Frequent condom use with casual partners varies by sexual position among younger gay and bisexual men in New Zealand: national behavioural surveillance 2006–2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Background Condom promotion remains a cornerstone of HIV/STI control, but must be informed by evidence of uptake and address disparities in use. This study sought to determine the prevalence of, and demographic, behavioural and relational factors associated with, condom use during insertive and receptive anal intercourse with casual partners among younger gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (YMSM) in New Zealand. METHODS: The 2006-2011 national HIV behavioural surveillance data for YMSM aged 16-29 years was pooled. Separately for each sexual position, frequent (always/almost always) versus infrequent condom use was regressed onto explanatory variables using manual backward stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Three-quarters of YMSM reported frequent condom use during insertive (76.0%) and receptive (73.8%) anal intercourse. YMSM who were exclusively insertive were more likely to report frequent condom use than versatile YMSM. Factors positively associated with frequent condom use, irrespective of sexual position were: in-person versus web-based recruitment, testing HIV negative versus never testing or testing HIV positive, having no recent sex with women, reporting two to five versus one male sexual partner in the past 6 months, reporting no current regular partner, but if in a regular relationship, reporting a boyfriend-type versus fuckbuddy-type partner, and frequent versus infrequent regular partner condom use. Pacific ethnicity and less formal education were negatively associated with frequent condom use only during receptive anal intercourse. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study demonstrate that condom norms can be actively established and maintained among YMSM. Condom promotion efforts must increase YMSM's capacity, agency and skills to negotiate condom use, especially for the receptive partner.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".