A Prospective Event-Level Analysis of Condom Use Experiences Following STI Testing Among Patients in Three US Cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study prospectively assessed and compared the incidence of condom use errors/problems among clinic patients testing positive for one or more of 3 sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and those testing negative. The study also identified event-level condom use errors associated with condom breakage and slippage during sex. METHODS: Enrolled clinic patients (N = 928) were tested for 3 STDs, then patients electronically recorded sexual intercourse and condom use behaviors daily for up to 6 months. Data were available on condom use errors and problems for the >10,000 sex events involving condoms. Assessed errors/problems were as follows: (1) not using a new condom, (2) allowing condoms to contact sharp objects, (3) not using condoms from start to finish of sex, (4) condoms drying out, (5) erection loss during condom use, (6) breakage, (7) slippage during sex, and (8) slippage after sex. Because the event-level measures were correlated within individual, generalized estimation equation models were used for analyses. RESULTS: All 8 forms of errors/problems with condom use occurred, with varying levels of frequency, without significant differences by baseline STD status for either men or women. Condom breakage was associated with contact with sharp objects (P < 0.0001) and drying out (P < 0.0001). Slippage during sex was associated with erection loss (P < 0.0001) and drying out (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Subsequent to STD evaluation, much of the sex occurring with the use of a condom may not confer adequate protection. Problems found to be associated with condom breakage and slippage are potentially amenable to counseling interventions.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".