4.7 Article

Factors associated with condom use during sexual intercourse with a new partner among Scandinavian women

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 131, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105944

关键词

Condom use; Women; Scandinavian countries; New partner; Sexual behavior

资金

  1. Merck Co., Inc. [EPO 8014.016, EPO 8014.033]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this population-based, cross-sectional questionnaire study among 18-45-year-old women from Denmark, Sweden, and Norway conducted during 2011-2012 we examine factors associated with using condoms with a new partner. Condom use with a new partner was assessed among 6202 women having had a new partner in the recent six months. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated for the associations between sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, and sexual behavior, respectively, and condom use with a new partner using a logistic regression model. Always/almost always (always) condom use served as the reference category in all analyses and was compared with sometimes/rarely (sometimes) and never use in two separate analyses. Overall, respectively 36.3%, 26%, and 37.7% reported always, sometimes, or never condom use with a new partner. Married/cohabiting were more likely than single women to never (OR = 2.50, 95% CI: 2.07-3.02) or sometimes (OR = 1.30; 95% CI 1.04-1.62) use condoms with recent new partners. Increasing number of new partners in the recent six months was also associated with condom use with a new partner (never: OR for >= 3 partners = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.47-0.67; sometimes: OR for >= 3 partners = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.38-1.94). Furthermore, women reporting early age at first sexual intercourse, no contraception at first intercourse, or not being vaccinated against human papillomavirus used condoms with new partners less frequently. These findings may suggest that continued awareness about the risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections when practicing condomless sex is important.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据