and reproductive health knowledge among children and adolescents is a key component to a healthy life. In Mexico, a country plagued with a teen pregnancy epidemic, sexuality education in the public-school system begins in 4th grade. Our study aims were to characterize the sexual and reproductive health knowledge of middle school students from Oaxaca, and its association with belonging to an indigenous group, gender, sources of sexual and reproductive health information, and parents' level of schooling. Methods: Cross-sectional study. Students responded to a multiple-choice paper and pencil self-administered survey on sexual and reproductive health knowledge. Our sample included 245 middle-school students (51.4% were female) enrolled in rural school's 7 th , 8 th , and 9 th grade. Survey contents were based on the Ministry of Education textbooks. Results: Failing scores in individual sections and diagrams were associated with gender and self-identifying as belonging to an indigenous group. Students obtained higher scores in the knowledge-based technical sections vs diagrams. n 2018, Mexico hosted over 22 million adolescents [1] with a fertility rate of 70.6. [2] In 2014, the latter was calculated at 77, representing live births and no record of pregnancies ending in abortion. [3]The country's teen pregnancy epidemic (highest among member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) has not yet fully comprehended and addressed by the government. [4] Oaxaca, a state neighboring Central America, is one of the poorest regions, with a population of 3, 976, 297 [5], of which 65.7% belong to over ten indigenous groups [6] and protestant religions. [7] In a 2015 census, they reported over 800,000 adolescents (10-19 years) and in 2018, 12,127 births were registered to women aged 15-19. [8] Approximately 70% of students in Latin America (LA) do not have access to comprehensive sexual education. A study in five LA countries showed that increasing sexual and reproductive health (SRH) literacy can prevent multiple pregnancies as high school dropouts tend to perpetuate the vicious cycle of teen mothers. The chances of experiencing teen pregnancy increased to 53% among adolescents who had no knowledge of their ovulatory cycle and had never used any form of contraception. [9] Unintended pregnancy leads to a gender-inequity gap that widens and perpetuates the intergenerational poverty cycle. [10] According to UNESCO, "early and unintended pregnancy prevention is one piece of a bigger puzzle", where an effective response from the education sector is needed so adolescents can access quality sexuality education. [11] This is an exploratory, cross-sectional study aimed at documenting adolescent's knowledge on SRH and its correlates with sample characteristics, to better understand the context in which students' from a disadvantaged rural population access information about human sexuality, sexual anatomy, and physiology; reproduction; contraception; as well as correct condom and contraceptive use. We aimed to determine an association between failing scores of enrolled students in knowledge-based and diagrams of the male and female reproductive systems. Assess if their reported sources of information regarding SRH, i.e., parents, teachers, health care centers and the internet, affect their scores. # II. # Methods The research team traveled to Oaxaca to meet with the Ministry of Education and school district municipal representatives to explain the study, request authorization to survey middle school students (grades 7 th -9 th , 12-14 years) regarding unmet SRH information needs. The ad-hoc study questionnaire was drafted in collaboration with local partners and adapted to the local context. We