[HoosierDaddy]

Morgoth, on 02 February 2010 - 10:46 AM, said:

H.D., on 02 February 2010 - 12:44 AM, said:

Well, as long as it works. The critical thing here is that this study isn't used as evidence for ALL abstinence programs. This program doesn't portray sex as wrong in any sort of way, while some more "traditional" abstinence programs would not say that. The bits about how it didn't affect condom usage is quite interesting as well.

However, 32% of 8th and 9th graders are having sex? Now, I'm a tad old, but not too old, that is WAY higher than when I was in 8th and 9th grade.

they were probably doing it behind your back. All of them laughing at you with their sex and their condoms and their teen pregnancies. What did you get? A law degree? Pah!

Yes. Jerks. I had my revenge in high-school.

Shinrei, on 02 February 2010 - 11:09 AM, said:

Why do you think he drinks so much?

For the beer-goggles.

Aptorian, on 02 February 2010 - 11:18 AM, said:

He's thirsty?

Yes.

Shinrei, on 02 February 2010 - 11:23 AM, said:

LIES!

Always.

Back on, "the conservatives using this as evidence that all abstinence programs work" is something I brought up earlier in the thread. Abstinence programs as a whole are having budgets slashed and removed from viable sex-ed strategies to combat STD's and teen-pregnancy. This study presents abstinence groups something to bring forward to show that in some instances it HAS been shown to be effective, but more funding will be necessary to further test this sort of program on a more rigorous scientific level. They'll have a much better shot at receiving funding for it now.

Perhaps I misread the condom use rate, but the fact that it didn't go DOWN when teens who thought they were "ready for sex" maintained the same percentage as before was actually a neutral sign. Those are the types of kids whom generally think they are going to marry their high-school sweet-heart and so having a baby won't matter (so they don't wrap it up, for the obvious reason). The key is to get that percentage up, up, up. It's what actually produces less kids and STD's, otherwise all they are doing is studying the general horniness of teenagers, which is an astronomical number.

I maintain, 32% as 8th and 9th has to equate to like 85- 90% as seniors (my graduating class had 105, it's easy for percentage usage). From what I remember, that's about accurate. Kids just get started earlier these days. But, that's a different topic.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 02 February 2010 - 07:55 PM

[Obdigore]

HD, the only condom usage information we have in the linked study indicate that there was no change in condom usage rates due to abstinence only. Since you MUST put your groups up against a control, and they made no mention at all of what the condom use rate was for subjects who had a full sex-ed course, there must be a trend that does not meet their goals and so was not mentioned.

Do you really think that if the condom usage was the same from abstinence group vs full-ed group, they would have glossed that part over?

Also, please tell me if I am wrong, but here is how I see the study:
Control = taught to eat healthy and get exercise.
Abstinence Only = Abstinence only, but without any religious overtones. Focus on 'wait until you are ready'. Didn't claim contraceptives are bad, but didn't really touch on them at all.
Full = Abstinence and Contraceptive education.
No Abstinence = Contraceptive only?

All courses except the Control taught about STD's and pre-marital birth.

[Jusentantaka]

And this breaking news has just hit broadcast news... as dumbed down as possible. 'signficant increase' and no specifics.

[Use Of Weapons]

The study itself:

Quote

Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 MonthsA 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.

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.

Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00640653

<br clear="right">Author Affiliations: School of Medicine and Annenberg School for Communication (Dr J. B. Jemmott), and School of Nursing Science (Dr L. S. Jemmott), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, and Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (Dr Fong).

[Mezla PigDog]

I call the Washington Post "reading too much into the very moderate findings of that study". Anyone tempted to base advice on where to direct $millions of spending on that article is a moron Yes the findings are interesting but 662 students is not enough, a RR of 0.67 isn't exactly spectacular particular with the width of the 95% confidence interval and 20.6% vs 29% is bugger all.

[Use Of Weapons]

Indeed, the state officials with control of the money have already said (and been quoted as saying) that one study is not enough to make budgetary decisions on. However, a cursory examination of the credentials of the authors and their institution doesn't betray any obvious sources of bias, particularly religious, which would lead one to suspect the results or the conclusion.

And really, given the stated method, is it really so surprising? They treated the kids as adults, let them make their own decisions, didn't take a moral stance, and provided them with the facts. Seems to me like that would be a strategy any government would be proud to call its own, even leaving aside the potential to ally it with information about safe sex, STD prevention, etc.