversial. This younger age group is also more likely to have children in school. However, it is interesting to note that approximately 50% or more of participants aged 55 and older still support the four services being offered in high school. Participants in this age group may also be parents of children in high school themselves, or be grandparents of high school students. In high school, Blacks respondents were more supportive of both testing for and treating STIs/HIV. This may be due to the unfortunate disproportionately higher rates of STIs and HIV among black communities (Health Disparities in Black or African-American People 2024). Particularly for this population, increased access to reproductive health services is critical. In middle school, ethnicity was significant, with Hispanic respondents being more supportive of offering pregnancy testing. This again may be explained by disproportionate rates of more teen pregnancy and teen births experienced by Hispanic teens (Osterman et al. 2024). In the US, teen birth rates for both black and Hispanic adolescents are more than double the rate of White adolescents (Osterman et al. 2024). Finally, it is interesting to note that support for STI/HIV testing and treatment was higher than support for providing condoms. In the U.S. there is still a misconception that providing condoms could encourage young people to have sex rather than to improve sexual safety among youth. Research documents that providing condoms and other types of birth control does not increase sexual activity among youth (Reñosa et al. 2020; Kirby et al. 1999; Blake et al. 2003). Not only is offering reproductive health services through SBHCs supported by the majority, but it also helps address disparities while ensuring equity and access to care for those who need it the most.
SBHCs play a critical role in improving equity to promote the sexual health of youth. By removing barriers such as transportation challenges, limited provider availability, and the need for insurance, these centers expand access to care for those with the greatest need (National Voice for School-Based Health Care 2025; Nemours Kids Health 2023; Brittain et al. 2022; Wilkins et al. 2022). According to Soleimanpour et al. (2023) and Bersamin et al. (2018), the 2022 census found that roughly eight out of ten schools served by SBHCs were Title I schools, which receive federal funding to support students from low-income families. Additionally, about seven in ten students in schools with SBHCs were Black, Indigenous, or people of color. While SBHCs serve all students regardless of insurance status, they primarily provide care to youth covered by Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2023; SBHA 2023). Research further indicates that schools with SBHCs have higher percentages of Black and Hispanic students compared to those without these centers (Love et al. 2019). Expanding SBHCs is therefore an essential strategy for ensuring equitable access to preventive and primary care services that support the overall health of all students, regardless of socioeconomic or geographic circumstances.
Documenting strong community and professional support for reproductive health services can be a powerful strategy for influencing policy and practice, particularly when data are shared with school district leadership and other decision-makers. Moore et al. (2016) found that demonstrating widespread community backing for reproductive health services through SBHCs was a key factor in successfully integrating these services into existing clinics (Moore et al. 2016). Sharing such evidence not only highlights the demand and need for these programs but also equips policymakers with credible information to make informed decisions that better serve the health needs of youth. Policy implications could include allocating more funding for SBHCs, expanding services offered, and changing state policy to remove parental consent restrictions for school facilities to offer contraceptive services on site to students. Furthermore, presenting local data can help personalize the issue, making it more relevant and actionable within specific communities. Santelli et al. noted that gathering and sharing parent and guardian support was instrumental in changing school policy to dispense contraceptives through SBHCs (Santelli et al. 1992). Encouraging schools, health professionals, and advocates to collect and share their own local or state-level data can be an effective strategy for strengthening public support and visibility, shaping evidence-based policy, and ultimately improving access to reproductive health care for adolescents. Future research should further examine the social, political, and contextual factors that shape both support for and opposition to SBHCs. Comprehending such factors underlying patterns of support and opposition can better equip health professionals to continue to properly advocate for expanding reproductive health services for those who need it the most.

5. Limitations

Although the sample was representative of the county where the study was conducted, the findings cannot be generalized to other regions. Additionally, the survey questions did not provide detailed descriptions of the reproductive health services being assessed, which may have influenced participants’ responses. Including more comprehensive descriptions of each service could have produced different results. Additionally, the survey was limited in assessing demographic information of participants. Including a more thorough collection of data could provide nuanced information about Intersectionality and support, which could aid in targeted advocacy efforts. The study also relied solely on quantitative methods; incorporating qualitative approaches might have yielded richer insights into why participants did or did not support certain services. However, to maintain a brief survey length and enhance completion rates, open ended questions were not included in this particular study. Finally, the study did not determine whether participants were parents or guardians or whether they had children in middle or high school. These factors may have affected their responses and potentially altered the results.