carried out a pilot phase among students attending the same school years. As students were underage, we convened a meeting with parents and school principals to obtain informed consent, given the sensitive nature of some questions. We began data collection with partners from Oaxaca State University. All 245 students (male and female) enrolled in grades 7 th , 8 th , and 9 th were eligible and invited to participate, the survey content was explained, and consent requested. All students agreed and signed an informed consent form. Our response rate was 100%. We selected 3 public middle schools located in the Tlacolula, Etla, and Centro school districts. We used convenience sampling and selection bias was addressed by selecting similar public schools (State of Oaxaca Human Development Index (HDI): 0.67; San PedroIxtlahuaca HDI: 0.64-0.70; San Juan del Estado HDI: 0.64-0.70; San Sebastián Teitipac HDI: 0.59-0.64), [12] and geographically distant while belonging to the region. Fieldwork started after the study protocol was submitted to UNAM's Internal Review Board and approved: FM-DI-028-2017. Ours was a cross-sectional study that included a multiple-choice paper and pencil self-administered survey with 9 questions covering demographics, 24 questions divided in 3 sections assessing technical knowledge and 5 diagrams. Every participant received colored diagrams, a response sheet, and a survey booklet. Diagram design followed international guidelines. [13,14] (Appendix A). Section 1: female sexuality (Q#1-7), Section 2: male sexuality (Q#8-12), Section 3: modern contraceptive methods (MCM), sources of SRH information (Q# [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Diagrams were subdivided into five categories: a) female reproductive system (FRS), b)male reproductive system (MRS), c) anatomical placement of MCM, d) diagrams associated with MCM, and e) 9 steps for correct male condom placement. Sections and diagrams were scored as follows; a failing score included having <60% of incorrect questions. Each question in every section was scored individually, and we obtained a score for the entire survey (3 sections). For the diagram illustrating correct condom placement, students had to correctly identify all 9 to score it correctly. Students took on average 60 minutes to respond to the survey, and we stood by to respond to questions/queries. Students had a day off to participate and answer the survey in their classroom during routine school hours. Survey questions were based on public textbooks from grades 4th, 5th, and 6th. In Mexico, sexuality education begins in the public-school system in grade school four, according to the Ministry of Public Education SRH guidelines. Our questions were based on textbooks and included the minimal level of information every student needs to cover before graduating and enroll in their current school year (Appendix B). We included information only covered in grade 7 because the recent education reform does not include health sciences in grades 8 and 9 (peak years for teen pregnancy). Analysis included all 245 students. We describe sample characteristics, family structure, belonging to an indigenous group, family structure, parents' level of schooling, and year currently enrolled in students classified as failing in the three individual sections, the entire survey, and the diagrams. Variables were included as frequencies and proportions and we determined their association with failing scores using chi-square tests. The dependent variable was obtaining a failing score in individual sections and a failing score for the entire survey and the diagrams. Sample characteristics and sources of SRH information were considered independent variables. We used logistic