<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_433"
                     title="Household Routines Linked to Lower Childhood Obesity (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.013"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Parenting/tb/18340?impressionId=1265756723271"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Want to protect your preschooler from obesity?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Eat dinner as a family six or seven times a week, limit the time the child watches TV to less than two hours a day, and make sure he or she gets more than 10.5 hours of sleep a night.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Those three simple household routines are associated with an&lt;strong&gt; &lt;/strong&gt;almost 40% reduction in the risk of childhood obesity, according to Sarah Anderson, PhD, of Ohio State University College of Public Health in Columbus, and Robert Whitaker, MD, of Temple University in Philadelphia.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The association remained significant even in the face of other predictors of childhood obesity, such as maternal obesity or being in a single-parent family, the authors said in the March issue of &lt;em&gt;Pediatrics&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;I imagine people are going to want to know which of the routines is most important: Is it limited TV, is it dinner, is it adequate sleep?&quot; Anderson said in a statement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;What this suggests is that you can&apos;t point to any one of these routines,&quot; she said. &quot;Each one appears to be associated with a lower risk of obesity, and having more of these routines appears to lower the risk further.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The findings are based on data collected in 2005 on 8,550 children born in the U.S. in 2001 who were part of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For the study, the 4-year-olds were considered to be obese if they were at or above the 95th percentile in weight for their age and sex.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overall, the authors reported, 18% of children were obese by that measure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers found that 14.5% of the children in the study lived in families where all three of the routines were observed, and 12.4% in families where none took place.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among children exposed to all three, 14.3% were obese, compared with 24.5% among those exposed to none of the routines, they found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a multivariate analysis, children used to all three routines had an odds ratio for obesity of 0.63, compared with those who were exposed to none, the researchers found. (The 95% confidence interval was 0.46 to 0.87.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Any two routines, again compared with none, had an odds ratio for obesity of 0.64, with a 95% confidence interval from 0.47 to 0.85.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A similar pattern was seen for one routine compared with none, but in the multivariate analysis the benefit was no longer statistically significant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, in a univariate analysis, any single routine, compared with none, reduced the odds of obesity by between 23% and 25%, the authors found, and the odds did not change much when the presence or absence of the other two was factored in.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That finding suggests an &quot;independent association of each routine with obesity,&quot; the researchers wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The study is limited by elements of its design, the researchers said. The study was unable to account for differences in diet or physical activity, and the prevalence of the three routines was assessed by parent report, which might have introduced bias.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Information on types of foods served, how many people were present at dinner, concomitant television viewing along with the meal, advertising viewed on television, and quality of sleep was not available.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They also noted that the study is cross-sectional and can&apos;t be used to establish any causal relations between the three routines and obesity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nonetheless, they concluded, the three routines &quot;may be promising behavioral targets for counseling, given their association with obesity and their potential benefits beyond obesity prevention.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors said they had no disclosures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_432"
                     title="Short Needle May Short HBV Protection for Obese (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.013"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Vaccines/tb/18348?impressionId=1265756723271"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Obese adolescents and young adults may not generate an adequate immune response to hepatitis B (HBV) vaccine because the needles used to vaccinate them are too short, a randomized study suggests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Immunization with a 1.5-inch needle was associated with 80% higher anti-HBV titers than a 1.0-inch needle, researchers reported online in &lt;em&gt;Pediatrics.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The difference persisted in analyses performed to correct for imbalances in the study population.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This supports the hypothesis that inadequate muscle penetration is responsible, at least in part, for lower immune response to HBV vaccine among obese adolescent and adult vaccine recipients,&quot; Amy Middleman, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and colleagues concluded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Several studies have shown that adolescents and adults with a higher body mass index (BMI) have lower antibody titers after HBV vaccination. The observations have taken on new significance, given that an increasing number of vaccines target a population that has a rising BMI, the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Researchers hypothesize that standard-length needles do not penetrate through the deltoid fat and into the muscle of obese adolescents and adults. Because of its less abundant blood supply, adipose tissue may delay antigen presentation to B and T cells responsible for immune response, the authors continued.