6. Conclusions

These findings can be used to strengthen support among schools and the surrounding community for implementing reproductive health services within school-based health centers (SBHCs). As the number of SBHCs and the students they serve continues to grow nationwide, it is essential that reproductive health services be included among the comprehensive services offered. Research consistently shows that adolescents both want and need access to reproductive health services from trusted safety-net providers such as SBHCs. The findings of the study also demonstrate strong support from adult community members. Because these centers are often located in schools serving students with limited access to healthcare and at greater risk for negative reproductive health outcomes, SBHCs hold substantial potential to improve equity in adolescent health services and outcomes. Future research should continue to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of integrating these services within SBHCs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.M.B., A.S.M. and M.J.M.; methodology, E.M.B.; software, C.S.; formal analysis, C.S.; investigation, E.M.B.; resources, A.S.M., E.M.B., K.R.T. and M.J.M.; data curation, C.S. and E.M.B.; writing, E.M.B., A.S.M., K.R.T. and C.S.; review and editing, E.M.B., A.S.M., C.S., K.R.T. and M.J.M.; visualization, E.M.B. and C.S.; supervision, E.M.B.; project administration, E.M.B.; funding acquisition, E.M.B. and M.J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent Health, Promoting Adolescent Health through School-Based HIV Prevention: Jacksonville Partnership for Promoting the Health of Emerging Adults. (2018). NCHHSTP, PS18-1807.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The project did not require institutional review board oversight because it was conducted as part of a county-wide program supported by the local school district. All data were collected for internal improvement purposes, and no identifiable private information was used or disseminated.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available per request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

