Religion, Condom Use Acceptability and Use within Marriage among Rural Women in Malawi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Correct and consistent condom use within an HIV-discordant partnership could prevent sexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). METHODS: Data on ever-married women from rural Malawi were obtained from the Malawi Diffusion and Ideational Change Project (MDICP) of 2006. We assessed the strength of association between religion and acceptability of condom use within marriage in general and also when one of the partners is suspected or known to be HIV infected. RESULTS: A total of 1,664 ever-married women participated in the MDICP 2006. Of these, 66.7% believed condom use was acceptable within marriage when one partner suspects or knows that the other was HIV infected; 38.2% believed condoms were acceptable within marriage generally. Only 13.8% reported ever having used condoms within the current or most recent marriage. Multivariate analysis found no difference in acceptability of condoms within marriage between Christians and Muslims, or between Catholics and all but one of the individual denominations assessed. CONCLUSION: Christian women in rural Malawi were no more or no less likely to accept condom use than Muslim women; there was also no difference in attitude toward condom use within marriage among Malawian women.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".