Contraceptive risk and compensatory behaviour in young people in education post-16 years: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe contraceptive risk and compensatory behaviour, using condoms or emergency contraception (EC), in young people in education aged 16-24 years. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS: A total of 1135 students aged 16-24 years. SETTING: Educational establishments in and around London, UK. RESULTS: Seventy-six percent of women and 55% of men reported having experienced sex either without contraception or when a condom split or came off. Most participants (or their sexual partners) who reported such risks had compensated by using EC at least once (72% women, 55% men) but only a minority had compensated on each occasion of risk (37% women and 22% men). Of the oral contraceptives users the majority (83%) had experienced a pill 'problem' and the majority of these participants had compensated for such problems by using condoms (79%). Fewer than half of the women who experienced pill problems (45%) compensated by using condoms on each occasion. Less than a quarter (23%) of those who experienced pill problems but did not compensate by using condoms ever compensated by using EC. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates high levels of primary contraceptive risk and low levels of consistent compensatory condom or EC use. The findings suggest that there would be large increases in EC use and repeated use if all primary contraceptive risks were followed by compensatory action. Interventions to increase contraceptive use should focus not only on initiation of contraception use but acknowledge that risks do happen and promote both continuing use and compensatory behaviour.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".