Condom associated erection problems (CAEP) in heterosexual young men (under 40): A systematic review and qualitative synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Condom associated erection problems (CAEP) interfere with the correct and consistent use of condoms. CAEP, a common form of psychogenic erection problems, have been understudied in heterosexual relationships. We conducted a systematic review and qualitative synthesis of all available studies published before 2019 to examine the prevalence, etiology, effects, prevention, and treatment of CAEP in heterosexual men under 40 years of age. 43 full-text articles were assessed; nine met inclusion criteria. Most studies used self-reported questionnaires, some in combination with measures of physiological arousal. The prevalence of CAEP was 18–36%. CAEP involve attentional, affective, behavioural, cognitive, relational, and sensory processes. CAEP were associated with rushed condom application, condom worry/anxiety, distraction, multiple partners, decreased arousal response to sexual stimuli, self-perpetuating dysfunctional sexual learning, decreased penile sensitivity with erections and condoms, issues with condom ‘fit or feel,’ and mental health diagnoses, such as depression, anxiety and ADHD. It is important to address CAEP early with sex-positive approaches targeted at men and women that enhance condom self-efficacy, condom confidence, and sexual communication. Men should practice applying condoms in no pressure (solo-sex) situations to discern the condom that fits and feels best and to develop the ease and confidence to apply condoms for partnered sex with less worry and distraction. Further research is needed to confirm which strategies are most effective at reducing CAEP.
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 | 0.021 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".