Factors Explaining the Intention to Use Condoms Among Injecting Drug Users Participating in a Needle‐Exchange Program<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study identified the psychosocial factors related to condom‐use intention, based on Triandis’ (1980) theory of interpersonal behavior, among 261 injection drug users participating in a needle‐exchange program. With regular partners ( n = 139), condom‐use intention was explained by normative beliefs, self‐efficacy, length of relationship with last regular sexual partner, and taking oral contraceptives. Condom‐use intention with casual partners ( n = 157) was also associated with self‐efficacy and normative beliefs, on top of cognitive dimension with attitudes and lending used needles. Neither the perception of being HIV‐positive, nor the habit of using a condom was associated with intention. It is thus suggested that interventions aimed at promoting condom use among this clientele be oriented toward the reinforcement of personal convictions as well as toward the development of competencies needed to overcome obstacles, since both relate to the intention to adopt this behavior.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".