ArticleJournal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology2019
Being on the Safe Side: A Qualitative Study of Condom Use Motivations According to Contraceptive Type among Adolescents in Atlanta, Georgia.
Article in Journal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Long-Acting Reversible Contraception, Condom Use, and Sexually Transmitted Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.American journal of preventive medicine · 2021Pooled it
- "We're not educated on that enough, and we really should be": adolescents' views of mental health service education.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2023Article
- Long-acting reversible contraception and condom use: A cohort study of female adolescents and young adults in New York City.Contraception · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveQuantitative data suggest that adolescent users of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), compared with short-acting methods (pill, patch, ring, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate [DMPA]), might be less likely to use condoms. We qualitatively describe and explain adolescent contraceptive users' motivations for condom use, including variation according to contraceptive type.
designIndividual, in-depth qualitative interviews, analyzed thematically.
settingParticipants were recruited from public family planning clinics and an adolescent medicine clinic, as well as university and other community settings in Atlanta, Georgia.
participantsSexually active contraceptive users aged 17-19 years old (n = 30), including LARC (n = 10), DMPA (n = 10), and oral contraceptive (n = 10) users.
resultsOf the 30 participants, most (n = 25; 83%) used condoms with their more effective contraceptive method, although 11 of 25 used them inconsistently (44%). Oral contraceptive users were particularly motivated to use condoms for pregnancy prevention, because of concerns about contraceptive method efficacy and a desire to be on "the safe side." In contrast, LARC users were primarily motivated by sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention. DMPA users' motivations were more mixed. Across contraceptive type, factors influencing condom use motivations included sexual health education, personal awareness and/or experience, and perceived consequences and risk.
conclusionBecause all participants were using an effective contraceptive method, it is notable that pregnancy prevention was a prominent motivator for using condoms, although LARC users reported STI prevention to be a more important motivation. Parental and school-based sexual health education that clearly addresses STI prevention in addition to pregnancy prevention has the potential to influence condom use motivations and behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.