Advertisement

Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy

      Abstract

      Purpose

      The role that sex education plays in the initiation of sexual activity and risk of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (STD) is controversial in the United States. Despite several systematic reviews, few epidemiologic evaluations of the effectiveness of these programs on a population level have been conducted.

      Methods

      Among never-married heterosexual adolescents, aged 15–19 years, who participated in Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth and reported on formal sex education received before their first sexual intercourse (n = 1719), we compared the sexual health risks of adolescents who received abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education to those of adolescents who received no formal sex education. Weighted multivariate logistic regression generated population-based estimates.

      Results

      Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education were significantly less likely to report teen pregnancy (ORadj = .4, 95% CI = .22– .69, p = .001) than those who received no formal sex education, whereas there was no significant effect of abstinence-only education (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .38–1.45, p = .38). Abstinence-only education did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in vaginal intercourse (ORadj = .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 (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .49–1.02, p = .06). Neither abstinence-only nor comprehensive sex education significantly reduced the likelihood of reported STD diagnoses (ORadj = 1.7, 95% CI = .57–34.76, p = .36 and ORadj = 1.8, 95% CI = .67–5.00, p = .24 respectively).

      Conclusions

      Teaching about contraception was not associated with increased risk of adolescent sexual activity or STD. Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education had a lower risk of pregnancy than adolescents who received abstinence-only or no sex education.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Adolescent Health
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Singh S.
        • Darroch J.E.
        Adolescent pregnancy and childbearing: Levels and trends in developed countries.
        Fam Plann Perspect. 2000; 32: 14-23
        • Panchaud C.
        • Singh S.
        • Feivelson D.
        • Darroch J.
        Sexually transmitted diseases among adolescents in developed countries.
        Fam Plann Perspect. 2000; 32 (45): 24-32
        • Alan Guttmacher Institute. Teenagers’ Sexual and Reproductive Health: Developed Countries
        ([Online]) (Accessed April 5, 2007)
        • Weinstock H.
        • Berman S.
        • Cates Jr, W.
        Sexually transmitted diseases among American youth: Incidence and prevalence estimates, 2000.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2004; 36: 6-10
        • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. STD Surveillance 2005: Adolescents and Youth
        ([Online]) (Accessed May 18, 2006)
        • US House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform—Minority Staff Special Investigations Division. The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs
        ([Online]) (Accessed July 15, 2005)
        • Social Security Act. Section 510 [42 U.S.C. 710]
        ([Online]) (Accessed April 9, 2007)
        • Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005; Department of Health and Human Service
        ([Online]) (Accessed November 23, 2005)
        • Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008; Department of Health and Human Services
        ([Online]) (Accessed April 4, 2007)
        • Lindberg L.D.
        • Santelli J.S.
        • Singh S.
        Changes in formal sex education: 1995–2002.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2006; 38: 182-189
        • Kirby D.
        Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy (Summary). Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2001.
        ([Online]) (Accessed April 4, 2007)
        • Bennett S.E.
        • Assefi N.P.
        School-based teen pregnancy prevention programs: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
        J Adolesc Health. 2005; 36: 72-81
        • Trenholm C.
        • Devaney B.
        • Fortson K.
        • et al.
        Impacts of Four Title V Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs.
        ([Online]) (Accessed August 4, 2007)
        • Underhill K.
        • Montgomery P.
        • Operario D.
        Sexual abstinence only programmes to prevent HIV infection in high income countries: Systematic review.
        Br Med J. 2007; 335 ([epub]): 248
        • Smoak N.D.
        • Scott-Sheldon L.
        • Johnson B.T.
        • Carey M.P.
        Sexual risk reduction interventions do not inadvertently increase the overall frequency of sexual behavior: A meta-analysis of 174 studies with 116,735 participants.
        J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006; 41: 374-384
        • Tremblay C.H.
        • Ling D.C.
        AIDS education, condom demand, and the sexual activity of American youth.
        Health Econ. 2005; 14: 851-867
        • Bruckner H.
        • Bearman P.S.
        After the Promise: The STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges.
        J Adolesc Health. 2005; 36: 271-278
        • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics
        Teenagers in the United States: Sexual Activity, Contraceptive Use and Childbearing, 2002.
        (Accessed May 30, 2006)
        • Holmes K.K.
        • Levine R.
        • Weaver M.
        Effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections.
        Bull WHO. 2004; 82: 454-461
        • Wald A.
        • Langenberg A.G.
        • Krantz E.
        • et al.
        The relationship between condom use and herpes simplex virus acquisition.
        Ann Intern Med. 2005; 143: 707-713
        • Winer R.L.
        • Hughes J.P.
        • Feng Q.
        • et al.
        Condom use and the risk of genital human papillomavirus infection in young women.
        N Engl J Med. 2006; 354: 2645-2654
        • Sabia J.
        Does sex education affect adolescent sexual behaviors and health?.
        J Policy Anal Manag. 2006; 25: 783-802
        • DiLorio C.
        • Dudley W.N.
        • Soet J.E.
        • McCarty F.
        Sexual possibility situations and sexual behaviors among young adolescents: The moderating role of protective factors.
        J Adolesc Health. 2004; 35 (–20): 528.e11
        • Miller W.C.
        • Ford C.A.
        • Morris M.
        • et al.
        Prevalence of chlamydial and gonococcal infections among young adults in the United States.
        JAMA. 2004; 291: 2229-2236
        • Rosenbaum J.E.
        Reborn a virgin: Adolescents’ retracting of virginity pledges and sexual histories.
        Am J Public Health. 2006; 96: 1098-1103
        • Landry D.L.
        • Darroch J.E.
        • Singh S.
        • Higgins J.
        Factors associated with the content of sex education in US public secondary schools.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2003; 35: 261-269

      Linked Article

      • Converging Evidence Leaves Policy Behind: Sex Education in the United States
        Journal of Adolescent HealthVol. 42Issue 4
        • Preview
          School-based sex education has the potential to prevent sexually transmitted infections and unwanted pregnancies and to promote healthy sexuality. Yet local, state, and national sex education policies in the United States comprise a bewildering patchwork of mandates, funding restrictions, omissions, and compromises, often at odds from one level to the next. As a result, the sex education received by most students is fragmented, incomplete, and frequently based on ineffective approaches and curricula [1–3]—an unacceptable state of affairs in a time of increasing teen birth rates and epidemics of sexually transmitted infections among American youth [4,5].
        • Full-Text
        • PDF