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To test the hypothesis, Middleman and colleagues conducted a randomized, clinical trial involving adolescents and adults ages 14 to 24 with no prior exposure to HBV vaccine. Eligibility criteria included weight &amp;gt;90 kg for female patients and &amp;gt;120 kg for male patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patients were randomized to receive the HBV vaccine series with a standard one-inch needle or a 1.5-inch needle. Patients younger than 19 received 0.5-mL injections, and older patients received 1.0-mL injections.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Investigators used a standardized injection procedure: insertion of the needle at a 90&amp;#176; angle to the deltoid muscle, leaving 2 to 3 mm of needle visible between the skin and the hub.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patients received three doses of vaccine at baseline, one month, and four months. Blood samples were obtained at baseline and two months after the final injection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The two groups did not differ significantly with respect to median age (21), BMI (~40), deltoid skinfold (41 mm), triceps skinfold (~40 mm), days between vaccine doses one and three (~135), and days from third vaccine dose to titer assessment (65).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At the end of the study, 24 patients had completed the immunization protocol, 10 in the one-inch group and 14 in the 1.5-inch group.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patients vaccinated with a one-inch needle had a median antibody titer of 189.8 mIU/mL compared with 345.4 mIU/mL for patients vaccinated with the 1.5-inch needle (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.03).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The between-group difference remained significant in analyses that excluded an outlier from the 1.5-inch group (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.047) and that excluded the only two male patients in the study (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.035).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;As we continue to experience high rates of obesity in the U.S. and throughout the world, additional evidence-based research on optimizing the effective delivery of immunizations to adolescents and young adults will be critical,&quot; the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Following updated needle length recommendations will be a first step toward improving the health of our youth and young adults by preventing vaccine-preventable diseases.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by federal grants and awards. GlaxoSmithKline provided the vaccine.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors had no disclosures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_405"
                     title="Difficult Childhood Lingers in the Mind (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.013"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/GeneralPsychiatry/tb/18312?impressionId=1265756723271"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Adversities faced in childhood have effects on mental health far into the future, researchers affirmed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mental illness in adulthood was increasingly likely the more traumas faced in childhood, Ronald C. Kessler, PhD, of Harvard, and colleagues reported in the February issue of the &lt;em&gt;Archives of General Psychiatry&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Childhood difficulties potentially explained 32.4% of all the psychiatric disorders examined, they said, based on analyses of the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Adversities relating to family dysfunction  --  substance-abusing parents, sexual or physical abuse in the home, neglect, etc.  --  appeared to have the strongest link to onset and persistence of psychiatric disorders, they reported.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These findings match folk wisdom and decades of research into the negative effects of child maltreatment, commented John McGrath, MD, PhD, of the Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research in Wacol, Australia, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But the lack of specificity between certain exposures to particular mental health outcomes  --  such as the death of one&apos;s mother leading to depression  --  was notable, the editorialists said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Thus, childhood trauma upsets the orderly psychological and biological cascades of development, leaving the affected individual at increased risk of a wide range of adverse mental health outcomes,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Rather than continue to rehash the epidemiology, it&apos;s time to focus on prevention and intervention, McGrath&apos;s group emphasized.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It is unrealistic to think that we could protect all children from all adversities, but can we identify factors that bolster resilience and focus our efforts on the most vulnerable subgroups?&quot; they asked.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers examined joint associations of 12 retrospectively reported childhood adversities with lifetime incidence of disorders meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) criteria in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication I, a cross-sectional survey of a nationally-representative sample of adults in 9,282 American households.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among the respondents, 53.4% reported at least one childhood adversity, most commonly parental divorce (17.5%), family violence (14.0%), family economic problems (10.6%), and parental mental illness (10.3%).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These adversities were all individually and significantly linked to first onset of psychiatric disorders with odds ratios of 1.5 to 1.9 for dysfunctional family factors (physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, parental mental illness, parental substance abuse, parental criminality, or family violence) and 1.0 to 1.5 for other factors like life-threatening childhood physical illness, extreme poverty, parental divorce, or loss of or separation from parents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Despite some apparent but not significantly meaningful variation in type of adversity with type of psychiatric disorder, the researchers said they could rule out that all types were the same for future mental health risk (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Problems tended to cluster, though. Among people who faced one adversity in childhood, 51.2% to 95.1% faced others as well, depending on the adversity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Risk of mental illness rose with number of issues faced in childhood from an odds ratio of 1.3 for one up to 3.4 for six and 3.2 for seven or more adversities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This subadditive pattern has important implications for intervention because it means that prevention or amelioration of only a single childhood adversity in youths exposed to many childhood adversities is unlikely to have important preventive effects,&quot; the researchers wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overall, childhood adversities were projected to account for 44.6% of childhood-onset disorders, 32.0% of adolescent-onset disorders, and 28.6% of adult-onset disorders.