The Health Belief Model and Safer Sex: Implications for Women's Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Health Belief Model (HBM) is a popular behaviour change model among psychology and social scientists. However, it is not generally applied in its entirety as only selected constructs are used in research. In an attempt to test its applicability for use in the 21st Century, the complete model is evaluated for its predictive quality relating to safer sex behaviour. Each of the model’s original six variables were tested to predict condom use among 100 Canadian prisoners, behaviour prior to incarceration. Analyses included tests of chi-square and logistic regression. Findings indicate it is necessary to create a new factor of sexual “partner type” in order for the HBM to predict condom use. Condoms are generally used with casual and anonymous partners, but not with steady partners. These “steady” female partners are at risk for contracting HIV, STDs or Hepatitis from their partner if condoms are not used, particularly when a prisoner assumes the woman is “clean” and “won’t give AIDS” to him. Such attitudes put sexual partners at risk for potential exposure to prisoners’ own earlier risk behaviours. Educational development for marginalized women associated with the inmate population is explored.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".