  1. Alavi-Arjas, Fatemeh, Maryam Firouzabadi, Farnaz Farnam, Mohadeseh Balvardi, Mahdiye Taheri, Hedyeh Riazi, Naimeh Pourramezani, and Zohreh Keshavarz. 2024. Educational Interventions for Promoting Sexual and Reproductive Health in School Counselors: A Three-Arm, Randomized Control Trial Comparing Lecturing, Buzz Group and Role-Play. Global Health Promotion 31: 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Aldrich, Heather, Bonnie Gance-Cleveland, Sarah Schmiege, and Danielle Dandreaux. 2014. School-Based Health Center Providers’ Treatment of Overweight Children. Journal of Pediatric Nursing 29: 521–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Bersamin, Melina, Mallie J. Paschall, and Deborah A. Fisher. 2018. Oregon School-Based Health Centers and Sexual and Contraceptive Behaviors among Adolescents. The Journal of School Nursing 34: 359–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Bersamin, Melina, Robert W. S. Coulter, Jenna Gaarde, Samantha Garbers, Christina Mair, and John Santelli. 2019. School-Based Health Centers and School Connectedness. Journal of School Health 89: 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  5. Blake, Susan M., Rebecca Ledsky, Carol Goodenow, Richard Sawyer, David Lohrmann, and Richard Windsor. 2003. Condom Availability Programs in Massachusetts High Schools: Relationships with Condom Use and Sexual Behavior. American Journal of Public Health 93: 955–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Brittain, Anna W., Riley J. Steiner, Amy M. Fasula, Kendra Hatfield-Timajchy, Aniket Kulkarni, and Emilia H. Koumans. 2022. Improving Access to and Quality of Sexual and Reproductive Health Services for Adolescents in the United States. Journal of Womens Health 31: 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Ethier, Kathleen A., Patricia J. Dittus, Christine J. DeRosa, Emily Q. Chung, Esteban Martinez, and Peter R. Kerndt. 2011. School-Based Health Center Access, Reproductive Health Care, and Contraceptive Use among Sexually Experienced High School Students. Journal of Adolescent Health 48: 562–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Florida Department of Health. n.d. FLHealthCHARTS. Available online: https://www.flhealthcharts.gov/charts/default.aspx (accessed on 6 January 2026).
  9. For Providers: Teens Visiting a Health Clinic. 2025. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductive-health/hcp/teen-pregnancy-prevention/clinic-visit.html (accessed on 2 November 2025).
  10. Friedman, Julie C., Bianca Cannon, Nichole Tyson, and Melissa Kang. 2024. Providing Adolescent-Friendly Sexually Transmitted Infection Screening and Treatment Services. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 36: 362–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  11. Health Disparities in Black or African-American People. 2024. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/health-disparities-hiv-std-tb-hepatitis/populations/black-african-american.html (accessed on 3 November 2025).
  12. Jarpe-Ratner, Elizabeth, Lara Altman, Aimee Schnabel, Bianca Reid, Booker Marshall, Kendall Matias, Kat Ramirez-Mercado, Michael C. Fagen, and Lisa Masinter. 2025. Formative Research and Development of a Referral Toolkit for Sexual Health Services Linkages within Chicago Public High Schools. Evaluation and Program Planning 110: 102540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Kirby, Douglas, Nancy D. Brener, Nancy L. Brown, Nancy Peterfreund, Pamela Hillard, and Ron Harrist. 1999. The Impact of Condom Availability [Correction of Distribution] in Seattle Schools on Sexual Behavior and Condom Use. American Journal of Public Health 89: 182–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  14. Liu, Julia, Stefanie Parchem, Megan DiPaolo, Karla Ramirez-Mercado, Taylor DeClemente, and Elizabeth Jarpe-Ratner. 2025. Advancing Condom Availability in Chicago Public Schools: Lessons from a Multi-Sector Partnership. Journal of School Health 95: 783–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Love, Hayley E., John Schlitt, Samira Soleimanpour, Nirmita Panchal, and Caroline Behr. 2019. Twenty Years of School-Based Health Care Growth and Expansion. Health Affairs 38: 755–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. MACPAC. 2025. Aurrera Health. Issue Brief: March 2025. Analysis of Information from State Medicaid Agencies, State Departments of Health, Education, and School-Based Health Alliances in Arkansas, California, Michigan, Missouri, and New York, as of June 2024; Washington: MACPAC. Available online: https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/School-based-Health-Centers-and-Behavioral-Health-Care-for-Students-Enrolled-in-Medicaid-Final.pdf (accessed on 19 October 2025).
