Associations between rushed condom application and condom use errors and problems: Table 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether any of four condom use errors/problems occurred more frequently when condom application was 'rushed' among a clinic-based sample from three US states. METHODS: A convenience sample (n=512) completed daily electronic assessments including questions about condom use being rushed and also assessed condom breakage, slippage, leakage and incomplete use. RESULTS: Of 8856 events, 6.5% (n=574) occurred when application was rushed. When events involved rushed condom application, the estimated odds of breakage and slippage were almost doubled (estimated OR (EOR)=1.90 and EOR=1.86). Rushed application increased the odds of not using condoms throughout sex (EOR=1.33) and nearly tripled the odds of leakage (EOR=2.96). With one exception, all tests for interactions between gender and rushed application and between age and rushed application were not significant (p values>0.10). CONCLUSIONS: This event-level analysis suggests that women and men who perceive that condom application was rushed are more likely to experience errors/problems during the sexual event that substantially compromise the protective value of condoms against disease and pregnancy. Educational efforts emphasising the need to allow ample time for condom application may benefit this population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".