The Effectiveness of a Female Condom Intervention on Women's Use of Condoms.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports the findings of an evaluation of a female condom promotion intervention delivered to 109 socio-economically disadvantaged women at high risk for STI/HIV living in Toronto Canada who had never used female condoms in the past. The intervention was designed to introduce the female condom to participants and to increase the frequency of their use of either the female or male condom. The percentage of sexual intercourse events protected by either a female or male condom significantly increased from 48.9% at baseline to 70.7% at one-month follow-up and 70.5% at two-month follow-up. Use of the female condom increased from 0% at baseline to 44.7% at one-month and then decreased slightly to 42.3% at the two-month follow-up. Women aged 25 and older those who are comfortable inserting the female condom and those who reported liking the female condom were more likely to use it. At the two-month follow-up 37.5% of participants reported a preference for access to female condoms 33.7% preferred both male and female condoms and 28.9% preferred male condoms. This is the first published report on the impact of a female condom promotion intervention conducted in Canada and consistent with previous research from the U.S.A. the findings suggest that female condom focused interventions can significantly increase condom use among women at high risk for STI/HIV. (authors)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".