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers also looked at persistence through the second part of the National Comorbidity Survey Replication which went beyond just core diagnostic assessment in 5,692 respondents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a complex multivariate interactive analysis, childhood adversity from dysfunctional family factors appeared significantly linked to persistence in a given year (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001) whereas the number of factors was not significant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These significant factors were parental mental illness, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect, but they carried modest effects individually with odds ratios of 1.2.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But in one simulation, not being exposed to childhood trauma would only increase the time since the most recent episode of psychiatric illness by 1.6%, suggesting &quot;quite modest&quot; substantive importance in determining persistence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;These results indirectly suggest that the public health implications of childhood adversities are greater for primary than for secondary prevention because the associations of childhood adversities with disorder onset are much stronger than the associations with persistence,&quot; Kessler&apos;s group wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers cautioned that recall bias may have limited their study such that the results could be considered an &quot;upper bound&quot; for the real association and that the study could not prove causality.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The National Comorbidity Survey Replication is supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health with supplemental support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the John W. Alden Trust.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The analyses were supported by a grant from the NIMH; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the Pfizer Foundation; grants from the U.S. Public Health Service; an award from the Fogarty International Center; the Pan American Health Organization; Eli Lilly; Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical; GlaxoSmithKline; and Bristol-Myers Squibb.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Kessler reported financial conflicts of interest with GlaxoSmithKline, Kaiser Permanente, Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Wyeth-Ayerst, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson &amp;amp; Johnson Pharmaceuticals, and Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The editorialists reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_392"
                     title="Parents Often Err in Dosing Kids (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.012"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Parenting/tb/18290?impressionId=1265756723271"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Adults tasked with giving their children liquid medications often gave them too much, especially when the dosing device was a cup instead of a spoon or oral syringe, researchers said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Asked to prepare a 5-mL dose for a child, adult caregivers in a study were almost always within 20% of the target when using a 5-mL syringe, according to a report in the February &lt;em&gt;Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But about 70% of the 302 parents in the trial put more than 6 mL in cups that were packaged with the medication, H. Shonna Yin, MD, of New York University, in New York City, and colleagues reported.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Cups with etched markings gave the adults nearly as much trouble, the researchers found, but droppers and dosing spoons were more accurate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Yin and colleagues also found that dosing errors were nearly twice as common among caregivers who tested poorly for health literacy (adjusted OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.8).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given that many liquid medications come with cups, it may be necessary to reconsider how products intended for young children are packaged, the researchers suggested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Redesign of dosing devices as well as instructions for their use, with a focus on standardization and consistency, has the potential to decrease medication errors and improve safety and efficacy,&quot; Yin and colleagues wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers recruited adults who brought children to a pediatric clinic in New York&apos;s Bellevue Hospital in late 2008. Participants were given each of six dosing instruments in random order and asked to fill it with one teaspoon (5 mL) of acetaminophen suspension.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Some 95% of participants were the children&apos;s mothers, with the remaining 5% split between fathers and legal guardians. Most were Hispanic, foreign-born, and poor, and 56% spoke Spanish as their first language. Half were not high school graduates.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The instruments included the cup packaged with Children&apos;s Tylenol Suspension Liquid, which has printed markings on the side; a cup with etched markings bought from a local drugstore; a 5-mL dropper; a 10-mL dosing spoon; a 5-mL syringe; and a 5-mL syringe with bottle adapter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mean doses actually put into the cups were 6.7 mL (SD 1.7) for those with printed markings and 7.0 (SD 3.2) for those with etched markings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the mean doses were similar with these devices, fewer parents made errors when using the etched cup. Some 50% of doses measured with it were in the range of 4 to 6 mL, compared with only 30.5% of doses put into the cup with printed markings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Small errors (20% to 40% more or less than the target) were also less common with the etched cup: 26.6% of doses, versus 43.7% of doses measured with the printed cup. But the rate of large errors was nearly the same with the two cups, at about 25%.