New Study: Condoms and Promiscuity
Here's an encouraging story, from the New York Times:
Does anybody have an idea why condoms would be linked to promiscuity? Only the abstract of the study is available so far, and they don't say what motivated them.
Are there people who say that if you teach students about condoms you are promoting promiscuity? I can't remember if I've heard that one, it all runs together in a blur.
This story has two findings. Naturally, using a condom is not associated with promiscuity. The second thing, teens who use a condom had half the STDs of those who didn't.
Another reason to be glad Montgomery County is going ahead with this important new class.
A new study has found that adolescents who use condoms the first time they have intercourse do not go on to have more sexual partners than others, and that they have lower rates of sexually transmitted diseases than those who do not use condoms the first time.
Beginning in 1994, the researchers studied a sample of 4,018 teenagers, all of whom completed three interviews about their sexual behavior over a period of six to eight years. All had had sexual intercourse by the second year of the study. Participants were tested for chlamydia and gonorrhea in 2001 or 2002.
Almost 62 percent of the teenagers used a condom the first time they had sex. Despite concerns that encouraging condom use leads to promiscuity, those who used condoms and those who did not had an average of five partners. But those who used a condom at their sexual debut were only half as likely to have a sexually transmitted disease seven years later. Adolescence: No Link to Promiscuity Found in Youths Using Condoms
Does anybody have an idea why condoms would be linked to promiscuity? Only the abstract of the study is available so far, and they don't say what motivated them.
Are there people who say that if you teach students about condoms you are promoting promiscuity? I can't remember if I've heard that one, it all runs together in a blur.
This story has two findings. Naturally, using a condom is not associated with promiscuity. The second thing, teens who use a condom had half the STDs of those who didn't.
Another reason to be glad Montgomery County is going ahead with this important new class.
posted by JimK at 7:58 AM
25 Comments:
Re: the PFOX suit against Arlington.
I called Arlington Public Schools and spoke to their public relations person. He confirms that Arlington's policy is to distribute no fliers from non-profit organizations, and the PFOX's lawsuit is frivolous.
Nice to see them wasting their money.
Robert
"Are there people who say that if you teach students about condoms you are promoting promiscuity? I can't remember if I've heard that one, it all runs together in a blur."
Yes, there are.
Teaching kids about condoms without stressing the importance of premarital abstinence signals to the kids that you expect them to engage in premarital sex.
Dear anonymous,
Your assertion is an unproved conjecture. Jim is talking about research. What do you think of the study to which he refers?
BTW, I don't know of any school district which encourages sexual activity among youth. Don't they all encourage youth to wait until they are in committed relationships?
Robert
Anonymous said "Teaching kids about condoms without stressing the importance of premarital abstinence signals to the kids that you expect them to engage in premarital sex.".
With, if I remember correctly, over 95% of people engaging in premarital sex its pointless to keep pretending that it isn't going to happen. Its time to prepare teenagers for what we know will occur rather than continuing to stick our head in the sand promoting some utopian message that clearly no one is listening to. The study (and others) clearly show that ignoring reality with an abstinence only message needlessly results in higher rates of STDs. Theresa's logic would assert that people pushing abstinence to the exclusion of condoms are responsible for murder.
"Your assertion is an unproved conjecture. Jim is talking about research"
Jim asked if anyone believed that teaching about condoms could lead to promiscuity.
He was answered correctly and an explanation for why they think that was offered. Where's the "conjecture"?
"The study (and others) clearly show that ignoring reality with an abstinence only message needlessly results in higher rates of STDs."
Unless there's more to the study than Jim discussed, it doesn't show this at all. It only showed that those who used condoms weren't any more likely to be promiscous than those who did. There is no indication that teaching how to use a condom increases the rate of usage.
Anon. said: "Jim asked if anyone believed that teaching about condoms could lead to promiscuity."
Jim was being ironic.
rrjr
Anonymous said "Unless there's more to the study than Jim discussed, it doesn't show this at all. It only showed that those who used condoms weren't any more likely to be promiscous than those who did."
Go back and read it again anonymous. It clearly says "Almost 62 percent of the teenagers used a condom the first time they had sex. Despite concerns that encouraging condom use leads to promiscuity, those who used condoms and those who did not had an average of five partners. But those who used a condom at their sexual debut were only half as likely to have a sexually transmitted disease seven years later.".
Those who learned to use condoms were much less likely to have an STD.
Here's what you originally said, Randi:
"The study (and others) clearly show that ignoring reality with an abstinence only message needlessly results in higher rates of STDs."
But the study didn't show that. It showed that if you used a condom in your first sexual encounter you were half as likely to have a STD as someone who didn't.
Personally, I don't think you needed a study to tell you that. I'm actually surprised the condoms didn't provide more protection. Probably because "someone who didn't" would include both those who heeded the message of an abstinence class and thus had a zero chance of getting an STD to average out those who were promiscuous and used no protection and thus had an extremely high chance of getting an STD.
So, the study didn't evaluate the effectiveness of teaching methods. It simply said that those who use a condom are less likely to contract an STD.
How surprising! Those who are abstinent until marriage have an even lower rate, near zero.
Anonymous, you see, we know from other studies that students who take abstinence only education only delay intercourse and then when they do have it are less likely to use a condom than students who had comprehensive sex education. Clearly students who take abstinence only education are much more likely to get an
STD than those who are taught to use condoms
"we know from other studies that students who take abstinence only education only delay intercourse and then when they do have it are less likely to use a condom than students who had comprehensive sex education"
Really?
All the studies I've seen show little effect on behavior from comprehensive sex ed.
Maybe I was dreaming. Let's see your study.
BTW, as I think you now realize, Jim's study did not prove what you said it did.
Be careful and, please, pay attention!
Anonymous, you were dreaming. The study clearly said "those who used a condom at their sexual debut were only half as likely to have a sexually transmitted disease seven years later.".
If you want to look at the studies on the effectiveness of abstinence programs dig back through the archives of TTF and you'll find where I've posted them, probably a few months ago. TTF also in the not too distant past had a post about the failure of abstinence only programs. Pay attention next time I post this stuff.
As Jim's post noted, only the abstract of the study has been published so far. The conclusions published in the abstract state:
Conclusions. Adolescents who use condoms at their sexual debut do not report more sexual partners, are more likely to engage in subsequent protective behaviors, and experience fewer sexually transmitted infections than do adolescents who do not use condoms at their sexual debut.
The Bush Administration's rules governing federal funding of abstinence education programs include these requirements (among others):
--"Material must not promote contraception and/or condom use"
--"A curriculum must not promote or encourage the use of any type of contraceptives outside of marriage"
--"Information on contraceptives, if included, must be age-appropriate and presented only as it supports the abstinence message being presented. Curriculum must not promote or endorse, distribute or demonstrate the use of contraception or instruct students in contraceptive usage."
Any teen who only receives abstinence training, especially under these ridiculous rules will receive no demonstration of proper condom usage, no encouragement to use condoms should they fail at abstinence, and therefore will be unlikely to "use condoms at their sexual debut."
"If you want to look at the studies on the effectiveness of abstinence programs dig back through the archives of TTF and you'll find where I've posted them, probably a few months ago. TTF also in the not too distant past had a post about the failure of abstinence only programs. Pay attention next time I post this stuff."
Randi, you've got a mental block. I asked if you know of any evidence that comp sex ed increases usage of condoms. Your choice to attack ab programs instead of provide evidence for the effectiveness of comp programs is glaring.
"Any teen who only receives abstinence training, especially under these ridiculous rules will receive no demonstration of proper condom usage, no encouragement to use condoms should they fail at abstinence, and therefore will be unlikely to "use condoms at their sexual debut.""
But, Beatrice, is there any evidence that this training and encouragement has any practical effect? Randi, our regular statistic and study paster, isn't coming up with any. How about you?
If neither ab nor comp programs provide, as far, any evidence of effectiveness, why not choose the one that encourages what we really all say we want and try to figure out how to improve it?
I think I know why, but I'll let you guys rattle on a while before weighing in.
Anonymous said " I asked if you know of any evidence that comp sex ed increases usage of condoms.".
Yes, and it was in the information I posted about the failure of abstinence only programs I posted some time back. I didn't keep a copy of this on my computer (it may be on my boyfriends computer) and at some point I'll dig it up again, but I'm not about to go chasing after it right this minute because you want to pretend you haven't seen it. Like I said, pay attention next time.
Anon asked if "there [is] any evidence that this training and encouragement has any practical effect?"
Yes, there is. A 2006 study compared hands on training in proper condom use (HO) to watching a demonstration of proper condom use (DO) (as MCPS will do when it implements the new health curriculum this fall) to no instruction on proper condom use at all (NS) (as done in abstinence-only programs). The relevant finding to this discussion is: The DO group scored significantly higher than the NS group on both the MCUS and FCUS. In conclusion, a “hands on” practice of condom use was superior in teaching condom use skills than a condom use demonstration, which was superior to no intervention.
http://ctndisseminationlibrary.org/display/142.htm
Hopefully, MCPS will follow up and provide hands on proper condom use training, which is even more effective than simply watching a demonstration. Both hands-on and watching a demonstration of proper condom use training are more effective than no training at all.
The Randi and Beatrice Hour
brought to you by GLSEN and NARAL
They keep trying to change the subject and keep it changed. The issue is not whether condom use protects against disease or whether drug addicts become more skilled at using them with practice but whether programs to persuade kids to use them have any effect on teen behavior.
This is the standard you keep using for ab programs. Why not comp programs?
After all, while premarital sex is safer with condoms, abstinence is safer still.
To avoid using a double standard, you guys need to find a study showing that high school comp classes can alter the behavior of students.
