3.9 Article

The determinants of sexual intercourse before age 16 years among rural Jamaican adolescents

期刊

THESCIENTIFICWORLDJOURNAL
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 493-503

出版社

THESCIENTIFICWORLD LTD
DOI: 10.1100/tsw.2007.94

关键词

adolescents; early sexual debut

资金

  1. FIC NIH HHS [T37-TW00077] Funding Source: Medline
  2. FOGARTY INTERNATIONAL CENTER [T37TW000077] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Individual and family factors have been hypothesized to influence adolescent sexual behavior, but the extent to which this is true for adolescents in Jamaica as a whole and for those in rural areas in particular, has not been well studied. The objective of this study was to identify individual and family factors associated with initiation of sexual activity before the age of 16 among rural adolescents in Jamaica. We analyzed data for 469 sexually experienced adolescents attending public high schools in the rural parish of Hanover. Multivariate logistic regression was used to predict independent influences of these factors. The mean age at sexual debut was 11 years for boys and 15 years for girls. Early adolescent sexual activity was associated with liberal attitudes about negative sexual outcomes (OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.34-2.87) and first sexual partner not being a steady boyfriend or girlfriend (OR = 4.19, 95% CI = 1.62-10.84). Female gender (OR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.07-0.36) and older age at time of survey were protective (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.32-0.52). Girls who were early starters were more likely to have been initiated by partners who were not steady boyfriends. They also reported liberal attitude towards negative sexual outcomes. Boys were mainly influenced by liberal attitude towards negative sexual outcomes. Being older was protective for both genders. Considering the high rates of HIV and adolescent pregnancy in this population, reproductive health programs that attempt to delay age at first sex should begin early in primary school before adolescents become sexually active.

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

3.9
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