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With the other instruments, mean doses were close to the target, ranging from 4.6 for the oral syringe with bottle adapter to 5.5 for the spoon.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From 86% to 94% of doses prepared with these devices were within 20% of the 5-mL target. When errors were made, they were usually small and on the low side of the target, Yin and colleagues found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Adjusted odds ratios for making large errors, with the oral syringe as reference, were: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Cup with printed markings: 7.3 (95% CI 4.1 to 13.2)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Cup with etched markings: 6.3 (95% CI 3.5 to 11.2)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Dropper: 0.8 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.5)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Dosing spoon: 0.3 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.9)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Oral syringe with bottle adapter: 0.8 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.5)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But the spoon was more often associated with dosing errors, both small and large, than the syringe, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.7).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Adjustments included caregivers&apos; age, relationship to child, marital status, language, ethnicity, U.S. birth, socioeconomic status, presence of young child, and presence of child with a chronic medical problem.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Caregivers were given the Newest Vital Sign test to evaluate their health literacy, which turned out to be a factor in dosing errors, the researchers found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Scores of 0 or 1 reflected a high likelihood of limited literacy, 2 or 3 was considered &quot;possible limited literacy,&quot; and 4 to 6 was deemed adequate literacy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;About 40% of participants had scores of 0 or 1 and 38% scored in the range of 2 to 3.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both levels of low health literacy predicted dosing errors, and poor literacy was also significantly associated with increased risk of large errors.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Adjusted odds ratios for any dosing error and large errors associated with poor literacy were 1.7 (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.02) and 2.3 (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.01), respectively.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Possible limited literacy predicted any dosing error and large errors with adjusted odds ratios of 1.6 (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.04) and 1.9 (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.07), respectively.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These findings on health literacy and medication errors have important implications for the design of dosing instruments, Yin and colleagues indicated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Provision of instruments designed to place fewer literacy demands on families is one strategy to decrease dosing errors,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Limitations to the study included its setting in a clinic, which may not reflect parents&apos; performance at home; the largely Hispanic immigrant sample with low socioeconomic status; and the use of a written test to assess health literacy, which does not measure verbal comprehension and other skills that may contribute to health literacy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was funded from internal sources. Yin received partial support from the Pfizer Fellowship in Health Literacy/Clear Health Communication.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;No potential conflicts of interest were reported.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_362"
                     title="Some Benefit Seen for Abstinence-Only Sex Ed (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/PreventiveCare/tb/18245?impressionId=1265756723271"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;An education program for middle-schoolers promoting chastity significantly reduced their self-reported sexual activity two years later, compared with other sex education approaches, researchers conducting a randomized trial said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The number of adolescents reporting they had lost their virginity was cut by one-third with an abstinence-only program delivered in sixth and seventh grade, according to John B. Jemmott III, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and colleagues in the February &lt;em&gt;Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The proportion of teens receiving the abstinence-only program who reported they had had intercourse at least once was 32.6%, compared with 41% to 52% among participants assigned to other interventions. These included comprehensive education covering both abstinence and methods to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), as well as a program focusing on &quot;safer sex.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At least superficially, the findings contrast with earlier studies in which abstinence-only interventions appeared ineffective. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/GeneralPediatrics/12300&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/GeneralPediatrics/12300&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Teen Vows of Abstinence Do Not Change Sexual Behavior&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/HIVAIDS/HIVAIDS/6336&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/HIVAIDS/HIVAIDS/6336&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Abstinence Ineffective in HIV, Pregnancy Prevention&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the reliance on participants&apos; self-reports of sexual behavior was a significant limitation, Jemmott and colleagues cautioned, they called the results &quot;promising.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;They suggest that theory-based abstinence-only interventions can have positive effects on adolescents&apos; sexual involvement,&quot; they wrote. &quot;This is important because abstinence is the only approach that is acceptable in some communities and settings in both the U.S. and other countries.