Parents' beliefs about condoms and oral contraceptives: are they medically accurate?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Parents are encouraged to be the primary sex educators for their children; however, little is known about the accuracy of parents' views about condoms and oral contraceptives. METHODS: Telephone surveys using validated measures provided data on beliefs about the effectiveness, safety and usability of condoms and the pill among 1,069 parents of 13-17-year-olds in Minnesota and Wisconsin in 2002. Pearson chi-square tests and multivariate logistic regression models were used to compare beliefs according to sex, age, race, religion, education, income and political orientation. RESULTS: Substantial proportions of parents underestimated the effectiveness of condoms for preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Only 47% believed that condoms are very effective for STD prevention, and 40% for pregnancy prevention. Fifty-two percent thought that pill use prevents pregnancy almost all the time; 39% thought that the pill is very safe. Approximately one-quarter of parents thought that most teenagers are capable of using condoms correctly; almost four in 10 thought that most teenagers can use the pill correctly. Fathers tended to have more accurate views about condoms than mothers did; mothers' views of the pill were generally more accurate than fathers'. Whites were more likely than nonwhites to hold accurate beliefs about the pill's safety and effectiveness; conservatives were less likely than liberals to hold accurate views about the effectiveness of condoms. CONCLUSION: Campaigns encouraging parents to talk with their teenagers about sexuality should provide parents with medically accurate information on the effectiveness, safety and usability of condoms and the pill.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".