regression models and the probability of failing associated with sample characteristics and sources of SRH information. Alpha levels were set at 0.05, we calculated odd ratios and carried out statistical analysis, SPSS v. 25. [15] Diagram 1: Female reproductive system # Results The school distribution for all 245 students was school A; 50.6% (n=124, 48.4 female), school B; 32.2% (n=79, 45.6% female) and school C; 17.1% (n=42, 71.4 % female). We did not find significant differences across schools in total failing scores (p>0.05). All 245 students that were invited to participate responded to the selfadministered survey, with a 100% response rate. 51.4% were women; mean age was 13.06 (SD=1.0, p=0.061). 34.3% were currently enrolled in 7 th , 30.2% in 8 th and 35.5% in 9 th grade. The gender distribution across all years was similar (p>0.05) (Table 1). Only 12.5% (14 women, 15 men) self-identified as belonging to an indigenous group (we did not enquire language spoken at home, last name, the region of origin, nor skin color). [16] 76.8% of mothers and 77.7% of fathers had completed at least 10 years of schooling (above the 7.5 state average). [17] Table 1 Prevalence failing scores per individual sections were FRS (15.9%), MRS (24.9%), knowledge of MCM (30.6%), and failing score for the entire survey was 34.3%. Table 2 describes the failing scores per section, failing scores for the entire survey and associations by sample characteristics. Failing scores for the FRS were associated with gender and belonging to an indigenous group (p<0.05). Failing scores for knowledge of MCM were associated with gender and mother's age (p<0.05). Failing scores for the entire survey were associated with gender and belonging to an indigenous group (p<0.05). All failing scores in individual sections and the entire survey were associated with students' year of enrollment, with a higher proportion of students in grade 7th with failing scores (individual and total scores). Students responses to section B included diagrams displaying the anatomical representation of the female and MRS, the anatomical placement and visual recognition of MCM, and a diagram of correct condom placement. The failing score prevalence for the FRS was 50.2%, for the MRS 44.5%, for anatomical placement of MCM 64.9%, for visual recognition of MCM 24.5% and for the diagram of correct condom placement; 20.4%. Table 3 shows how the schematic representation of the FRS and the diagram for correct condom placement were associated with the school year currently enrolled in (p<0.05). We found an association among students with failing scores in visual recognition of MCM; 92% of those who failed did not report using the internet as a source of SRH information, and 96% of those who failed the section on correct condom use (p=0.004). We found an association between failing scores in the male and FRS diagrams, and approaching their father as a source of SRH information (p<0.05); however, 34 and 36% of students who approached their father failed both the male and reproductive systems. After bivariate analysis (Appendix C) we carried out the multivariate analysis. Table 4 includes sample characteristics (gender, school year, indigenous group, and source of SRH information) and its association with failing scores in knowledge-based sections. The failing scores for the FRS were associated with gender; males had a five-fold risk of failing this section compared to women (OR 5.12 [CI 95% 2.12-12.37]), self-identifying as belonging to an indigenous group had an approximate four-fold risk of failure (OR 4.50 [CI 95% 1.71-11.8]), being enrolled in higher years 8th or 9th was a protective factor (OR 0.26 [CI 95% 0.10-0.69]) and (OR 0.33 [CI 95% 