Determinants of condom use among a random sample of single heterosexual adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify the determinants of single heterosexuals' use of condoms during each sexual intercourse. DESIGN: Cohort of individuals followed over a period of 2 years. METHODS: Respondents were 574 single heterosexual individuals who answered questions during a telephone interview. RESULTS: Attitude, perceived behavioural control, self-efficacy and moral norm explained 65% of the variance in intentions to use condoms ( p, .0001). The determinants of condom use at 1 year follow-up (27% explained variance) were perceived behavioural control, past behaviour, and the interaction between intention and intention stability. At 2 years follow-up, the significant determinants were past behaviour and intention by intention stability. In the present study, intentions to use condoms which remained stable across time were strong predictors of condom use (at 1 year: beta = .42, p < .0001; at 2 years: beta = .39, p, < .003), while unstable intentions were not (at 1 year: beta = .02, ns; at 2 years: beta = .19, ns). CONCLUSION: Intention stability is a major determinant of the accuracy of intention for the prediction of subsequent behaviour.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".