Teens that watch steamy TV shows are more likely than their peers to get pregnant or get someone pregnant.

That’s the conclusion of a 3-year observational study of TV viewing behavior in 700 sexually active adolescents between the ages of 12-17. Twenty-five percent of the teens in the cohort that watched the hot shows most frequently were involved in a pregnancy during the study period. Only 12% of those who rarely or never watched the shows were so involved.

Study investigators mentioned that “Friends,” “Sex and the City,” and “That ‘70s Show” made the list of 23 offending shows, but they declined to provide further details.

The study appears in this week’s Pediatrics. It builds on earlier studies linking pulpy TV viewing to early onset of sexual activity, and on studies linking explicit music videos to increased risk of sexually transmitted disease.

“We really need to encourage schools to make abstinence-centered programs a priority,” Valerie Huber told the Washington Post. Huber works with the National Abstinence Education Association.

But some insist school based abstinence programs don’t work. “The absolutely last thing we should do…is bury our heads in the sand and promote failed abstinence-only programs,” James Wagoner of Advocates for Youth responded to the Post.

Wagoner suggested “evidence-based sex education that helps young people delay sex and use prevention when they become sexually active.”

For their part, the investigators recommended that parents find out what their kids watch, discuss it with them, and make it clear there can be negative consequences of sexual activity such as pregnancy and STDs. They also called on TV programmers to include more realistic portrayals of the risks of sex.

Like that’s gonna’ happen. Meanwhile, it’s important to note the study does not prove that watching sexed-up TV shows causes teens to get pregnant, only that there is a correlation between the two.

When 24-year old Hidekazu Nishikido got promoted at his staffing company, it bummed him out. Forget the spiffy title and the salary bump, the promotion obligated Mr. Nishikido to spend more time at work and this meant less time with his girlfriend. So he asked his bosses not to promote him anymore.

Mr. Nishikido’s behavior is not unusual in modern Japan, where young employees increasingly reject promotions so they can remain in positions that carry few responsibilities.

Until recently, the trend seemed unthinkable in a country where top companies enjoy hard-earned reputations for quality and glossy consumerism is a way of life. And it comes at a precarious time for Japan, since its aging population relies on young adults to maintain productivity and drive its economy.

Workforce experts call these workers hodo-hodo zoku, the “so-so folks,” but many choose their words more pointedly. “They’ll ruin Japan with their lax work ethic,” labor consultant Yukiko Takita told the Wall Street Journal. “They’re supposed to be the leaders of the next generation.”

What could cause such a phenomenon?  Chiaki Arai, who has written extensively about hodo-hodo, believes it has roots in the nation’s economic woes of the last decade. During that painful downturn, young Japanese saw the dreams of older generations vaporize amid job cuts and corporate reorganizations. They became skeptical about the value of hard work and inclined towards short-term pleasures like a quiet night at home.

A happy irony of hodo-hodo is that women now have more opportunities to advance in Japanese companies, which are traditionally dominated by men.  Nothing frays social customs so much as a down economy.

US spending on diabetes drugs nearly doubled to $12.5 billion over the last 6 years, according to a study published in this week’s Archives of Internal Medicine.

The cost escalations were driven by a 40% increase in the number of drugs prescribed per patient and a tendency to prescribe newer, costly drugs in lieu of tried-and-true generics despite safety concerns swirling around some of the newer ones.

The study investigators noted that the newer drugs Januvia (Merck, FDA approved in 2006), Avandia (GlaxoSmithKline, FDA approved 2006), and the wildly popular Actos (Takeda, FDA approved 1999) were prescribed in 28% of all doctor visits by the end of the study period.

“We need to pay attention to this,” Dr. David Nathan wrote in an accompanying editorial. Nathan, who is Chief of the Diabetes Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, added “if you can achieve the same glucose control at lower cost and lower side effects, that’s what you want to do.”

Current guidelines for Type 2 (adult onset) Diabetes recommend metformin, a generic drug that costs about $30 per month along with dietary modifications and exercise as first-line therapy. The guidelines suggest adding other drugs for patients who fail to respond adequately, but the recommendations specifically do not include Avandia which costs nearly $225 per month.

Last year, the FDA released a safety alert for Avandia after a meta-analysis revealed an increased risk of heart attacks in patients taking the drug. There are no safety concerns of this sort for Actos or Januvia.

About 24 million Americans have Type 2 diabetes.