  17. Madkour, Aubrey S., Yiqiong Xie, and Emily W. Harville. 2016. Availability of Reproductive Health Care Services at Schools and Subsequent Birth Outcomes among Adolescent Mothers. Journal of School Health 86: 488–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Marcell, Arik V., Gale R. Burstein, Committee on Adolescence, Paula Braverman, William Adelman, Elizabeth Alderman, Cora Breuner, Laurie Hornberger, and David Levine. 2017. Sexual and Reproductive Health Care Services in the Pediatric Setting. Pediatrics 140: e20172858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. McCann, Heather, Michele J. Moore, Elissa M. Barr, and Kristina Wilson. 2021. Sexual Health Services in Schools: A Successful Community Collaborative. Health Promotion Practice 22: 349–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Minguez, Mara, John S. Santelli, Erica Gibson, Mark Orr, and Shama Samant. 2015. Reproductive Health Impact of a School Health Center. Journal of Adolescent Health 56: 338–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  21. Moore, Michele J., Elissa Barr, Carrigan Hayes, and Michael Binder. 2022. Voter support for offering sexual health services through school-based health clinics. American Journal of Sexuality Education 18: 24–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Moore, Michele Johnson, Elissa Barr, Kristina Wilson, and Stacey Griner. 2016. Support for offering sexual health services through school-based health clinics. Journal of School Health 86: 660–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. National Voice for School-Based Health Care. 2025. Available online: https://www.sbh4all.org/school-based-health-centers/ (accessed on 1 October 2025).
  24. NCES. 2025. Home. Available online: https://nces.ed.gov/ (accessed on 13 November 2025).
  25. Nemours Kids Health. 2023. School-Based Health Centers. Available online: https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/school-based-health.html (accessed on 1 October 2025).
  26. Online Sunshine. 2025. Florida Statutes, Title XLVIII, Ch. 1002, § 1002.20. Online Sunshine: Official Internet Site of the Florida Legislature. Available online: https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=1000-1099/1002/Sections/1002.20.html (accessed on 6 January 2026).
  27. Osterman, Michelle J. K., Brady E. Hamilton, Joyce A. Martin, Anne K. Driscoll, and Claudia P. Valenzuela. 2024. Births: Final Data for 2022. National Vital Statistics Reports 73: 1–56. [Google Scholar]
  28. Reñosa, Mark Donald C., Tricia Kaye F. Palola, and Carl Abelardo T. Antonio. 2020. Enablers and Deterrents on the School-Based Condom Availability and Distribution: A Scoping Review. Journal of Global Health Reports 4: e2020026. Available online: https://www.joghr.org/article/12676-enablers-and-deterrents-on-the-school-based-condom-availability-and-distribution-a-scoping-review (accessed on 6 October 2025). [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Santelli, John, Miriam Alexander, Mychelle Farmer, Pat Papa, Tonya Johnson, Bernice Rosenthal, and Dana Hotra. 1992. Bringing Parents into School Clinics: Parent Attitudes toward School Clinics and Contraception. Journal of Adolescent Health 13: 269–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. SBHA. 2023. Medicaid Policies That Work for Sbhcs. Washington: Sbha. Available online: https://www.sbh4all.org/federal-policy-and-advocacy/medicaid-policies-that-work-for-sbhcs/ (accessed on 29 September 2025).
  31. School Connectedness Helps Student Thrive. 2024. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/youth-behavior/school-connectedness/index.html#:~:text=Schools%20can%20offer%20physical%20activity,During%20the%20COVID%2D19%20Pandemic (accessed on 17 October 2025).
  32. Soleimanpour, Saman, Katherine Cushing, Jakob Christensen, Samantha Ng, Jing Yang, Melissa Saphir, Sara Geierstanger, M. Even, and Luis Brey. 2023. Findings from the 2022 National Census of School-Based Health Centers. Washington: School-Based Health Alliance. Available online: https://sbh4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/FINDINGS-FROM-THE-2022-NATIONAL-CENSUS-OF-SCHOOL-BASED-HEALTH-CENTERS-09.20.23.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2025).
  33. Stein, Tara B., Aleza K. Summit, Michele St Louis, and Marji Gold. 2020. Patient Satisfaction with Iud Services in a School-Based Health Center: A Pilot Study. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology 33: 388–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. American Community Survey. Available online: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs.html (accessed on 5 November 2025).
  35. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2023. Delivering Services in School-Based Settings: A Comprehensive Guide to Medicaid Services and Administrative Claiming; Baltimore: CMS. Available online: https://www.medicaid.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/sbs-guide-medicaid-services-administrative-claiming-ud.pdf (accessed on 8 November 2025).
  36. Wilkins, Natalie J., Catherine Rasberry, Nicole Liddon, Leigh E. Szucs, Michelle Johns, Sandra Leonard, Sally J. Goss, and Heather Oglesby. 2022. Addressing Hiv/Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Pregnancy Prevention through Schools: An Approach for Strengthening Education, Health Services, and School Environments That Promote Adolescent Sexual Health and Well-Being. Journal of Adolescent Health 70: 540–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
Table 1. Participant Characteristics (N = 605).
Table 1. Participant Characteristics (N = 605).
VariableN (Percent)
Gender
Female346 (57)
Male258 (43)
Age
≤24 years70 (12)
25–34 years112 (19)
35–44 years86 (14)
45–54 years90 (15)
55–64 years85 (14)
≥65 years 155 (26)
Race
Black159 (30)
White343 (65)
Other *26 (5)