0.12-0.87]) respectively. Gender was associated with failing the section on knowledge of MCM; men had a two-fold risk of failing (OR 2.16 [CI 95% 1.20-3.89]). Students who used the Internet as a source for SRH information displayed a protective factor when answering MRS (OR 0.30 [CI 95% 0.10-0.90]). Being male was associated with failing sections on knowledge of MCM (OR 2.16 [CI 95% 1.20-3.89]) and with year enrolled in; when they reach grade 9 (compared to 8th(OR 0.51 [CI 95% 0.26-0.41]) being in school seems to be less protective (OR 0.20 [CI 95% 0.09-0.41]). Failing scores for the entire survey were associated with gender and indigenous group; men had a (OR 2.23 [CI 90% 1.21-4.09]) and those self-identified as indigenous (OR 2.11 [CI 90% 0.89-5]). For failing scores in the entire survey, being male was also a risk factor and enrolled in 8 th grade (OR 0.26 [CI 95% 0.13-0.54]) and 9 th (OR 0.23 [CI 95% 0.11-0.48]) was protective (Table 4). Gender was not associated with failing scores in students' recognition of diagrams. When students were asked to identify diagrams of the female and MRS, being in 9th grade (vs 7th) was considered a protective factor for not failing the diagrams of the FRS (OR 0.43 [CI 95% 0.23-0.81]). We found an association between being enrolled in grade 8th and not failing the MRS diagram (OR 0.37 [CI 95% 0.17-0.82]). Students (male and female) who asked their fathers about SRH information compared to those who did not, had an almost two-fold risk of failing the section on the FRS (OR 1.90 [CI 95% 1.05-3.43]) and the MRS (OR 2.48 [CI 95% 1.24-4.96]). Failing scores on anatomical placement of MCM were significantly associated with father's level of schooling; those with completed high school (compared with those with 400.65(0.23 -1.81)0.56(0.27 -1.28)0.31**(0.12 -0.77)0.43*(0.17 -1.05)Father's age range (yrs)30 -401.15(0.13 -10.15)1.00(0.19 -5.30)0.93(0.21 -4.15)0.98(0.22 -4.35)>401.27(0.15 -10.98)0.94(0.18 -4.94)0.63(0.14 -2.78)0.77(0.17 -3.40)*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 1B8th0.80(0.43 -1.50)0.94(0.50 -1.76)0.62(0.32 -1.21)0.93(0.46 -1.86)1.27(0.62 -2.59)9th0.42** *(0.22 -0.77)0.64(0.35 -1.18)0.65(0.34 -1.24)0.56(0.27 -1.16)0.37**(0.16 -0.87)Belongs toindigenous group(by self-report)Yes1.47(0.67 -3.24)1.59(0.73 -3.48)0.97(0.43 -2.20)2.36* *(1.05 -5.29)1.97(0.83 -4.66)Family structure(lives with)Mother0.73(0.41 -1.31)0.49 **(0.27 -0.91)0.66(0.36 -1.20)0.52*(0.24 -1.10)0.60(0.27 -1.33)Father/other2.20(0.55 -8.80)0.69(0.19 -2.53)0.72(0.19 -2.65)1.15(0.29 -4.63)1.52(0.38 -6.17)Mother's level ofschoolingGrade school0.84(0.44 -1.60)1.01(0.53 -1.94)0.49 **(0.25 -0.95)0.68(0.31 -1.49)0.79(0.36 -1.77)Grade school+1.10(0.56 -2.20)0.82(0.41 -1.64)0.64(0.31 -1.32)0.76(0.33 -1.74)0.68(0.28 -1.65)Father's level ofschoolingGrade school1.19(0.58 -2.45)0.45 **(0.21 -0.95)0.39 **(0.18 -0.82)0.94(0.41 -2.16)0.63(0.26 -1.54)Grade school +0.94(0.44 -1.98)0.74(0.35 -1.57)0.63(0.28 -1.41)0.85(0.35 -2.05)0.42(0.15 -1.19)Mother's agerange (yrs)30 -400.64(0.27 -1.48)1.52(0.65 -3.58)0.62(0.24 -1.57)0.62(0.25 -1.52)0.44*(0.18 -1.11)40+0.61(0.25 -1.47)1.23(0.50 -3.02)0.60(0.23 -1.57)0.61(0.24 -1.59)0.53(0.20 -1.39)Father's agerange (yrs)30 -400.53(0.12 -2.33)3.00(0.58 -15.65)1.24(0.28 -5.54)1.06(0.20 -5.61)0.89(0.17 -4.73)40+0.68(0.15 -2.96)2.24(0.43 -11.56)1.11(0.25 -4.89)0.94(0.18 -4.94)0.82(0.15 -4.29)*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1Failing scores in individual diagramsFailing scores:Female reproductive system schematic diagramMale reproductive system schematic diagramAnatomical placement of contraceptive methodVisual recognition of CMSchematic diagram of correct condom placement (9 steps)ORCI 95%ORCI 95%ORCI 95%ORCI 95%ORCI 95%GenderMen1.51(0.91 -2.49)1.00(0.61 -1.66)1.31(0.77 -2.22)1.08(0.60 -1.93)0.88(0.47 -1.64)School yearcurrently enrolledin (grade) 1CFriendsNo36(92.3)0.69259(96.7)0.05970(93.3)0.33279(94)0.183Yes3(7.7)2(3.3)5(6.7)5(6)Health care centerNo31(79.5)0.30353(86.9)0.61769(92)0.03974(88.1)0.313Yes8(20.5)8(13.1)6(8)6(8)Boyfriend/girlfriendNo30(50)0.38061(100)0.24675(100)0.18083(98.8)0.693Yes0(0)0(0)0(0)1(1.2)The InternetNo13(21.7)0.02357(93.4)0.00766(88)0.10777(91.7)0.005Yes2(5.1)4(6.6)9(12)9(12)OtherNo36(92.3)0.37860(98.4)0.17472(96)0.66582(97.6)0.187Yes3(7.7)1(1.6)3(4)2(2.4)Does not ask anyoneNo32(82.1)0.42351(83.6)0.51262(82.7)0.29969(82.1)0.193Yes7(17.9)10(16.4)13(17.3)15(17.9)?² test,95%Failing scores in individual sectionsSource of SRH informationFemale reproductive system n=39 (15.9%)Male reproductive system n=61 (24.9%)Knowledge of contraceptive methods n=75 (30.6%)Failing scores for entire survey n=84 (34.3%)n (%)p-valuen (%)p-valuen (%)p-valuen (%)p-valueMotherNo16(41)0.58419(31.1)0.26331(41.3)0.36730(35.7)0.738Yes23(59)42(68.9)44(58.7)54(64.3)FatherNo24(61.5)0.09339(63.9)0.08255(73.3)0.85354(64.3)0.036Yes15(38.5)22(36.1)20(26.7)30(35.7)TeacherNo35(89.7)0.12354(88.5)0.07867(89.3)0.02576(90.5)0.006Yes4(10.3)7(11.5)8(10.7)8(9.5) 1DThe InternetNo102(82.9) 0.71794(86.2) 0.125130(81. 8)0.87755(91.7) 0.02548(96)0.004Yes21(17.1)15(13.8)29(18.2)5(8.3)2(4)OtherNo113(91.9) 0.019106(97. 2)0.164149(93. 7)0.17056(93.3) 0.46545(90)0.061Yes10(8.1)3(2.8)10(6.3)4(6.7)5(10)They do not ask anyoneNo109(88.6) 0.25790(82.6) 0.150139(87. 4)0.42450(83.3) 0.47241(82)0.345Yes14(11.4)19(17.4)20(12.6)10(16.7)9(18)?² test,95%Source of SRH information:Female reproductive system schematic diagram n=123 (50.2%)Male reproductive system schematic diagram n=109 (44.5%)Anatomical placement of contraceptive methods n=159 (64.9%)Visual recognition of contraceptive methods n=60 (24.5%)Schematic diagram of correct condom placement (9 steps) n=50 (20.4%)n (%)p-valuen (%)p-valuen (%)p-valuen (%)p-valuen (%)p-valueMotherNo45(36.6) 0.85641(37.6) 0.89159(37.1)0.98725(41.7) 0.40427(54)0.006Yes78(63.4)68(62.4)100(62. 9)35(58.3)23(46)FatherNo81(65.9) 0.01870(64.2) 0.009112(70. 4)0.31539(65)0.13237(74)0.795Yes42(34.1)39(35.8)47(29.6)21(35)13(26)TeacherNo99(80.5) 0.89691(83.5) 0.342129(81. 1)0.86451(85)0.34442(84)0.522Yes24(19.5)18(16.5)30(18.9)9(15)8(16)FriendsNo112(91.1) 0.811101(92. 7)0.325145(91. 2)0.67155(91.7) 0.74744(88)0.478Yes11(8.9)8(7.3)14(8.8)5(8.3)6(12)Health care centerNo105(85.4) 0.83792(84.4) 0.847140(88. 1)0.06154(90)0.20444(88)0.492Yes18(14.6)17(15.6)19(11.9)6(10)6(12)Boyfriend/girlfriendNo121(98.4) 0.993108(99. 1)0.429156(98. 1)0.67057(95)0.01849(98)0.818Yes2(1.6)1(0.9)3(1.9)3(5)1(2) 1EYear 2 020Failing scores in individual sectionsFailing scores for entire surveyG ) Volume XX Issue VI Version ISource of SRH information: Mother No Yes Father No YesFemale reproductive system OR CI 95% 1 0.82 (0.41 -1.65) 1 1.84* (0.90 -3.77)Male reproductive system OR CI 95% 1 1.42 (0.77 -2.64) 1 1.73* (0.93 -3.22)Knowledge of contraceptive methods OR CI 95% 1 0.77 (0.44 -1.35) 1 0.94 1.74) (0.51 -Failing scores for entire survey OR CI 95% 1 1.10 (0.63 -1.90) 1 1.85** (1.04 -3.29)(TeacherGlobal Journal of Computer Science and TechnologyNo Yes Friends No Yes Health care center No Yes Boyfriend/girlfriend No Yes The Internet No Yes Other No Yes Does not ask anyone1 0.43 1 0.78 1 1.58 --1 0.21** 1 1.82(0.15 -1.29) (0.22 -2.75) (0.66 -3.76) --(0.05 -0.91) (0.47 -7.06)1 0.47* 1 0.26* 1 0.81 --1 0.25** 1 0.26(0.20 -1.10) (0.06 -1.16) (0.35 -1.87) --(0.09 -0.74) (0.03 -2.07)1 0.40** 1 0.60 1 0.39** --1 0.53 1 0.75(0.18 -0.91) (0.22 -1.69) (0.16 -0.98) --(0.24 -1.16) (0.20 -2.83)0.33*** 1 0.50 1 0.67 1 0.63 1 0.30*** 1 0.37(0.15 -0.74) (0.18 -1.41) (0.31 -1.46) (0.06 -6.20) (0.13 -0.72) (0.08 -1.72)No1111Yes1.45(0.58 -3.61)1.31(0.59 -2.92)1.49(0.70 -3.16)1.62(0.78 -3.39)*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 1FFailing scores in individual diagramsSource of SRH informationFemale reproductive system schematic diagramMale reproductive system schematic diagramAnatomical placement of contraceptive methodVisual recognition of CMSchematic diagram of correct condom placement (9 steps)ORCI 95%ORCI 95%ORCI 95%ORCI 95%ORCI 95%MotherNo11111Yes1.05 (0.62 -1.76)0.96(0.57 -1.62)1.00 (0.58 -1.73)0.78(0.43 -1.41)0.42** *(0.22 -0.78)FatherNo11111Yes1.99 **(1.12 -3.54)2.13** *(1.20 -3.77)1.36 (0.74 -2.50)1.62(0.86 -3.02)0.91(0.45 -1.84)TeacherNo11111Yes1.04 (0.55 -1.97)0.73(0.38 -1.40)0.94 (0.49 -1.83)0.68(0.31 -1.51)0.76(0.33 -1.75)FriendsNo11111Yes0.90 (0.38 -2.13)0.64(0.26 -1.57)0.83 (0.34 -2.00)0.84(0.30 -2.38)1.43(0.53 -3.83)Health carecenterNo11111Yes0.93 (0.46 -1.87)1.07(0.53 -2.16)0.51 *(0.25 -1.04)0.55(0.22 -1.40)0.72(0.28 -1.84)No11111Yes0.99 (0.14 -7.16)0.41(0.04 -4.00)1.63(0.17 -15.96)9.68*(0.99 -94.92)1.31(0.13 -12.83)The InternetNo11111Yes0.89 (0.46 -1.70)0.59(0.30 -1.16)1.06 (0.53 -2.10)0.34**(0.13 -0.91)0.15**(0.04 -0.65)OtherNo11111Yes5.31 **(1.14 -24.76)0.40(0.11 -1.51)2.82(0.60 -13.17)1.58(0.46 -5.45)2.98*(0.91 -9.84)Does do notask anyoneNo11111Yes0.66 (0.31 -1.37)1.70(0.82 -3.53)0.74 (0.35 -1.55)1.34(0.60 -3.00)1.49(0.65 -3.44)*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 1G9th47(30.5)17(25.4)26(55.3)12(52.2)Belongs to indigenous group (self-report)Yes129(88.4) 0.63161(93.8)0.06843(91.5)0.36019(86.4)0.859No17(11.6)4(6.2)4(8.5)3(13.6)Family structure (lives with)Both parents110(71.4) 0.68861(91)0.00028(59.6)0.17310(43.5)0.011Mother39(25.3)5(7.5)16(34)11(47.8)Father, grandfather, uncle5(3.2)1(1.5)3(6.4)2(8.7)Mother's level of schoolingUp to high school69(50.4)0.24126(44.8)0.78120(51.3)0.46112(54.5)0.812High school41(29.9)17(29.3)8(20.5)5(22.7)High school+27(19.7)15(25.9)11(28.2)5(22.7)Father's level of schoolingUp to high school61(54.5)0.53321(40.4)0.09716(50)0.91413(81.3)0.049High school29(25.9)17(32.7)8(25)1(6.3)High school+22(19.6)14(26.9)8(25)2(12.5)Mother's age range (yrs)<3019(12.7)0.5108(12.5)0.6231(2.2)0.0242(9.1)0.27330 -4077(51.3)37(57.8)23(50)9(40.9)40+54(36)19(29.7)22(47.8)11(50)Father's age range (yrs)<306(4.3)0.6582(3.1)0.2241(2.4)0.2331(5.6)0.881Boyfriend/30 -4056(40.6)33(51.6)13(31.7)7(38.9)girlfriend40+76(55.1)29(45.3)27(65.9)10(55.6)Source of SRH information*MotherFatherTeacherFriendsn= 154(62.9%)n=67 (27.5%)n=47 (19.2%)n=23 (9.4%)n (%)p-valuen (%)p-valuen (%)p-valuen (%)p-valueGenderWomen93(60.4)0.00024(35.8)0.00324(51.1)0.95612(52.2)0.940Men61(39.6)43(64.2)23(48.9)11(47.8)School year currently enrolled in (grade)7th61(39.6)0.04222(32.8)0.0366(12.8)0.0013(13)0.0648th46(29.9)28(41.8)15(31.9)8(34.8) 1HBoth parents27(73)0.7964(100)0.79627(61.4) 0.3156(50)0.05025(73.5)0.895Mother8(21.6)0(0)15(34.1)4(33.3)8(23.5)Father, grandfather, uncle2(5.4)0(0)2(4.5)2(16.7)1(2.9)Mother's level ofschoolingUp to high school 12(41.4)0.2181(33.3)0.21820(50)0.1487(58.3)0.65712(48)0.865High school12(41.4)0(0)7(17.5)2(16.7)8(32)High school+5(17.2)2(66.7)13(32.5)3(25)5(20)Father's level ofschoolingUp to high school 11(47.8)0.2721(33.3)0.27217(53.1) 0.5065(55.6)0.67012(60)0.768High school4(17.4)2(66.7)10(31.3)3(33.3)4(20)High school+8(34.8)0(0)5(15.6)1(11.1)4(20)Mother's agerange (yrs)<301(2.9)0.2121(25)0.2124(9.5)0.9050(0)0.0443(9.7)0.87830 -4020(57.1)1(25)23(54.8)4(33.3)18(58.1)40+14(40)2(50)15(35.7)8(66.7)10(32.3)Father's age range(yrs)<300(0)0.0341(25)0.0341(2.8)0.9400(0)0.5300(0)0.45530 -409(26.5)0(0)15(41.7)3(30)13(50)40+25(73.5)3(75)20(55.6)7(70)13(50)Source of SRH information*Health center n=37 (15.1%)Boyfriend/girlfriend