Men with broken condoms: who and why?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify (1) the prevalence of condom breakage, and demographic and sexuality-related differences among young men who have sex with women reporting and not reporting this event; (2) condom-specific behaviours associated with breakage. METHODS: Young men (n = 278) attending a clinic for treatment of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) responded to an anonymous questionnaire aided by a CD recording of the questions. The samples were screened to include only men who had used a condom during penile-vaginal sex at least three times in the past 3 months. Condom-specific behaviours (including breakage) were assessed using these last three acts of condom use as the recall period. Correlates achieving bivariate significance were subjected to multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Nearly one third (31.3%) of the men reported recent breakage. The breakage rate was 15%. Three correlates significantly distinguished between men who did and did not report breakage. Men who had past STIs were more likely to report breakage (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 2.08), as were men who also reported condom slippage (AOR 2.72). Less self-efficacy for correct condom use was also significantly associated with breakage (AOR 1.07). Further, three condom-specific behaviours were significantly associated with breakage: allowing condoms to contact sharp objects (AOR 2.6), experiencing problems with the "fit or feel" of condoms (AOR 2.3) and not squeezing air from the receptacle tip (AOR 2.0). CONCLUSIONS: Breakage may be common and may occur in a larger context of difficulties with condoms. STI clinics could potentially benefit some men by providing instructions on the correct use of condoms.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".