MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2723247 · doi:10.2307/2648163

Female Condom Use among Women at High Risk of Sexually Transmitted Disease

2000· article· en· W2723247 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maurizio Macaluso, Michael Demand, Lynn Artz, Michael Fleenor, Lawrence Robey, Joseph Kelaghan, Rebecca J. Cabral, Edward W. Hook

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Planning Perspectives · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsCondomMedicineDemographyLogistic regressionFamily planningMultinomial logistic regressionSexually transmitted diseasePopulationSexual intercourseGynecologyQuarter (Canadian coin)Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Family medicineEnvironmental healthResearch methodologySyphilisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Whereas the female condom has been evaluated in many hypothetical acceptability or short-term use studies, there is little information about its suitability for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) or HIV over extended periods of time. METHODOLOGY: As part of a six-month prospective follow-up study of 1,159 STD clinic patients, clients were interviewed during their initial visit, exposed to a behavioral intervention promoting condoms, given a physical examination and provided with instructions on completing a sexual diary. Potential predictors of trying the female condom were evaluated using logistic regression, and three condom-use groups (exclusive users of female condoms, exclusive users of male condoms and users of both types of condoms) were compared using multinomial regression. RESULTS: Among 895 women who reported having engaged in vaginal intercourse during the study period, one-half had sex with only one partner, while one-quarter each had two partners or three or more partners. A total of 731 women reported using the female condom at least once during the follow-up period--85% during the first month of follow-up. Multiple logistic regression analyses indicated that employed women and those with a regular sexual partner at baseline were significantly more likely to try the female condom. By the end of the follow-up period, 8% of participants had used the female condom exclusively, 15% had used the male condom exclusively, 73% had used both types of condom and 3% had used no condoms. Twenty percent of women who tried the female condom used it only once and 13% used it twice, while 20% used 5-9 female condoms and 32% used 10 or more. Consistent condom users (N=309) were predominantly users of both types of condom (75%), and were less often exclusive users of the male condom (18%) or the female condom (7%). According to a multivariate analysis, women who used the female condom exclusively or who mixed condom types were more likely to be black, were more likely to be employed and were more likely to have a regular partner than were users of the male condom. CONCLUSIONS: Women at risk of STDs find the female condom acceptable and will try it, and some use it consistently. Mixing use of female condoms and male condoms may facilitate consistent condom use. The female condom may improve an individual's options for risk reduction and help reduce the spread of STDs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily Planning PerspectivesSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207