An exploratory test of a couples-based condom-use intervention designed to promote pleasurable and safer penile–vaginal sex among university students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Dual use of male condoms and female contraceptives is widely advocated for unplanned pregnancy prevention, yet college students often neglect condoms. This feasibility and acceptability study assessed the efficacy of a self-guided home-based condom-promotion intervention among college students in heterosexual relationships. Participants: Fifty-nine couples who had been together at least 30 days and had penile–vaginal sex at least twice weekly. Methods: Assessments were done at baseline and 6 months later. Outcomes were frequency of condom-unprotected penile–vaginal sex and four psychosocial mediators of condom use. Results: Frequency of unprotected penile–vaginal sex decreased over time. Several corresponding psychosocial mediators showed change, particularly among women. Using actor–partner interdependence modeling, men’s increase in condom use was associated with an increase in women’s sexual pleasure. Conclusion: Findings support implementation of a brief, self-guided, home-based condom-use intervention that could lower incidence of unplanned pregnancy and STIs among heterosexually active college students.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".