Likelihood of Condom Use When Sexually Transmitted Diseases Are Suspected
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the event-level associations between perceived risk of sexually transmitted disease (STD) acquisition/transmission and condom use during penile-vaginal intercourse (PVI) among STD clinic attendees. METHOD: A convenience sample (N = 622) completed daily electronic assessments. Two questions were proxies of perceived risk: suspicion that the partner might currently have an STD and that "you" might currently have an STD. Participants reported whether condoms were used with PVI events in the past 24 hours. Generalized estimating equations determined the association between each of the perceived risk variables and event-level condom use. RESULTS: For the model pertaining to suspicion of sex partner infection, there were 16,674 events of PVI, with condom use during 10,552 of these events. The effect of current suspicion was significant after adjusting for gender and whether participants identified as African American/Black (estimated odds ratio = 2.17, 95% confidence interval = 1.57-3.00, P = .0001). The model pertaining to suspicion of self-infection included 16,679 events of penile-vaginal sex, with condom use during 10,557 of these events. Again, the effect of current suspicion was significant after adjusting for gender and African American/Black race (estimated odds ratio = 2.05, 95% confidence interval = 1.43-2.40, P = .0001). Tests for interactions with gender and with race were nonsignificant (all Ps > .25). CONCLUSION: Using an event-level research design, strong associations were found between perceptions of STD risk and condom use in a clinical population. Health care providers and other professionals may indirectly promote condom use by helping clinic patients realistically evaluate their risk of having sex with infected partners or of being a source of STD transmission to others.
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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".