MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773408794 · doi:10.2196/resprot.7937

Feasibility and Preliminary Effectiveness of the Homework Intervention Strategy (eHIS) Program to Enhance Male Condom Use: Research Protocol

2018· article· en· W2773408794 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marta Głowacka, Lucy Yardley, Nicole Stone, Cynthia A. Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilMedical Research Council
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)CondomPsychological interventionPleasurePsychologyMedicineSocial psychologyFamily medicinePsychotherapistPsychiatryHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although condoms are effective in reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and unintended pregnancy, they are still often not used consistently and correctly. Negative impact on sensation and pleasure, ruining the mood, causing problems with maintaining erection, and condom slippage or breakage are some of the reasons given by men explaining why they do not want to use condoms. Although many interventions promoting condom use exist, some of them delivered online are complex and time- and resource-intensive. The Homework Intervention Strategy (eHIS) program, adapted from the existing face-to-face Kinsey Institute Homework Intervention Strategy (KIHIS) program, aims to address these issues by encouraging men to focus on sensation and pleasure when trying different types of condoms and lubricants in a low-pressure situation (on their own, without a partner present). OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and users' engagement with the eHIS program, its preliminary effectiveness in increasing condom use frequency and consistency, as well as the feasibility of the program's evaluation approach, including choice of measures and participant recruitment and retaining strategies (primary outcomes). Secondary outcomes include condom use experience, condom use attitudes, condom use self-efficacy, condom use errors and problems, and condom fit-and-feel. All of these will be analyzed in the context of participants' demographics, sexual history, and previous condom use. METHODS: The study has a pre-post-test, within-subjects design. Men aged 18 to 69 and living in the United Kingdom are recruited through posters, leaflets, social media, and emails. Study participants are asked to complete T1 (baseline) measures before entering the eHIS website. After completing the T1 measures, they can order a free condoms and lubricants kit and have access to the eHIS website for 4 weeks. During that time they are asked to practice using different types of condoms and lubricants on their own in a no-pressure situation. Following T1, participants are asked to complete the T2 and T3 measures at 4 and 10 weeks, respectively. RESULTS: Data collection for the study is completed. Data analysis is in progress and is expected to be completed by February 2018. CONCLUSIONS: This brief, home-based, self-guided program may lead to increased consistent and correct condom use. Online delivery can make the program an easily accessible and low-cost health promotion intervention, which has the potential to reach a wide and diverse audience. If results of the current study show the program's feasibility and preliminary effectiveness in changing condom use related outcomes, a larger scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Research Registry: researchregistry2325; http://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry.html# home/registrationdetails/58da6cad1d7ab0314337d076/ (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6vXs6S9XW).

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.004

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 head0.590
GPT teacher head0.722
Teacher spread0.132 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207