Identifying gaps in dual protection from sexually transmissible infections and unintended pregnancies among Australian women: an observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Dual protection refers to the simultaneous prevention of sexually transmissible infection (STI) and unintended pregnancies. Optimal contraception and STI prevention strategies sometimes fail to align. Methods Using data from a large nationally representative population-based survey, we analysed the contraception and STI prevention behaviours at the last vaginal intercourse among 2420 heterosexually active women aged 16-34years who had participated in the Second Australian Study of Health and Relationships, 2012-13. Results At their last vaginal intercourse, most women (95%) used contraception and half (49%) used condoms, either as a sole multipurpose method or in conjunction with another type of contraception. Condom use was highest (72%) among women whose most recent partner was a casual or occasional partner, followed by women with a regular partner (59%) and women with a cohabiting regular partner (40%). One-third of the women (34%) used condoms as a sole method, and 14% used oral contraceptives together with a condom. Few women used implants or intrauterine devices (8%) and, among them, very few women also used condoms (<1%). Among the women who used a condom at their last vaginal intercourse, 49% reported both the correct use for STI prevention and consistent condom use during the previous 6months. Among women using condoms, correct and consistent use was also highest among women whose most recent partner was a casual or occasional partner (76%). Conclusions Although almost all women used contraception and half used dual protection, few benefited from the protective effects of using condoms together with highly effective contraception.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".