Sexual health information disparities between heterosexual and LGBTQ+ young adults: Implications for sexual health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most studies on young adults' sources of sexual health information and confidence in sexual health practices have focused primarily on heterosexual university students. This study sought to bridge this gap in the literature by exploring where emerging adults, including LGBTQ+ individuals and those who do not pursue postsecondary education, obtain their sexuality information and how this relates to sexual self-efficacy. A total of 386 adults between the ages of 18 and 25 were divided into higher education (n=306) versus high school (n=80) groups and heterosexual (n=215) versus LGBTQ+ (n=171) emerging adults. Participants completed measures of sexual health information sources, as well as self-efficacy with regard to sexual health practices. Heterosexual participants obtained significantly more information from school/university courses and less from educational websites/news outlets than LGBTQ+ participants. Heterosexual participants were significantly more confident in their sexual health practices than LGBTQ+ participants. Different sources of information helped predict sexual self-efficacy across these four groups. Acquiring more information from significant others was the only significant predictor of sexual self-efficacy for all four groups. This study suggests that sexual health information should be discussed within a more relational or interpersonal framework, and that LGBTQ+ issues should be further incorporated and integrated in sex education curricula. Implications for healthcare providers, public health policy, sex educators, clinicians and future research are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".