Ethnicity
Not Hispanic539 (91)
Hispanic56 (9)
Education
Grade school15 (3)
High school graduate 120 (20)
Some college162 (27)
College graduate213 (36)
Postgraduate86 (14)
Note: * Includes Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, other/mixed races.
Table 2. Overall Support for Reproductive Health Services.
Table 2. Overall Support for Reproductive Health Services.
Health ServiceHigh SchoolMiddle School
Testing for STIs/HIV74%56%
Treatment for STIs/HIV70%54%
Pregnancy Testing70%57%
Providing Condoms68%49%
Data are weighted percentages indicating responses of “Strongly or somewhat support”.
Table 3. Support for Reproductive Health Services in High School by Demographic Characteristics.
Table 3. Support for Reproductive Health Services in High School by Demographic Characteristics.
VariableCategoryTesting for STIs/HIVTreatment for STIs/HIVPregnancy TestingProviding Condoms
Agep-value<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
≤24 years63 (95)61 (93)61 (92)57 (86)
25–34 years108 (85)103 (79)103 (79)99 (77)
35–44 years78 (80)71 (72)71 (73)75 (76)
45–54 years72 (75)67 (70)69 (72)67 (72)
55–64 years54 (56)50 (53)57 (59)53 (54)
≥65 years 68 (63)60 (56)57 (53)53 (49)
Total443 (74)411 (69)419 (70)404 (68)
Genderp-value0.5010.4710.6860.270
Female238 (76)220 (70)223 (71)219 (70)
Male207 (73)193 (67)200 (69)187 (65)
Total445 (74)413 (69)423 (70)406 (68)
Racep-value0.0220.0080.1830.077
Black139 (83)131 (78)127 (76)125 (76)
White217 (72)191 (63)207 (68)198 (65)
Other33 (63)32 (62)32 (62)32 (61)
Total388 (74)355 (68)366 (70)355 (68)
Ethnicityp-value0.2420.0560.0980.270
Hispanic48 (81)47 (80)47 (80)43 (75)
Not Hispanic393 (74)362 (68)370 (69)358 (67)
Total441 (75)409 (69)418 (70)402 (68)
Educationp-value0.6480.5990.3030.269
Grade school15 (75)15 (75)15 (71)17 (85)
High school graduate126 (77)118 (72)126 (76)118 (71)
Some college160 (72)145 (66)144 (65)141 (64)
College graduate105 (78)99 (73)101 (74)96 (71)
Post graduate degree36 (71)33 (65)35 (68)32 (62)
Total442 (75)410 (69)420 (71)404 (68)
Data are weighted counts (weighted percentages) indicating responses of “Strongly or somewhat support”; p-value calculated using the Pearson Chi-square test comparing to responses “Strongly or somewhat oppose” (responses not listed on the table); Bold: p-value < 0.05; Total for each characteristic might differ from the sum of individual counts due to weighting.
Table 4. Support for Reproductive Health Services in Middle School by Demographic Characteristics.
Table 4. Support for Reproductive Health Services in Middle School by Demographic Characteristics.
VariableCategoryTesting for STIs/HIVTreatment for STIs/HIVPregnancy TestingProviding Condoms
Agep-value<0.0001<0.0001<0.00010.007
≤24 years47 (70)52 (78)53 (79)36 (55)
25–34 years93 (72)89 (69)92 (72)75 (60)
35–44 years49 (50)48 (49)54 (56)53 (54)
45–54 years54 (56)51 (54)55 (57)50 (52)
55–64 years38 (40)38 (40)47 (48)37 (39)
≥65 years 49 (45)42 (38)43 (39)40 (37)
Total330 (56)319 (54)342 (58)292 (50)
Genderp-value0.4950.6610.9210.093
Female178 (57)170 (54)180 (57)165 (53)
Male154 (54)151 (52)164 (58)127 (45)
Total332 (56)321 (54)344 (57)292 (49)
Racep-value0.4400.3940.8020.124
Black100 (60)97 (58)98 (59)94 (56)
White165 (54)153 (51)168 (55)137 (46)
Other25 (50)26 (52)29 (57)22 (44)
Total291 (56)277 (53)295 (57)254 (49)
Ethnicityp-value0.5090.1080.0120.124
Hispanic35 (60)38 (64)43 (74)34 (60)
Not Hispanic293 (55)279 (52)297 (56)255 (48)
Total328 (56)317 (54)340 (58)290 (49)
Educationp-value0.2130.1600.2260.215
Grade school15 (74)16 (80)12 (56)14 (66)
High school graduate95 (58)94 (57)107 (65)84 (51)
Some college118 (53)109 (49)120 (54)103 (47)
College graduate78 (59)75 (56)80 (60)71 (54)
Post graduate degree24 (46)25 (50)25 (48)20 (40)
Total330 (56)319 (54)343 (58)293 (50)
Data are weighted counts (weighted percentages) indicating responses of “Strongly or somewhat support”; p-value calculated using the Pearson Chi-square test comparing to responses “Strongly or somewhat oppose” (responses not listed on the table); Bold: p-value < 0.05; Total for each characteristic might differ from the sum of individual counts due to weighting.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barr, E.M.; Mezzano, A.S.; Smotherman, C.; Terrell, K.R.; Moore, M.J. School-Based Health Services to Improve Youth Access to Reproductive Health Care. Soc. Sci. 2026, 15, 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15010048

AMA Style

Barr EM, Mezzano AS, Smotherman C, Terrell KR, Moore MJ. School-Based Health Services to Improve Youth Access to Reproductive Health Care. Social Sciences. 2026; 15(1):48. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15010048

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barr, Elissa M., Ashley Sarra Mezzano, Carmen Smotherman, Kassie R. Terrell, and Michele J. Moore. 2026. "School-Based Health Services to Improve Youth Access to Reproductive Health Care" Social Sciences 15, no. 1: 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15010048

APA Style

Barr, E. M., Mezzano, A. S., Smotherman, C., Terrell, K. R., & Moore, M. J. (2026). School-Based Health Services to Improve Youth Access to Reproductive Health Care. Social Sciences, 15(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15010048

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop