New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program Actually Promotes It

Teenage girls who cared for infant dolls, an intervention meant to prevent pregnancy, actually had a higher risk of getting pregnant by age 20. Christopher Intagliata reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Used to be, teenage kids had to carry around a bag of flour wrapped in a blanket to learn the responsibilities of parenthood. But these days? The same lesson is taught with hi-tech dolls that cry and record every interaction.

"You know they get grumpy, you have to rock them to calm them down, they have to be fed." Sally Brinkman, an epidemiologist at the Telethon Kids Institute, in Australia. "It's supposed to be so tiring and so difficult that it puts them off and they say 'I don't want to be a teenage mom.' And then they think about contraception and all of those sorts of things."

Problem is, that theory--that the dolls will discourage teenage parenthood—doesn't seem to be true, according to a new study by Brinkman and her colleagues. The team recruited nearly 3,000 13- to 15-year-old girls for the trial, from 57 schools in Western Australia. All the girls got the standard Australian curriculum on contraception and sexual health. But half had to care for the infant dolls—and got extra education sessions with the school nurse.

The team's hypothesis? "We thought either it's going to make a difference, or it's going to make no difference whatsoever. We hadn't expected that it would do the opposite." And in fact, the girls who cared for the dolls were nearly one and a half times more likely to get pregnant before age 20, than teens in the control group. The findings are in The Lancet. [Sally A Brinkman et al., Efficacy of infant simulator programmes to prevent teenage pregnancy: a school-based cluster randomised controlled trial in Western Australia]

The company that makes the dolls has criticized the trial, and says the researchers didn't properly implement the educational portion of the program. But Brinkman disagrees. Maybe, she says, the program itself is flawed. "If we're inadvertently increasing teenage pregnancy rates, you know, this program needs to stop. We shouldn't be delivering it in schools."

—Christopher Intagliata


[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

 

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe