Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30044926›Full record

ArticleJournal of sex research2019

Why Do Men Report More Opposite-Sex Sexual Partners Than Women? Analysis of the Gender Discrepancy in a British National Probability Survey.

Kirstin R Mitchell, Catherine H Mercer, Philip Prah, Soazig Clifton, Clare Tanton, Kaye Wellings, Andrew Copas

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of sex research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
17.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. [The German health and sexuality survey (GeSiD)-a brief introduction to the study].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2021
    Review
  17. Analysis of Sexual Inhibition and Satisfaction from a Gender Perspective among University Students.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kirstin R Mitchella MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing , University of Glasgow.ORCID 0000-0002-4409-6601
Catherine H Mercerc Department of Infection and Population Health , University College London.
Philip Prahc Department of Infection and Population Health , University College London.
Soazig Cliftonc Department of Infection and Population Health , University College London.
Clare Tantonc Department of Infection and Population Health , University College London.
Kaye Wellingsb Centre for Sexual Health, Public Health, and Policy , London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Andrew Copasc Department of Infection and Population Health , University College London.
University College London · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0701757Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/11Wellcome Trust 084840
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a closed population and defined time period, the mean number of opposite-sex partners reported by men and women should be equal. However, in all surveys, men report more partners. This inconsistency is pivotal to debate about the reliability of self-reported sexual behavior. We used data from the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3), a probability sample survey of the British population, to investigate the extent to which survey sampling, accounting strategies (e.g., estimating versus counting), and (mis)reporting due to social norms might explain the inconsistency. Men reported a mean of 14.14 lifetime partners; women reported 7.12. The gender gap of 7.02 reduced to 5.47 after capping the lifetime partner number at the 99th percentile. In addition, adjusting for counting versus estimation reduced the gender gap to 3.24, and further adjusting for sexual attitudes narrowed it to 2.63. Together, these may account for almost two-thirds of the gender disparity. Sampling explanations (e.g., non-U.K.-resident partners included in counts; sex workers underrepresented) had modest effects. The findings underscore the need for survey methods that facilitate candid reporting and suggest that approaches to encourage counting rather than estimating may be helpful. This study is novel in interrogating a range of potential explanations within the same nationally representative data set.

Indexed as

Life StyleSexual PartnersAdultFemaleHealth SurveysHumansInterpersonal RelationsMaleSampling StudiesSex DistributionSex FactorsSexual BehaviorUnited KingdomYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30044926
PMCPMC6326215
OpenAlexW2883114001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.