Between a Jan. 31, 2010 New York Times Op-ed (Sex Ed in Washington) and follow-up responses on Feb. 6 (Sex Ed, With No Federal Strings?) debating the merits and disconnects of sexual education, the Times reported on the findings of a recent study of an abstinence-only intervention (Quick Response to Study of Abstinence Education).
From the Times article about the study: In Dr. Jemmott’s research, only about a third of the students who participated in a weekend abstinence-only class started having sex within the next 24 months, compared with about half who were randomly assigned instead to general health information classes, or classes teaching only safer sex. Among those assigned to comprehensive sex-education classes, covering both abstinence and safer sex, about 42 percent began having sex.
The reference for the research study is:
Jemmott, J. B., Jemmott, L. S., & Fong, G. T. (2010). Efficacy of a theory-based abstinence-only intervention over 24 months: A randomized controlled trial with young adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164(2), 152–159.
The “about a third,” “about half,” and 42% cited by the Times sounds impressive, but the spread between abstinence-only and comprehensive is about 8 people. The figures translate to 31 out of 95 who started having sex who were in the abstinence-only group, compared with 41 out of 88 in the regular health class. The 12-hour comprehensive sexual education intervention, in comparison, yields 39 out of 92. In addition, the outcomes table within the research article reads that the Ever Had Sexual Intercourse group “excludes participants who reported sexual intercourse at baseline” (Jemmott, Jemmott, & Fong, 2010, p. 156), which is an important omission since it standardizes the participants but also means these were not sexually experienced individuals.
More interestingly, the research findings for Had Unprotected Sexual Intercourse in the Past 3 Months are the exact same number (8 individuals) and proportion (7.1%) for both the abstinence-only and 12-hour comprehensive groups at the 24-month mark. The findings for Used Condoms Consistently During Intercourse in the Past 3 Months present a similar wash, with 25 of 33 in the abstinence-only group and 26 of 35 in the 12-hour comprehensive group at the 24-month mark.
However, using all available data at each follow-up stage and quashing these together to then parse (what the article describes as an “intention-to-treat approach in which participants’ data were analyzed regardless of the number of intervention or data collection sessions they attended” (p. 155), more statistically significant differences emerge.
Numbers-fun aside, there’s an issue within this study in need of reflection. The authors state that “the facilitators” for the study “were 16 men and 51 women (mean age,43.1 years); 61.2% had a master’s degree; and 38.8% had a bachelor’s degree. All were African American except for 1 Puerto Rican individual. We hired facilitators with the skills to implement any of the interventions” (p. 154).
Since the youth participants are 6th and 7th graders, why are youth not involved as facilitators? I’m all for employing adults, especially in this economy, but an iteration of the study could have the adults train youth as facilitators. A comparative study examining differences between adult and youth facilitators would make for a very interesting examination of how youth participating in the training are receptive to the interventions. Do you need another study director, Dr. Jemmott?