A home-practice intervention for increasing condom use among university undergraduates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The consistently high rate of sexually transmitted infections among people 18–24 years old warrants novel strategies promoting condom use among large segments of this population. Ample opportunity exits to employ such strategies in university settings. This study evaluated a sex-positive, home-practice intervention designed to promote condom use among university undergraduates engaging in penile–vaginal intercourse (PVI). A sample of 29 opposite-sex undergraduate couples, engaging in PVI, was recruited from a large university. After teaching couples about condom use, a health educator helped couples select condoms/lubricants from options comprising various sizes, fits, shapes, textures, and other features. A 30-day ‘homework assignment’ was made to use these products while reducing condom use errors/problems and enhancing sexual pleasure. A repeated measures design, with a six-month observation period, was used to evaluate the program. Over the six-month period, the mean frequency of condomless PVI decreased from 26.4 to 3.9 times ( P < .001). Significant and favorable changes were also found relative to attitudes toward condom use ( P = .027) and in condom use self-efficacy ( P < .001). Most students completing the follow-up assessment indicated the intervention would favorably impact their future condom use. Findings suggest this intervention program may be important to promoting condom use among university couples engaging in PVI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".