4.3 Article

Relationship Characteristics and Contraceptive Use Among Young Adults

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1363/4311911

关键词

-

资金

  1. PHS HHS [FPRPA006049-01, FPR006015-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CONTEXT: Young adults have high rates of unintended childbearing and STDs, yet little research has examined the role of relationship characteristics in their contraceptive use. METHODS: Data collected from the 2002-2005 rounds of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth yielded a sample of 4,014 dating relationships among sexually active 18-26-year-olds. Bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic and multinomial logistic regressions assessed associations between relationship characteristics and contraceptive use at last sex. RESULTS: In three-quarters of the relationships, respondents had used some method at last intercourse; respondents in 26% of the relationships had used a condom only, in 26% a hormonal method only and in 23% dual methods. Compared with respondents in relationships in which first sex occurred within two months of starting to date, those who first had sex before dating were more likely to have used any method at last sex (odds ratio, 1.4), particularly condoms or dual methods (relative risk ratio, 1.5 for each). The relative risk of using a hormonal method only, rather than no method or condoms only, increased with relationship duration (1.01) and level of intimacy (1.1-1.2). Discussing marriage or cohabitation was associated with reduced odds of having used any method (0.7) and a reduced relative risk of having used condoms alone or dual methods (0.6 for each). Increasing levels of partner conflict and asymmetry were also linked to reduced odds of any method use (0.97 and 0.90, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Prevention programs should address relationship context in contraceptive decision making, perhaps by combining relationship and sex education curricula to foster communication and negotiation skills.

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

4.3
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