Sexual practices and dental dam use among women prisoners – a mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dental dams have been distributed to women prisoners for protection against HIV and other sexually transmissible infections (STIs) in some Canadian and Australian prisons for over a decade. However, we do not know whether they serve any useful public health purpose. OBJECTIVE: To determine how dental dams are used in women's prisons in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. METHOD: Using quantitative and qualitative methods, we investigated women's sexual practices with a focus on how dental dams are used in NSW prisons. RESULTS: Although 71 of the 199 (36%) women reported having had sex with another inmate, with oral sex involved in most encounters, only eight (4%) had ever used a dental dam. The main sources of STI transmission risk among women prisoners were oral sex, manual sex and sharing dildos. Furthermore, sharing razors could also allow the transmission of blood-borne viruses, which could occur during sex in the presence of cuts or menstrual fluid. The high rates of hepatitis B and C among incarcerated women compound this risk. CONCLUSION: Dental dams are not widely used by women prisoners and we question their utility in women's prisons. Oral sex is an important risk factor for acquisition of herpes simplex virus type 1, but most women in NSW prisons (89%) are already infected. Condoms and latex gloves may have more use. Condoms could be used as a barrier on shared dildos and sex toys, while latex gloves could be used to protect cut and grazed hands from vaginal and menstrual fluids.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".