The Impact of New Antiretroviral Treatments on College Students' Intention to Use a Condom with a New Sexual Partner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate possible changes in predisposing factors in sexual preventive behaviors that could result from the availability of an efficient new antiretroviral therapy. A total of 136 young adults were randomly assigned a vignette to read describing AIDS as a lethal or chronic disease. After reading the vignette, the participants completed a self-administered questionnaire assessing the psychosocial determinants of intention to use a condom with a new sexual partner. The variables were measured according to Ajzen's (1985, 1988, 1991) theory of planned behavior and Triandis's (1977) theory of interpersonal behavior. The experimental manipulation was more successful when the disease was described as lethal (66 of the 68 subjects) rather than chronic (30 of the 68 subjects). For the 96 participants who correctly identified the expected outcome of the disease presented in the vignette, a significant difference in intention was found between the two experimental situations (p < .05). Regression of intention to use condoms on the psychosocial variables yielded an adjusted R2 of .62. Perceived behavioral control, social norms, personal normative belief and anticipated affective reaction were the significant variables explaining this intention. The results suggest that intention to use condoms with a new sexual partner is likely to be modified by the expected outcome of the disease, that is, whether lethal or chronic. Thus, it is suggested that interventions aimed at young adults take into account the impacts the new antiretroviral treatments are likely to have on preventive behaviors.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".