Alcohol consumption and the intention to engage in unprotected sex: systematic review and meta‐analysis of experimental studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To review and analyse in experimentally controlled studies the impact of alcohol consumption on intentions to engage in unprotected sex. To draw conclusions with respect to the question of whether alcohol has an independent effect on the incidence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies examined the association between blood alcohol content (BAC) and self-perceived likelihood of using a condom during intercourse. The systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to internationally standardized protocols (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: PRISMA). The meta-analysis included an estimate of the dose-response effect, tests for publication bias and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Of the 12 studies included in the quantitative synthesis, our pooled analysis indicated that an increase in BAC of 0.1 mg/ml resulted in an increase of 5.0% (95% CI: 2.8-7.1%) in the indicated likelihood (indicated by a Likert scale) of engaging in unprotected sex. After adjusting for potential publication bias, this estimate dropped to 2.9% (95% CI: 2.0-3.9%). Thus, the larger the alcohol intake and the subsequent level of BAC, the higher the intentions to engage in unsafe sex. The main results were homogeneous, persisted in sensitivity analyses and after correction for publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol use is an independent risk factor for intentions to engage in unprotected sex, and as risky sex intentions have been shown to be linked to actual risk behavior, the role of alcohol consumption in the transmission of HIV and other STIs may be of public health importance.
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 | 0.023 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".