Condom Use Errors and Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe self-reported frequencies of selected condom use errors and problems among young (age, 15-29 years) black men who have sex with men (YBMSM) and to compare the observed prevalence of these errors/problems by HIV serostatus. METHODS: Between September 2012 October 2014, electronic interview data were collected from 369 YBMSM attending a federally supported sexually transmitted infection clinic located in the southern United States. Seventeen condom use errors and problems were assessed. χ(2) Tests were used to detect significant differences in the prevalence of these 17 errors and problems between HIV-negative and HIV-positive men. RESULTS: The recall period was the past 90 days. The overall mean (SD) number of errors/problems was 2.98 (2.29). The mean (SD) for HIV-negative men was 2.91 (2.15), and the mean (SD) for HIV-positive men was 3.18 (2.57). These means were not significantly different (t = 1.02, df = 367, P = 0.31). Only 2 significant differences were observed between HIV-negative and HIV-positive men. Breakage (P = 0.002) and slippage (P = 0.005) were about twice as likely among HIV-positive men. Breakage occurred for nearly 30% of the HIV-positive men compared with approximately 15% among HIV-negative men. Slippage occurred for approximately 16% of the HIV-positive men compared with approximately 9% among HIV-negative men. CONCLUSIONS: A need exists to help YBMSM acquire the skills needed to avert breakage and slippage issues that could lead to HIV transmission. Beyond these 2 exceptions, condom use errors and problems were ubiquitous in this population regardless of HIV serostatus. Clinic-based intervention is warranted for these young men, including education about correct condom use and provision of free condoms and long-lasting lubricants.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".