The “virtual infant simulators”, which cost £1,000 to run in the government funded programme, are dolls programmed to behave like real babies. They cry, need to be fed regularly and have their nappies changed. It had been hoped that the dolls’ demands would persuade girls to postpone parenthood.

Hundreds of the dolls have been purchased across Britain in an attempt to reduce record levels of teenage pregnancy, despite a lack of evidence that they make any difference.

Now an article in the Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care has warned that in some cases the dolls actually encourage girls to become pregnant. The attention that the girls receive from others while looking after the dolls makes motherhood seem appealing.

It was written by Nicole Chavaudra, the healthcare worker at Rotherham primary care trust responsible for delivering the teen pregnancy strategy, and says: “There is no evidence that using electronic simulator babies decreases under18 conceptions or changes sexual behaviour.”

She adds: “For many young people at particular risk of becoming teenage parents, the attention received while caring for the doll reinforces the desire for parenthood.”

Chavaudra suggests that the dolls are not a good use of taxpayers’ money. Each doll costs about £350, but the cost of bottles, nappies, baby carriers and clothing pushes up the price to about £1,000.

The dolls give a computer read-out on how well their “mothers” look after them and are available in variants born with foetal alcohol syndrome or addicted to drugs.

Chavaudra concludes that teenagers can be persuaded to delay having children through education programmes without the novelty of the dolls. She said: “The use of an expensive electronic simulator does not demonstrate the emotional elements associated with a human baby and pregnancy.”

Chavaudra’s concerns are backed up in a report by the government’s teenage pregnancy unit. The study, “Baby Think it Over” Electric Simulators: Are they Effective?, concludes: “There is little research evidence to support their use as a tool to encourage contraceptive use or prevent teenage pregnancy.”

The government spends £40m a year on its teenage pregnancy strategy, centrally coordinated by a specialist unit. Critics point out that since the unit was set up in 1999, the number of abortions and sexually transmitted diseases in the under18s has increased. Teenage pregnancies have fallen only modestly over the period, by 11%, and the government is set to miss its target of halving the teenage pregnancy rate by 2010.

Dr Trevor Stammers, lecturer in healthcare ethics at St Mary’s University College, London, said: “Raising the school leaving age to 18 will do more to reduce teenage pregnancy rates than any initiative.”

Tim Loughton, the Tory shadow children’s minister, added: “The government’s attempts to throw a lot of money at high-profile gimmicks have clearly not worked.”

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Family cuts its waste to one binful a year
• Cameron can learn from Thatcher in 1979
• VAT is back ... and it's confusing