Nevada County Citizens for Choice

While the recent report "Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months" might be exciting for abstinence-only proponents, you need to be careful of what the study actually found and what it could mean. The authors of the study, John B. Jemmott III, Loretta S. Jemmott, and Geoffrey T. Fong cautioned that abstinence programs are not an effective long-term solution. "A common shortcoming of behavior-change interventions is that efficacy is demonstrated in the short term but disappears at longer-term follow-up," the report said. "This may particularly be a problem for abstinence interventions. Unlike many risk behaviors (e.g. cigarette smoking, drug use), sexual intercourse is an age-graded behavior; the expectation is that people will eventually have sexual intercourse." (We don't yet have the full report and are trying to obtain one, to substantiate these quotes. They appeared on this site: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/0202/abstinence.study/index.html.)

The study was conducted on 662 black 12-year olds in urban public schools over a period of two years, to help those 12-year olds delay sex until they were ready. There were four different courses: an 8-hour abstinence-only intervention which targeted reduced sexual intercourse; an 8-hour safer sex-only intervention which targeted increased condom use; 8-hour and 12-hour conprehensive interventions which targeted sexual intercourse and condom use; and an 8-hour health-promotion control intervention which targeted health issue unrelated to sexual behavior (link to the abstract at Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine: http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/164/2/152?home).

According to the Advocates for Youth webiste, the Jemmotts stated that "It (the abstinence-only intervention) was not designed to meet federal criteria for abstinence-only programs. For instance, the target behavior was abstaining from vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex. The intervention did not contain inaccurate information, portray sex in a negative light, or use a moralistic tone. The training and curriculum manual explicitly instructed the facilitators not to disparage the efficacy of condoms or allow the view that condoms are ineffective to go uncorrected." http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=content&task-view&id-1559&Itemid-835. It included contraceptives and STI information if requested by the students.

They model-estimated (not reality but a model) that 33.5% of the abstinence-only group would have sex by the 24-month follow-up, and 48.5% in the control group. The result was that 20.6% of the abstinence-only group reported having sex while 29% of the control group did. Remember, however, that the control group had health-promotion control intervention (that) targeted health issues unrelated to sexual behavior. Once we obtain the full report, we'll write about the other statistics.

It seems that the study showed that it's a good thing to teach comprehensive sex education to 12-year olds, with an emphasis on abstinence, with a continuation of comprehensive sex education for older children with abstinence as one of the subjects. It's a good thing to advocate for abstinence until a committed relationship - as long as medically correct and adequate information if provided about STIs, contraceptives, and other crucial issues as well. (and, as a few blogs have mentioned, perhaps they should also teach masturbation or at least dispel the myth that masturbation is bad).

Our Outreach team has been handing out pamphlets on abstinence for quite a while now...along with information on contracepton, STIs, self-esteem...and condoms. Maybe we're ahead of the curve!