A study conducted in Western Australia showed that a teenage pregnancy prevention program that uses "robot babies" was not effective in lowering pregnancy rates in teenage girls.
Instead, the program may have made teenagers more likely to get pregnant.
The Virtual Infant Parenting, or VIP Program, is an Australian program that tries to curb pregnancies in teenage girls, and uses "robot babies" or infant simulators as part of the program, according to the Lancet, a medical journal based in the U.K. Some 89 countries, including the United States, have similar programs with infant simulators, but the authors of this study are warning of their effectiveness.
As part of the study, 57 schools in Western Australia were randomly chosen either to participate in the VIP program, or to receive the standard health education curriculum, Lancet said in a statement about the study. In total, 1,267 girls received the program, and 1,567 girls received the standard curriculum, serving as the control group for the study.
Girls who participated in the study were all 13 to 15 years old when it started, and were monitored until they were 20 years old.
Parts of the VIP program include educational sessions, a workbook, a video documentary about the experience of teenage mothers, and taking care of an infant simulator during a weekend. The robot baby cries "when it needs to be fed, burped, rocked or changed and measures and reports on mishandling, crying time, the number of changes and general care."
"Our study shows that the pregnancy prevention programme delivered in Western Australia, which involves an infant simulator, does not reduce the risk of pregnancy in teenage girls," said lead author Dr Sally Brinkman, Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia, Adelaide, Australia. "In fact, the risk of pregnancy is actually increased compared to girls who didn't take part in the intervention."
Results of the study showed that eight percent of girls who participated in the VIP program had at least one birth, and nine percent of the participants had an abortion, according to the Lancet. In the control group however, four percent of girls had at least one birth, and six percent had an abortion.
"Similar programmes are increasingly being offered in schools around the world, and evidence now suggests they do not have the desired long-term effect of reducing teenage pregnancy," Brinkman said. "These interventions are likely to be an ineffective use of public resources for pregnancy prevention."
Although the trial studied a large number of teens, the authors noted that overall participation was low, adding that no information is available on the girls who decided not to participate in the program. The release also noted that girls in the control group "had on average a higher socio economic status and educational attainment, but when the research team re-ran the analysis to take these factors into account, they found that this had no effect on the findings."
In the statement released by the Lancet, it called the VIP program the "Australian adaptation" of a program used in the United States called, RealityWorks, formerly known as "Baby Think It Over."
Days after the study's findings were released last month, however, RealityWorks—which uses infant simulators in its program—responded to the findings in a statement. The American program called the Australian study, "deeply flawed" noting that the authors had "inaccurately associated [it] with Realityworks' RealCare Program," read the statement.
Realityworks pointed out differences between the two programs which they say include the respective lengths of the two programs, and the groups of people studied.
According to the statement released by Realityworks, "the authors somehow failed to mention a key variable that occurred early in the course of the longitudinal study: In 2004, the Australian government introduced its controversial Maternity Payment Program, or "Baby Bonus," to increase family size," so families earning less than $75,000 were paid $3,000 after a child was born when the program first started.
"What distresses us most about this study, apart from the obvious flaws, is that it confuses a vital public health issue," read the statement.
Their program is currently used by two-thirds of U.S. since it was first adopted in educational institutions in 1995, Realityworks wrote. Although a decline in U.S. teen pregnancy during that time period could be attributed to several factors, Realityworks believes, "one is the marked change in attitude toward teen pregnancy and parenting found in RealCare Program participants."
The birth rate in teenagers in the United States "has declined almost continuously over the past 20 years," according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
In regards to the Australian study, Professor Julie A Quinlivan, University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle WA, Australia, discussed possible explanations behind the study's results about the ineffectiveness of the program in a linked statement.
"The cure for teenage pregnancy is more difficult than a magic doll. We have to address both mothers and fathers. Programmes need to start in infancy," Quinlivan wrote. "Investment in vulnerable children is needed to entice these adolescents from the path of premature parenthood into brighter futures. We cannot afford the quick fix, especially when it doesn't work."
