The Protective Value of Discussing Condom Use: A Study of Young Black Men Attending STI Clinics in the Southern United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young Black men (YBM) experience disparities in both HIV incidence and incidence of bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs); thus, developing efficacious behavioral interventions is an especially critical goal. One potential avenue for intervention involves improving sexual health communications among YBM and their partners, before sex occurs. Such discussions may serve several purposes, including improving condom use and facilitating the negotiation of correct and consistent condom use. The aim of the current study was to determine the STI-protective effects of discussing condom use with sex partners, among medically underserved YBM. A total of 702 YBM were recruited from three STI clinics in the Southern United States. YBM completed a self-interview at baseline and again 6 months later. At 12 months postenrollment, a chart review determined incidents of STIs. The majority of YBM participants (61.1%) had recently discussed condom use with partners before sex. Of the 12 assessed outcomes, 7 were significantly associated with this measure. In each case, a protective effect was observed. In controlled analyses, the 12-month incidence of STIs was significantly ( p = .05) greater among YBM not discussing condoms with sex partners. The results of the current study suggest that, among YBM attending clinics, discussing condom use with sex partners may promote safer sex practices. This behavior was also predictive of lower STI incidence in the ensuing 12 months, suggesting that it may be an ideal intervention target for programs designed to protect YBM against STI acquisition, including HIV.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".