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Jemmott and colleagues indicated that the abstinence-only program used in the study was unusual. In fact, it would not have qualified for abstinence-only federal funding because it did not rely on moral principles, nor did it criticize condom usage.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But its benefits in the study appeared limited to delaying sexual initiation, with no reductions in risky behaviors such as unprotected sex and having multiple partners.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an accompanying editorial, two other researchers warned against interpreting the study to justify policies to promote abstinence-only education.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;No public policy should be based on the results of one study, nor should policy makers selectively use scientific literature to formulate a policy that meets preconceived ideologies,&quot; wrote Frederick Rivara, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington in Seattle, and Alain Joffe, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins University.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Rather, they urged, the new study&apos;s results must be combined with earlier research to &quot;become part of the knowledge base for the formation of public policy on sexuality education.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Jemmott and colleagues tested five different programs on 662 African-American sixth- and seventh-graders in four schools in low-income areas of a northeastern U.S. city.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The programs included: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Eight hours of abstinence-only education addressing risks of HIV and other STDs as well as pregnancy, seeking to promote waiting to engage in oral, anal, and vaginal intercourse &quot;until later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex&quot;&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Eight hours of safer-sex instruction, encouraging condom use but not sexual abstinence&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Eight hours of comprehensive education combining support for abstinence as well as safer-sex content&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Twelve hours of comprehensive education&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Eight hours of general health education and promotion regarding chronic diseases, not addressing sexual behaviors&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Each of these were delivered in one-hour modules over two weekend sessions, except for the 12-hour comprehensive program that was given in three sessions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, half the participants in each program were randomly selected to receive &quot;booster&quot; education, including three-hour sessions given six weeks and three months after the initial program, six issues of a newsletter, and six 20-minute individual counseling sessions with the original instructors over a 21-month period.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The children were quizzed about their sexual behaviors at baseline and five more times for two years after the initial intervention.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the abstinence-only program appeared more effective in delaying sexual initiation, it had little or no effect on other sexual behaviors including multiple sex partners, engaging in unprotected sex, and consistency in condom use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After adjusting for covariates, Jemmott and colleagues found the following relative risks at the two-year point in the abstinence-only group for engaging in sexual behaviors, relative to the teens who only received the general health promotion program: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Ever had sexual intercourse: RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.96)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Sexual intercourse in past three months: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.99)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Multiple partners in past three months: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.01)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Unprotected intercourse in past three months: RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.01)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Consistent condom use, among those with recent sexual activity: RR 1.03 (95% CO 0.88 to 1.21)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;None of the other sex education programs showed any advantage over the general health promotion instruction in any outcome, with one exception: the 12-hour comprehensive intervention slightly reduced the risk of having multiple sex partners (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The booster education had little effect on outcomes, Jemmott and colleagues indicated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It did not affect the effectiveness of any program in reducing sexual initiation, recent intercourse, or unprotected sex, they found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers did find some benefit for the follow-up education in decreasing the incidence of multiple-sex partners following the abstinence-only and 12-hour comprehensive programs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Even so, however, the relative risks in both groups for having multiple partners were still higher than 0.90 compared with the general health promotion control even among those who received the follow-up education.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Jemmott and colleagues said the findings could help dispel one criticism of abstinence-only education, which is that it may discourage condom use among teens who choose to have sex anyway. Although their study found no improvement in condom usage among those in the abstinence-only group, it also showed no reduction, they pointed out.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition to relying on participants&apos; self-reports for the outcome measures, limitations of the study included small numbers of sexually active teens in the sample, and the focus on urban African-American middle schoolers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Whether the results would be similar with older adolescents or those of other races or in other countries is unclear,&quot; the researchers wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;No potential conflicts of interest were reported by study authors or editorialists.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
</recommendedContent>