University Students’ Condom Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Cultural Differences and What Predict Them
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans instinctively adopt methods to reduce their risk of encountering harmful pathogens, yet their adherence to preventive health practices can often be erratic. Condoms exemplify one vital preventive tool against sexually transmitted infections (STIs) that, despite their effectiveness, are not consistently utilized. This pattern of behavior appears to persist even during periods of widespread disease transmission, with varied data from the COVID-19 pandemic indicating that condom usage remained inconsistent. The present study aimed to clarify these inconsistencies by examining changes in condom use cross-culturally. Heterosexual participants who were sexually active ( N = 3,972 [1,327 men, 2,645 women], M age = 22.82) across 18 countries were asked about their condom use prior to the pandemic, then about their current use. Results revealed a significant decline in Australia, Canada, Portugal, Vietnam, Uganda, and Taiwan. Vaccination percentage and lockdown stringency were associated with this decline cross-culturally. These findings continue to add concerns about the spread of STIs among young people during the pandemic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".