4.1 Article

Sexual behavior among adolescent women at high risk for sexually transmitted infections

期刊

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES
卷 28, 期 5, 页码 247-251

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00007435-200105000-00001

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [U19 AI1131494] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The temporal pattern of partners and sexual encounters may be key factors in the acquisition and transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), Behavior among adolescent women is of particular interest because they frequently have the highest prevalence and incidence of infection. Goal: To examine coital diary data collected during a 7-month longitudinal study of young women at high risk of STDs and to describe their sexual behaviors, with particular attention to issues of partner sequence and overlap. Study Design: A 7-month longitudinal study of young women infected with or having a sexual contact infected with Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, or Trichomonas vaginalis attending the STD clinic or one of four neighborhood adolescent health clinics, Data were collected at enrollment and at 1, 3, 5, and 7-month follow-up visits. Coital diaries were kept between visits. Results: The average frequency of coital events was 0.94 per week. The median number of sexual partners during the follow-up period was one, and overlapping of partnerships was an uncommon occurrence. The number of days between the last coital event of a current relationship and the first encounter of a new relationship differed for those choosing a new partner (mean, 20.6 days) and those who returned to a previous partner (mean, 7.9 days; P < 0.001), Conchsion: Although at high risk for STDs, high-risk behavior was not common among the study population. Partner choice and the behavior of these partners may be more important elements than personal high-risk behavior in accounting for the high prevalence of sexually transmitted infections among inner-city adolescent women.

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

4.1
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