In response to my comment about the rules that allow no condom use "demonstration" or "encouragement" in federally funded sex ed programs, your question was "is there any evidence that this training and encouragement has any practical effect?"
I provided a study that shows that hands on training and watching a demonstration improve proper condom use (a practical effect) more than no instruction on condom use (abstinence). Now you say "you guys need to find a study showing that high school comp classes can alter the behavior of students. "
I just did. "Comp classes" include instruction contraceptives and when that instruction includes either watching a condom demonstration or learning to use condoms hands on, teen behavior does change -- teens who receive lessons on proper condom use in "comp classes" are significantly better able to use condoms properly than those who teens stuck in abstinence only lessons who don't.
The Anon hour, brought to you by homophobia unlimited.
"I just did. "Comp classes" include instruction contraceptives and when that instruction includes either watching a condom demonstration or learning to use condoms hands on, teen behavior does change -- teens who receive lessons on proper condom use in "comp classes" are significantly better able to use condoms properly than those who teens stuck in abstinence only lessons who don't."
OK, AB, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you thought I meant greater skill at handling condoms. I'll even ignore the fact that your study was done with drug addicts rather than your average teen.
Let me be more precise. Is there any evidence that comp ed classes in high school increases the use of condoms among sexually active teens?
Again, this is the basis on which you attack ab programs. You say that don't cause teens to abstain. (There are studies that show that even esteem based ab programs delay the onset of sexual activity, btw.) Is there any reason to believe that comp programs are better at promoting condom use than ab programs are at promoting abstinence?
Anon: "brought to you by GLSEN and NARAL"
GLSEN doesn't have policies on sex-ed; its major focus is on anti-bullying.
rrjr
Back when the US was building a budget surplus rather than a deficit, the CDC published "Trends in Sexual Risk Behaviors Among High School Students -- United States, 1991-1997."
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/00054814.htm
Here's a brief summary:
To determine trends in sexual risk behaviors among high school students, CDC analyzed data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) for the years 1991, 1993, 1995, and 1997. This report summarizes the results of this analysis, which indicate that, from 1991 to 1997, the percentage of U.S. high school students who had ever had sexual intercourse decreased, and the prevalence of condom use among currently sexually active students increased...
The 1991, 1993, 1995, and 1997 national surveys used independent, three-stage cluster sampling to obtain representative cross-sectional samples of students in grades 9-12 in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. In 1991, 1993, 1995, and 1997, the sample sizes were 12,272, 16,296, 10,904, and 16,262, respectively...
The proportion of students who reported current sexual activity did not change significantly over time. Among currently sexually active students, condom use increased 23%, a significant linear increase (p less than or equal to 0.001; Table_1). The overall trend in condom use did not differ among sex, grade, or racial/ethnic subgroups...
This CDC paper does not mention if abstinence lessons were included in classroom instruction or not, but it does say "The decrease in sexual risk behaviors among high school students during 1991-1997 also corresponds to an increase in the percentage of high school students who received HIV/AIDS education in school (from 83.3% in 1991 to 91.5% in 1997) (CDC, unpublished data, 1998)."
""The decrease in sexual risk behaviors among high school students during 1991-1997 also corresponds to an increase in the percentage of high school students who received HIV/AIDS education in school (from 83.3% in 1991 to 91.5% in 1997) (CDC, unpublished data, 1998)."
I've speculated on this before. My guess is that most of the reduction in teen pregnancy and STD rates is due to fear of HIV/AIDS and education on that. You could call me cynical, but it does, in my opinion, reflect teenagers making wise decisions when the stakes are high enough.
rrjr
I don't think "fear" is what's making the difference. Another study addressed the fear factor and here's what they reported.
ABSTRACT—Over two decades of HIV-prevention attempts have generated a most impressive ecological data set for the test of behavioral-change and persuasion theories in the domain of condom use. An analysis of this evidence has yielded five important empirical and theoretical conclusions. First, interventions are more successful at achieving immediate knowledge and motivational change than they are at achieving immediate behavioral change. Second, the immediate motivational change decays over time, whereas behavior change increases over the same period. Third, interventions that engage audiences in particular activities, such as role-playing condom use, are more effective than presentations of materials to passive audiences. Fourth, interventions consistent with the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior, with self-efficacy models, and with information-motivation and behavioral-skills models prove effective, whereas interventions designed to induce fear do not. Fifth, expert intervention facilitators are more effective than lay community members in almost all cases. When populations are unempowered, expert facilitators are particularly effective, and they are most effective if they also share the gender and ethnicity of the target audience.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00410.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=cdir
HIV/AIDS prevention programs almost always include information on condoms and I think it's that information that makes the difference. All but one of the youth programs analyzed in the CDC's "Compendium of HIV Prevention Interventions with Evidence of Effectiveness from CDC's HIV/AIDS Prevention Research Synthesis Project" include condom instruction.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/reports/hiv_compendium/index.htm
Thanks, Bea.
rrjr
Post a Comment
<< Home