Ways to lower teen pregnancy? No 'magic doll' solution, researchers say

Researchers continue searching for the most effective programs to prevent teen pregnancy. An 'infant simulator' program, however, may not be the best bet. 

J. Pat Carter/AP/File
Teenage girls learn lessons on how to deal with babies during a Girl Scout program on teen pregnancy in this July 23, 2008 file photo in Miami. Researchers are continuing to study the most effective programs for preventing teen pregnancy.

Educators around the world have tried many strategies for preparing young people to avoid teen pregnancy, including one innovative tool: the "magic doll" program, meant to mimic the difficulties of parenthood. Yet the idea may work against its purpose, as three Australian health organizations reported Thursday in the journal The Lancet. 

For years, researchers and teachers have been experimenting with how to educate young people about the challenges of teen pregnancy: sex-ed programs for contraceptives, sex-ed programs for abstinence, and even TV shows. In the most recent study, educators used an "infant simulator" program, including "magically" life-like baby dolls that try and simulate the challenging experience of teenage parenthood.

In the study, teenage girls received a life-like, life-sized robotic baby, meant to help them see why they aren't yet ready. It can laugh, cry, and know when it is "fed," requiring around-the-clock attention meant to teach students about real-life parenting's demands.

But the most successful efforts often focus on the teens' future, not scare tactics, some experts say. 

In this study, researchers assigned 57 secondary schools – with students age 13 to 15 – to either an experimental group, whose students received the robot baby curriculum, or a control group with more traditional health education. The team then followed up with the girls to see whether they had become pregnant by age 20.

In the control group, who had received a more general health curriculum, 4 percent had given birth at least once, and 6 percent had had at least one abortion. Among the girls who had completed the robotic baby curriculum, however, 8 percent had children, and 9 percent had had abortions: the opposite of the intended effect. 

The intervention came too late in the girls' lives and did too little to emphasize the challenges of child-rearing, Julie Quinlivan, a professor from the University of Notre Dame Australia, wrote in an accompanying commentary. A robotic doll cannot truly explain what having a child is like, and the program did not involve the other crucial actors in teenage pregnancy: teenage boys.

She also noted research that children from poorer backgrounds are more prone to teenage pregnancy, and suggested interventions focus on their particular educational and economic needs.

"We cannot afford the quick fix, especially when it doesn't work," Dr. Quinlivan wrote. 

So what strategies do work?

In the United States, the teenage pregnancy rate has dropped by almost half since 2006, the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced in April. The CDC found huge geographic and racial disparities in teen pregnancy rates, however, and suggested that local solutions to related challenges in teens' lives can help bring the rate down further.

"We can ensure the success of teen pregnancy prevention efforts by capitalizing on the expertise of our state and local public health colleagues," said Lisa Romero, a health scientist in CDC’s Division of Reproductive Health, in a press release. "Together, we can work to implement proven prevention programs that take into account unique, local needs."

Such initiatives can help create a culture where a girl's friend circle helps her avoid teen pregnancy, Bill Albert, the chief program officer for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, told The Christian Science Monitor at the time. 

"We talk about teenagers and teen influence almost always negatively when, in fact, it can be and often is a force for good. I think that one of the driving factors is that fewer teen mothers beget fewer teen mothers," he said.

The culture that teens themselves have created can be supported and replicated elsewhere.

"The messages and the programs should become even more targeted and even more nuanced so that we reach young people where they are, in relevant ways and ways that speak to them," Mr. Albert told the Monitor. "I think one of the headlines is not to hang the 'mission accomplished banner.' There's still considerable work to be done."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.