peripheries

No evidence to support funding of abstinence-only programmes

September 21st, 2008 | by User Image

Admin |

A special issue of Sexuality Research and Social Policy, the official journal of the National Sexuality Resource Center (NSRC), examined a broad range of problem associated with abstinence only programmes.

Having reviewed 56 studies assessing the impact of abstinence programs and that of comprehensive programmes on adolescents’ sexual behaviour (pdf) Douglas B. Kirby, concluded that “abstinence programs have little evidence to warrant their widespread replication; conversely, strong evidence suggests that some comprehensive programs should be disseminated widely.”

More to the point (emphasis mine)

When comparing recent studies of the effectiveness of abstinence and comprehensive sex education programs, the following conclusions are dramatically evident:

1. Some evidence (but no strong evidence) currently supports the supposition that any particular abstinence program is effective at delaying first sex for adolescents.

2. Abstinence programs are not more effective at delaying initiation of sex than comprehensive sex education programs.

3. Abstinence programs are not sufficiently effective to eliminate teens’ sexual risk or to eliminate the need for comprehensive sex education programs.

4. Much strong evidence supports the supposition that comprehensive sex education programs can both delay initiation of sex and increase condom or other contraceptive use among youth.

Not only abstinence-only programmes are failing adolescents but they also put restriction on teacher’s ability to teach, they violates adolescent’s human rights to receive a comprehensive sexual health educationn (pdf), but they often mislead if not prohibit information about the benefits of condoms and contraception and in particular about condom’s effectiveness against HIV (pdf).

In another a report to be published in the January issue of the American Journal of Public Health “Explaining Recent Declines in Adolescent Pregnancy in the United States: The Contribution of Abstinence and Improved Contraceptive Use”, John Santelli, MD, MPH, department chair and professor of Clinical Population and Family Health at the Mailman School of Public Health observed that “eighty-six percent of the recent decline in U.S. teen pregnancy rates is the result of improved contraceptive use, while a small proportion of the decline (14%) can be attributed to teens waiting longer to start having sex” reports Science Daily.”

Meanwhile, in Florida where abstinence-only sex education is allowed, “teens who believe drinking a cap of bleach will prevent HIV and a shot of Mountain Dew will stop pregnancy have prompted lawmakers to push for an overhaul of sex education in the state”

In a press release the Guttmacher Institute observed that “Most abstinence-only programs of the type that have received $1.5 billion in federal funding do not help teens delay initiation of sex, and there is no scientific evidence to warrant their widespread use”

Why and how long are these programmes going to be promoted and implemented in the USA, and around the world, by zealous missionaries through abstinence-only tied-up funding programmes that are doing nothing to tackle teenage pregnancies and HIV transmission?

Time to implement evidence-only based programmes?