Factors Associated with Condom Knowledge, Attitude, and Use among Black Heterosexual Men in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
African, Caribbean, and Black (ACB) men living in Canada share a heightened risk of HIV infection and the associated risk factors such as suboptimal use of family planning services such as condom use. In this study, we assessed the factors associated with knowledge, attitude, and condom use among ACB men in Ontario. Methods. This was a cross-sectional study that surveyed heterosexual ACB men regardless of their residency status living in Ontario (n = 430). This is a part of a larger mixed methods study informed by critical race theory, intersectionality, and community-based participatory research (CBPR). Outcome variables were knowledge of condom use, attitude towards condom use, and actual use of condom during the last 12 months. Results. Of 430 participants, 77.70% has good knowledge of condom use as a protection against HIV transmission, 31.77% had positive attitude towards condom use, and 62.43% reported using condom regularly with casual partners during the last 12 months. Men who were currently married had more positive attitude towards condom use compared with their unmarried counterparts (odds ratio = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.20, 1.78). Canadian residents were found to have higher odds of having correct knowledge of condom (odds ratio = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.11, 1.55), and positive attitude towards condom use (odds ratio = 1.44, 95%CI = 1.09, 1.92). Men who visited sexual health clinics showed a positive association with having correct knowledge of condom (odds ratio = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.30, 2.44) and reported experiences of difficulty in accessing sexual health. This showed a negative association towards condom use (odds ratio = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.21, 0.97]. Conclusion. A considerable percentage of heterosexual ACB men did not have correct knowledge regarding the protective effect of condom use against HIV and positive attitude towards the use of condom. Several sociodemographic and healthcare-related factors were significantly associated with knowledge, attitude, and use of condom.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".