Sex-Related Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors of U.S. Medical Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand the personal and clinical safe-sex-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices of U.S. medical students. METHODS: Sixteen medical schools were selected to survey the class of 2003 based on their characteristics similar to the national average. Students were surveyed at freshman orientation, at entrance to wards, and during their senior year. The primary personal outcome was the response to the question, "Are you currently trying to practice safe sex when sexually involved? (no, not applicable/no, not trying/yes, low priority/yes, high priority)." The primary professional outcomes were answers to: 1) "How relevant do you think talking to patients about safe sex will be in your intended practice? (not at all/somewhat/highly)," and 2) "With a typical general medicine patient, how often do you actually talk about safe sex? (never-rarely/sometimes/usually-always)." RESULTS: A total of 2,316 students provided data, and the response rate was 80%. Personally practicing safe-sex habits was a high priority for 75% of the sexually active, single medical students, especially for women, African Americans, and those earlier in their medical education. Among seniors, 41% reported extensive training in discussing safe sex with patients, and 57% were highly confident about conducting such discussions. Overall, 55% of students believed it would be highly relevant to counsel patients about safe sex (59% of freshmen, 62% of those at entry to wards, and 41% of seniors); 73% answered all four true/false questions on human papillomavirus correctly. CONCLUSION: About half of U.S. medical students believed that counseling their patients about safe sex will not be highly relevant to their practice. These findings should be considered by those trying to interest a new generation of physicians in helping patients have safe-sex practices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".