Decision making over condom use during menses to avert sexually transmissible infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that receptive partners in penile-vaginal intercourse (PVI) who exercise independent decision making over condom use during menses do so to avert sexually transmissible infection (STI) transmission or acquisition. METHODS: Data were collected through a partnership with Clue, the industry-leading female health app. A brief web-based questionnaire was developed, translated into 10 languages, and made accessible via a URL link sent to Clue users and posted on social media. Inclusion criteria were: age ≥14 years, not being currently pregnant and engaging in PVI and condom use during menses in the past 3 months. The analytical subsample comprised 12889 respondents residing in 146 countries. RESULTS: Twenty per cent indicated independent decision making about condom use during menses. Independent decision making was associated with lower odds of reporting that condoms were used for contraception (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.65; 99% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-0.73) and higher odds that they were used for the prevention of STIs (aOR 1.44; 99% CI 1.28-1.61). A third significant finding pertained to always using condoms during menses; this was less likely among those indicating independent (female only) decision making (aOR 0.69; 99% CI 0.62-0.78). Non-significant associations with another two outcomes were found: protecting the partner against menstrual blood and protecting themselves against semen. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from people in 146 countries strongly support the hypothesis that those exercising independent decision making over condom use during menses do so to avert STI transmission or acquisition. That only one-fifth of this global sample reported this type of independent decision making suggests that empowerment-oriented (structural-level) interventions may be advantageous for individuals who are the receptive partner in PVI that occurs during menses.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".