A comparison of condom use errors and problems for heterosexual anal and vaginal intercourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Condom use errors and problems were compared for anal and vaginal intercourse among a convenience sample of heterosexual men aged 18-66 years (n = 757). Men completed an online questionnaire for the last male condom use event for penile-anal (10.4%) or penile-vaginal (89.6%) intercourse. The prevalence of condom use errors and problems was similar regardless of intercourse type with a few exceptions; those reporting anal intercourse were significantly more likely to report using water-based (P < 0.001) and oil-based (P = 0.037) lubricant and to remove condoms before sex was finished (P < 0.001). The large majority of the sample (93.8%) reported at least one of the nine errors assessed and almost half (46.2%) reported at least one of the seven problems, indicating that many adults may need assistance with these issues. Condom use promotion programmes designed for heterosexual adults are needed that address condom use errors and problems for penile-anal as well as penile-vaginal intercourse.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".