Factors associated with access to condoms and sources of condoms during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence has shown that the prescribed lockdown and physical distancing due to the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have made accessing essential health care services much more difficult in low-and middle-income countries. Access to contraception is an essential service and should not be denied, even in a global crisis, because of its associated health benefits. Therefore, it is important to maintain timely access to contraception without unnecessary barriers. Hence, this study examines the factors contributing to limited access to condoms and sources of condoms during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa. METHODS: This study used the National Income Dynamics Study-Coronavirus Rapid Mobile Survey (NIDS-CRAM) wave 1 survey dataset. The NIDS-CRAM is a nationally representative survey of the National Income Dynamics Survey (NIDS) conducted via telephone interview during COVID-19 in the year 2020. This is the first secondary dataset on COVID-19 conducted by NIDS during pandemic. A total of 5304 respondents were included in the study. Data were analysed using frequencies distribution percentages, chi-square test and multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Almost one-quarter (22.40%) of South Africans could not access condoms, and every 7 in 10 South Africans preferred public source of condoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Those who were from other population groups [AOR = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.19-0.74] and those who were in the third wealth quintile [AOR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.38-0.93] had lower odds of having access to condoms while those respondents who were aged 25-34 [AOR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.27-0.83] and those with a secondary level of education and above [AOR = 0.24; 95% CI = 0.08-0.71] were less likely to prefer public source of condom. CONCLUSIONS: This study concludes that there was limited access to condoms during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the preferred source of condoms was very skewed to public sources in South Africa. Strategic interventions such as community distribution of free condoms to avert obstruction of condom access during the COVID-19 pandemic or any future pandemics should be adopted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".