P4.032 Younger Gay and Bisexual Men’s Condom Use with Main Sexual Partner in New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background</h3> Main sexual partners are an important source of new HIV infections among MSM. Additionally, receptive (compared with insertive) anal intercourse carries considerably greater risk of HIV transmission. We investigated younger MSM’s (YMSM, aged 16–29) condom use in New Zealand by main partner type and anal modality. <h3>Methods</h3> The study included 1,221 YMSM who reported anal intercourse with a main partner (boyfriend or fuckbuddy) in the last six months from 2006, 2008 and 2011 rounds of the Gay Auckland Periodic Sex Survey and Gay men’s Online Sex Survey. Condom use for both receptive and insertive anal intercourse was categorised into three levels: high (always/almost always), medium (about half the time), or low (very rarely/never). Associated factors were identified with four backward stepwise multivariate multinomial logistic regression models retaining at p < 0.05. <h3>Results</h3> The majority of YMSM classified their main regular partner as a boyfriend (59.5%). Overall, high condom use (receptive and insertive) was more likely with a fuckbuddy (59.2% and 59.4%) than a boyfriend (35.8% and 37.5%). Condom use was lower among YMSM in a relationship longer than one year, and was more common among those who used them more with casual partners. YMSM who only had insertive anal intercourse with their boyfriend were more likely to report high condom use compared with YMSM who also had receptive anal intercourse. However, compared with YMSM who were both insertive and receptive with casual partners, YMSM who were exclusively insertive with casual partners were less likely to report high condom use during insertive anal intercourse their boyfriend. YMSM who believed condoms reduce sensitivity were less likely to report using condoms. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Condoms remain the leading STI primary prevention tool for sexually active YMSM. Sexual health education to improve condom use and discussions about extra-relational sex should be provided with consideration to anal modality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".