Conundrum of Sexual Decision Making in Marital Relationships: Safer-Sex Knowledge, Behavior, and Attitudes of Married Women in Zambia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research suggests that Zambian women face an increasing risk of contracting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) within marital relationships. Married women's perceived ability to negotiate safer sex or adopt self-efficacy practices is recognized as critical in preventing new infections within marriage. Yet women's self-efficacy practices, such as requesting condom use or refusing sex within marriage, are influenced by individual and context-specific factors. Using the 2007 Zambia Demographic and Health Survey data from 4,306 married women, this article examines the association between married women's perceived ability to negotiate safer sex and a range of attitudinal, knowledge, and sociodemographic variables. Results from complementary log-log regression models reveal that married women who have factual knowledge about HIV transmission and prevention, as well as those who have been tested for their HIV serostatus, were more likely to report they can request that their husbands use a condom. Rural married women were more likely to report they can refuse their husbands sex compared to woman in urban areas. Likewise, married women who agree that a wife is justified in refusing her husband sex if he sleeps with other women were more likely to report they can negotiate safer sex compared to women who disagree. These findings suggest that married women are able to negotiate safer sex if they have correct factual knowledge about HIV transmission and are aware of their rights within marital relations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".