Prevalence and correlates of condom use among single midlife Canadian women and men aged 40 to 59
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reported rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among midlife Canadians have increased. However, there is little data on the STI behavioural risk of this age group. The current study investigated the prevalence and correlates of condom use at last penile vaginal intercourse (PVI) among sexually active single (never married, separated/divorced) Canadians aged 40 to 59 (n=830). Men were more likely than women to report using a condom at last PVI (35.3% vs. 27.6%). Number of partners, dating status, partner type at last sex, and concern about STI were significant bivariate predictors of condom use among men and women. Age, marital status, and erectile difficulties were additional bivariate predictors for men. In multivariate analysis, marital status, number of partners, and partner type predicted condom among men. Divorced and separated men were 53% less likely to use a condom than single, never married men. Men who reported 2 or more partners over the past year were almost 2 times more likely to use a condom than men who had one partner over the past year. As partner type at last sex moved from casual to more committed, men were 26% less likely to report condom use at last PVI. Among women, partner type at last sex was the only significant multivariate predictor of condom use, as partner type moved from casual to more committed, condom use was 33% less likely. Condom use was not associated with decreased pleasure during PVI. Educational STI prevention interventions targeting single midlife Canadians are needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".