Erection loss in association with condom use among young men attending a public STI clinic: potential correlates and implications for risk behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To assess prevalence of condom-associated erection loss and to identify correlates of erection loss among men attending a sexually transmissible infections (STI) clinic. METHODS: Men (n = 278) attending an STI clinic responded to an anonymous questionnaire aided by a CD recording of the questions. The sample was screened to include only men who had used a condom during penile-vaginal sex at least three times in the past 3 months. Erection loss was assessed for 'the last three times a condom was used'. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 23.7 years (s.d. = 4.1); 37.1% of the men reported condom-associated erection loss on at least one occasion. Men who had reported condom-associated erection loss were also reported having more frequent unprotected vaginal sex (P = 0.04) and were less likely to use condoms consistently (P = 0.014) than men without erection loss. Men with erection loss were also more likely to remove condoms before sex was over (P = 0.001). Age and race/ethnicity were not associated with erection loss. In multivariate analysis, three significant statistical predictors were identified: low self-efficacy to use condoms (P = 0.001); problems with 'fit or feel' of condoms (P = 0.005); and having more than three sex partners during the previous 3 months (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Condom-associated erection loss may be common among men at risk for STIs. This problem may lead to incomplete or inconsistent condom use. Men may be more likely to experience condom-associated erection loss if they lack confidence to use condoms correctly, if they experience problems with the way condoms fit or feel, and if they have sex with multiple partners.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".