n=4 (1.6%)The Internet n= 44(17.9%)Other n= 12(4.9%)Does not ask anyone n=34 (13.9%)n (%)p-valuen (%)p-valuen (%)p-valuen (%)p-valuen (%)p-valueGenderWomen14(37.8)0.0733(75)0.07323(52.3) 0.9026(50)0.91916(47.1)0.583Men23(62.2)1(25)21(47.7)6(50)18(52.9)School yearcurrently enrolledin (grade)7th11(29.7)0.5651(25)0.5656(13.6)0.0002(16.7)0.38112(35.3)0.3608th10(27)1(25)11(25)4(33.3)7(20.6)9th16(43.2)2(50)27(61.4)6(50)15(44.1)Belongs toindigenous group(self-report)No28(77.8)0.0533(75)0.05338(88.4) 0.8579(75)0.17628(87.5)0.992Yes8(22.2)1(25)5(11.6)3(25)4(12.5)Family structure(lives with)* Students who responded / answered affirmatively to these sources of SRH information; ?² test,95% © 2020 Global Journals ## Acknowledgements We wish to thank the students, their parents, teachers and principals for their participation. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests Funding: None Authors' contributions: All authors contributed to the study design. CDO: coordinated the research project, drafted, and edited the manuscript. CGA: data analysis and manuscript edition. SGM: data analysis. ARV: data analysis and results interpretation. MBAA: IRB submission and data collection. BCC: data collection. MISG: material preparation and data collection. VJP: manuscript edition. VCS: manuscript edition and submission. GEFD: manuscript edition. RGG: coordinated the research project and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. * Encuesta Nacional de la Dinámica Demográfica 2018. 2018/Accessed on 27 November 2019 Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática (INEGI) * Mexico: Country Highlights OECD. Doing Better for Children Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 2009. Nov 2019 OECD * Encuesta Nacional de la Dinámica Demográfica: Principales resultados 2018. Nov 2019 Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática (INEGI) * National panorama of adolescent pregnancy in Mexico: lessons learned in a six-year period PAKuri-Morales RGuevara-Guzmán VPhillips-Gutiérrez AMota-Sánchez CADíaz-Olavarrieta Gaceta de México 156 2 2020 * Geografía e Informática (INEGI) 2015. 2019 Instituto Nacional de Estadística México en cifras * Población Siglo XXI. Población indígena Nueva Época 41 2018. Dec 2019 Dirección General de Población de Oaxaca (DIGEPO). Oaxaca * Geografía (INEGI) 2010. 27 November 2019 Instituto Nacional de Estadística Oaxaca: Diversity * Población total por Entidad federativa: Grupo quinquenal de edad, Periodo y Sexo 2010. November 2019 Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática (INEGI) * Influence of Sexual and Reproductive Health Literacy on Single and Recurrent Adolescent Pregnancy in Latin America DDongarwar HMSalihu Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology 32 5 2019 * United Nations International Children's Fund (UNICEF) 2018. 2018. Informe2018/ Accessed on 5 December 2019 Informe Anual México * United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 2016. pf0000248418 Accessed on 5 December 2019 Early and unintended pregnancy: Recommendations for the education sector * Oficina de Investigación en Desarrollo Humano del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo en México. Índice de Desarrollo Humano Municipal en México: Nueva metodología 2014. Dec 2019 * Sexuality Life Skills: Participatory Activities on Sexual and Reproductive Health with Young People Hiv/ AidsInternational Alliance 2008. 3 Dec 2019 * resource-library/my-changingbody-body-literacy-fertility-awareness-for-youngpeople 2011 Institute for Reproductive Health, Georgetown University and Family Health International. My Changing Body: Fertility Awareness for Young People. 