MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387253940 · doi:10.5114/hivar.2023.131592

Determinants of condom use by male adolescents in Indonesia during their first sexual intercourse: 2017 national survey data analysis

2023· article· en· W4387253940 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kadek Yulita Lestari Dewi, Pande Putu Januraga, Ni Putu Widarini

Bibliographic record

VenueHIV & AIDS Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCondomHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Sexual intercourseMedicineDemographySexual behaviorPopulationGynecologyEnvironmental healthVirologySociologyClinical psychologySyphilis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction:The 2017 Indonesian Demographic and Health Survey (IDHS) shows that male adolescents' prevalence of condom use is relatively low during their first sexual intercourse.The present study aimed to ascertain the determinants of condom use by male adolescents in Indonesia during their first sexual intercourse. Material and methods:A quantitative analysis with a cross-sectional approach of secondary data from IDHS 2017 was used in this research.Sample used included 980 male adolescents aged 15-24 years, unmarried, and have had a sexual intercourse.Determinant analysis was conducted with multivariable binomial logistic regression analysis. Results:The results showed a greater tendency of condom use during first sexual intercourse by male adolescents with a higher education level (AOR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.41-4.34%),age of ≥ 18 years (AOR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.09-2.00%),with a positive attitude towards condom use (AOR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.40-3.11%),and exposed to all mass media (AOR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.43-2.80%).However, a reverse trend occurred if first sexual partner was not a sex worker, such as a friend or girlfriend (AOR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.15-0.56%). Conclusions:Interventions in the control of STIs, including HIV/AIDS, through condom use in male adolescents, should be focused on the age group of < 18 years, with lower secondary education level, and among the most at-risk individuals.These efforts can be conducted through comprehensive, community-based reproductive health and sexuality education outside school, and based on the curriculum applied in these institutions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.306
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHIV & AIDS ReviewSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207