Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27917002›Full record

ArticleHealth education journal2016

Perceptions of a campus-wide condom distribution programme: An exploratory study.

Diane B Francis, Seth M Noar, Laura Widman, Jessica Fitts Willoughby, Diana M Sanchez, Kyla P Garrett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health education journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Diane B FrancisSchool of Media and Journalism, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Seth M NoarSchool of Media and Journalism, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Laura WidmanDepartment of Psychology, NC State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Jessica Fitts WilloughbyEdward R. Murrow College of Communication, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA.
Diana M SanchezDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Student Wellness, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Kyla P GarrettSchool of Media and Journalism, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USNorth Central State College · USWashington State University · US

Funding

Virology, Immunology, and Microbiology CoreP30AI050410 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DAVID M. MARGOLIS · 2001 to 2026
$76.9M
Research Supplement to Promote Diversity in Adolescent HIV Prevention ResearchR00HD075654 · NICHD · NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY RALEIGH · PI WIDMAN, LAURA M. · 2015 to 2017
$803k
NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI050410NICHD NIH HHS R00 HD075654
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCondom distribution programmes are an important means of preventing sexually transmitted infections (STIs); yet little research has examined their perceived and actual impact on college campuses.

designQuantitative, cross-sectional study.

settingLarge public university in the Southeastern USA.

methodApproximately 2 months after a campus-wide condom distribution programme began, we utilised intercept surveys with 355 students (68% women; 43% racial/ethnic minorities) to examine their perceptions of the availability, accessibility and acceptability of condoms, and their perceptions and use of the newly installed condom dispensers.

resultsStudents perceived condoms to be available and accessible on campus after implementation of the condom dispensers. Students had heard about the dispensers from other people (36%), through social media (18%) and the campus newspaper (15%). Most students (71%) had seen the dispensers. Almost one in four students (23%) had taken a condom from the dispensers; among those who were sexually active during the 2months that the dispensers were available, 33% had used them. More than one-third of students (37%) - and 53% of sexually active students - indicated intentions to use the dispensers in the next 6months. Multiple regression analysis controlling for age, gender and race revealed that prior condom use, attitudes about the dispensers and comfort with the dispensers were significant predictors of sexually active students' intentions to use the dispensers (

conclusionOverall, results indicate that over a short time period, this condom distribution programme was successful in reaching students and providing free condoms. Implications for implementing condom distribution programmes on college campuses as well as future directions for research are discussed.

Indexed as

Condom availabilitycondom distribution programmeHIV/STIsstructural interventionsUSAyoung adults

Identifiers

PMID27917002
PMCPMC5130150
OpenAlexW2400192044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.