2nd-edition/ Accessed on 5December 2019 * IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0 Ibm Corp 2017 IBM Corp Armonk, NY * Encuesta Nacional de los Hogares: Principales resultados 2016 17 2019 Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática (INEGI) * Geografía e Informática (INEGI) 2016. Accessed10 Jan 2019 Instituto Nacional de Estadística Encuesta Intercensal * Factors Associated with Sexual Debut in Mexican Adolescents: Results of the National Survey on Drug Use among Students in 2014 VBarragán SBerenzon MTiburcio MBustos JVillatoro The Journal of Sexual Medicine 16 3 2019 * G/Estudio/Diagnostico_Embarazo%20adolescente 10 Jan 2019 * Agenda sectorial la educación integral en sexualidad con énfasis en la prevención del embarazo en adolescentes: Avances. Líneas de Acción de la ENAPEA Secretaría De Educación Pública SEP. 2016 10 2019 * Educación sexual integral: cobertura, homogeneidad, integralidad y continuidad en escuelas de México RRojas FDCastro AVillalobos BAllen-Leigh MRomero ABraverman-Bronstein SaludPública de México 59 1 2017 * International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education. An evidence-informed approach for schools and teachers and health educators. Volume II. Topics and learning objectives 2009. December 2019 * Situación de la Salud Sexual y Reproductiva. República Mexicana 2016 18 Consejo Nacional de Población (CONAPO * Embarazo y maternidad en niñas: Entendimiento sociocultural Bitácora Social,& García-Silva O. 2017. Reporte NoBS®. 2017 * Encuesta Nacional sobre Disponibilidad y Uso de Tecnologías de la Información en los Hogares 2018. August 2020 Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática (INEGI) * Meet us on the phone: mobile phone programs for adolescent sexual and reproductive health in low-to-middle income countries NBIppoliti L'engle K ReproductiveHealth 14 1 2017 * CASALUD: A suite of digital health services for the prevention and management of NCDs. Delivered in partnership with the Mexico Ministry of Health and Carlos Slim Foundation MCargo KViljoen GSMA Association 2019. Jan 2019 * Gender Differences in Parents' Communication with Their Adolescent Children about Sexual Risk and Sex-Positive Topics REvans LWidman KKamke JLStewart The Journal of Sex Research 57 2 2019 * Congruence in reported frequency of parentadolescent sexual health communication: A study from Mexico EEAtienzo EOrtiz-Panozo LCampero International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 27 3 2015 * The global school-based student health survey as a tool to guide adolescent health interventions in rural Guatemala RKJohnson MLamb HAnderson MPieters-Arroyo BTAnderson GABolaños BMC Public Health 19 1 2019 * Perceptions of and barriers to family planning services in the poorest regions of Chiapas, Mexico: a qualitative study of men, women, and adolescents. Reproductive Health EDansereau ASchaefer BHernández JNelson EPalmisano DRíos-Zertuche 2017 14 * First Steps Toward Successful Communication About Sexual Health Between Adolescents and Parents in Mexico LCampero DWalker MRouvier EAtienzo Qualitative Health Research 20 8 2010 * Estrategia Nacional para la Prevención del Embarazo en Adolescentes 2020 Instituto Nacional de las Mujeres * Accessed on 20 August 2020 * Audio-visual media to improve sexual-reproduction health knowledge among adolescent SNDjannah SSulistyawati TWSukesi SAMulasari FTentama International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE) 9 1 2020 * Government of Azerbaijan.Teacher's Guide for Sexual and Reproductive Health Life Skills for Adolescents Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 2017. Dec 2019 * Conferencia de Prensa: Informe Diario sobre Coronavirus SaludSecretaría De COVID-19 en México [Pressrelease]. 2020 August 2020