Gosh durn libruls and their gosh durn numbers!
Here are the reported stats in the abstract of the article. I wasn’t going to pay for the PDF for all the results.
Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education were significantly less likely to report teen pregnancy (ORadj = .4, 95% CI = .22– .69, p = .001) than those who received no formal sex education, whereas there was no significant effect of abstinence-only education (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .38–1.45, p = .38). Abstinence-only education did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in vaginal intercourse (ORadj = .8, 95% CI = .51–1.31, p = .40), but comprehensive sex education was marginally associated with a lower likelihood of reporting having engaged in vaginal intercourse (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .49–1.02, p = .06). Neither abstinence-only nor comprehensive sex education significantly reduced the likelihood of reported STD diagnoses (ORadj = 1.7, 95% CI = .57–34.76, p = .36 and ORadj = 1.8, 95% CI = .67–5.00, p = .24 respectively). Kohler, P., (2008). Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy. Journal of Adolescent Health, vol 42, 4, 344-351.
The only reported OR that was statistically significant and compelling was the first one that adolescents who got comprehensive sex ed were less likely to report pregnancy at a p value of .001 and an OR of .4. The rest of the reported ‘results’ is gobblygook and un-interpretable. No one should be interpreting the abstinence-only ed not reducing the likelihood of vaginal intercourse with an OR of .8 and a p value of .4 as ‘significant’ or compelling. I’m not impressed with the study one way or the other just looking at the abstract data.