Anyone make sense of the new abstinence study?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

A recent study showing that an experimental abstinence-only sex education program was effective in delaying sexual activity among teenagers is far from the last word in the debate over sex education, the Boston Globe reports. According to the Globe, the study's results come at a "pivotal point" in the debate, as the latest data show that the U.S. teen pregnancy rate rose in 2006 for the first time in since the early 1990s. The sex education study, conducted by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania, found that sixth- and seventh-graders in Philadelphia who were enrolled in an abstinence-only program that did not include a moralistic message were less likely to become sexually active than students who completed a comprehensive program that included information about contraception.
The results of the new study have reopened the "tinderbox that is sex education" and shown that it is "as combustible as ever," the Globe reports. Bill Albert, chief program officer for the National Campaign To Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, said the debate over sex education "is a mini culture war." He added, "The reason why this is so fraught with controversy and elicits such passion is because it touches on some primal issues that people care deeply about -- education of our children, when and under what circumstances to start a family, sex."

Abstinence-only advocates claim the recent study offers "proof they were right all along," the Globe reports (Smith, Boston Globe, 2/15). The advocacy group Abstinence Clearinghouse on its Web site proclaimed that the study proved "comprehensive sex ed a big flop." However, such claims are disputed by John Jemmott, the lead author of the study, who said that the program in the study would not have qualified for federal funding under the Bush administration because it did not emphasize abstinence until marriage and included information on contraception.

Linky. (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/179349.php)

This explained more than what I saw on the TV news and I still don't get it. It seems like they were doing an abstinence-plus program?

Another report says this:

Just as the recent news showed another 3 percent increase in the U.S. teen pregnancy rate — the highest of all developed countries — an incredible and surprising research project has given teens and their parents good news. A two-year study by the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine clearly demonstrated that abstinence-only interventions might have an important role in preventing teen sexual involvement.

Students were assigned to attend one of five different classes. With 662 urban students between the ages of 11 and 13 participating, researchers found that only 33.5 percent of the students who went through classes that focused on abstinence started having sex in the next two years. In contrast, 48.5 percent of students who attended other classes, including details on contraception, became sexually active.

Linky. (http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-living/ci_14342006)

They seem to imply that the abstinence class didn't provide contraception info, which they said they did. And they don't qualify what "other" means besides that.

[Professor Yaffle]

Dunno about this research, but apparently teenage pregnancy isn't so bad after all...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/feb/12/teenage-pregnancy-study

:D

[Dilb]

It's completely in line with results from earlier studies, like the ones from Texas. Abstinence only education delays the age at which teens have sex by something like 2 years. In that sense, it 'works'. The problem is that they still have sex anyway, and teens who had abstinence only education are much less likely to use birth control, because they don't think they should plan to have sex. Tracking teens until they are 14 or 15 is not an acceptable length of time if you're concerned about safe teen sexual behaviour and teen pregnancy.

It's not the study I'm thinking of, but for example (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-18-sex-study_x.htm), 88% premarital sex vs. 99% premarital sex, but greatly increased rates of oral sex and anal sex among abstinence pledged teens.

Admittedly, this isn't about abstinence only education, as information on contraception was provided, so I'm confused on exactly what was taught. It's a pretty basic part of health class to say "you can almost always avoid STDs by not having sex". Recommending an 11 year old avoid sex is also not that weird even for the sexually liberated.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's completely in line with results from earlier studies, like the ones from Texas. Abstinence only education delays the age at which teens have sex by something like 2 years. In that sense, it 'works'. The problem is that they still have sex anyway, and teens who had abstinence only education are much less likely to use birth control, because they don't think they should plan to have sex. Tracking teens until they are 14 or 15 is not an acceptable length of time if you're concerned about safe teen sexual behaviour and teen pregnancy.

It's not the study I'm thinking of, but for example (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-18-sex-study_x.htm), 88% premarital sex vs. 99% premarital sex, but greatly increased rates of oral sex and anal sex among abstinence pledged teens.

Admittedly, this isn't about abstinence only education, as information on contraception was provided, so I'm confused on exactly what was taught. It's a pretty basic part of health class to say "you can almost always avoid STDs by not having sex". Recommending an 11 year old avoid sex is also not that weird even for the sexually liberated.I don't believe your claim is correct that A-O education results in delayed first intercourse. Perhaps you confusing this ineffective and typically full of bad information education with virginity pledges (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18809131?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed), a different thing.

Impacts of abstinence education on teen sexual activity, risk of pregnancy, and risk of sexually transmitted diseases. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18401923?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=19)The findings show no significant impact on teen sexual activity, no differences in rates of unprotected sex, and some impacts on knowledge of STDs and perceived effectiveness of condoms and birth control pills


Medical accuracy in sexuality education: ideology and the scientific process. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18703454?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=15)Although seemingly uncontroversial, these requirements respond to the increasing injection of ideology into sexuality education, as represented by abstinence-only programs. I describe the process by which health professionals and government advisory groups within the United States reach scientific consensus and review the legal requirements and definitions for medical accuracy.


Abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education and the initiation of sexual activity and teen pregnancy. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18346659?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed)Abstinence-only education did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in vaginal intercourse (OR(adj) = .8, 95% CI = .51-1.31, p = .40), but comprehensive sex education was marginally associated with a lower likelihood of reporting having engaged in vaginal intercourse (OR(adj) = .7, 95% CI = .49-1.02, p = .06). Neither abstinence-only nor comprehensive sex education significantly reduced the likelihood of reported STD diagnoses (OR(adj) = 1.7, 95% CI = .57-34.76, p = .36 and OR(adj) = 1.8, 95% CI = .67-5.00, p = .24 respectively).


Abstinence and abstinence-only education. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17885460?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed)An independent evaluation of the federal program, several systematic reviews, and cohort data from population-based surveys find little evidence of efficacy and evidence of possible harm. In contrast, comprehensive sexuality education programs have been found to help teens delay initiation of intercourse and reduce sexual risk behaviors.

Not to mention the other serious problem with A-O programs, from the same abstract:Abstinence-only policies violate the human rights of adolescents because they withhold potentially life-saving information on HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. SUMMARY: Federal support of abstinence-only as an approach to adolescent sexuality education is of much concern due to medical inaccuracies, lack of effectiveness, and the withholding and distorting of health information.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's the study abstract:

A Randomized Controlled Trial With Young Adolescents; John B. Jemmott III, PhD; Loretta S. Jemmott, PhD, RN; Geoffrey T. Fong, PhD; Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(2):152-159. (http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/164/2/152)Objective To evaluate the efficacy of an abstinence-only intervention in preventing sexual involvement in young adolescents.

Design Randomized controlled trial.

Setting Urban public schools.

Participants A total of 662 African American students in grades 6 and 7.

Interventions An 8-hour abstinence-only intervention targeted reduced sexual intercourse; an 8-hour safer sex–only intervention targeted increased condom use; 8-hour and 12-hour comprehensive interventions targeted sexual intercourse and condom use; and an 8-hour health-promotion control intervention targeted health issues unrelated to sexual behavior. Participants also were randomized to receive or not receive an intervention maintenance program to extend intervention efficacy.

Outcome Measures The primary outcome was self-report of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were other sexual behaviors.

Results The participants' mean age was 12.2 years; 53.5% were girls; and 84.4% were still enrolled at 24 months. Abstinence-only intervention reduced sexual initiation (risk ratio [RR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.96). The model-estimated probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the control group. Fewer abstinence-only intervention participants (20.6%) than control participants (29.0%) reported having coitus in the previous 3 months during the follow-up period (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99). Abstinence-only intervention did not affect condom use. The 8-hour (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-1.00) and 12-hour comprehensive (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99) interventions reduced reports of having multiple partners compared with the control group. No other differences between interventions and controls were significant.

Conclusion Theory-based abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement.(emphasis mine)

It would appear the results are being distorted by the agenda driven ideologues. From other things I've read (http://www.inform.com/article/Abstinence-only%20program%20helps%20kids%20postpone%20sex) about this study, the A-O program was significantly different from the religiously motivated programs.

These federally supported programs -- initiated during the Clinton years at the behest of Congress -- follow a series of guidelines focusing on the importance of abstaining from sex until marriage, and underscoring the allegedly harmful physical and psychological effects of premarital sex and out-of-wedlock childbirth. "They're not based on an understanding of the motivation of children to have sex or to practice abstinence, and that's what this intervention was based on," John Jemmott said.

He and his colleagues designed their program using techniques proven to help adolescents avoid risky behaviors like cigarette smoking, drinking and drug use. Classes were conducted in groups of six to 12 children, with activities that included listing the pros and cons of abstinence versus the pros and cons of having sex. "This activity is in the context of a whole intervention that begins with a consideration of what are their goals and dreams for the future, where do they see themselves five years from now, where do they see themselves 10 years from now," Jemmott explained.

[Dilb]

I don't believe your claim is correct that A-O education results in delayed first intercourse. Perhaps you confusing this ineffective and typically full of bad information education with virginity pledges (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18809131?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed), a different thing.

Yeah, I guess I was confusing them, as they never seemed all that different to me. In either case abstinence is being present to kids as what they should do, for no medically justified reason.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, I guess I was confusing them, as they never seemed all that different to me. In either case abstinence is being present to kids as what they should do, for no medically justified reason.In the religion based abstinence only education materials. If you take a look at this study, they used a very different approach.

[MikeMangum]

Yeah, I guess I was confusing them, as they never seemed all that different to me. In either case abstinence is being present to kids as what they should do, for no medically justified reason.

There are an awful lot of things that are presented to kids by schools as things they should do that have absolutely nothing to do with a medically justifiable reason. Is there a medically justifiable reason to recycle? I can tell you that schools make very clear to tell kids (over, and over, and over again) that recycling is something they should do.

There is definitely a socially justifiable reason to tell kids that they should not engage in sex, aside from the fact that according to the law they are not capable of consenting to sex and can be prosecuted and punished for life for having sex.