ArticleJournal of community health2019
Barriers to Purchasing Condoms in a High HIV/STI-Risk Urban Area.
Article in Journal of community health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Condom Acquisition, Errors, and Breakage among U.S. Cisgender College Students.Archives of sexual behavior · 2025Article
- Regional and cultural determinants of condom use attitudes among HIV seropositive heterosexuals in Ghana: A cross-sectional study.SAGE open medicine · 2025Article
- Epidemiological risk factors associated with primary infection by Epstein-Barr virus in HIV-1-positive subjects in the Brazilian Amazon region.Scientific reports · 2021Observational
- Assessing the Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Sexually Transmitted Infections Among College Students in a Rural Midwest Setting.Journal of community health · 2021Article
- Barriers to Condom Use Among Female Sex Workers in Tehran, Iran: A Qualitative Study.International journal of women's health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have identified Atlanta, Georgia as a high-risk environment for STI/HIV infection. Condoms are an inexpensive and effective method for preventing STI/HIV infection. The majority of individuals acquire their condoms through purchase, rather than through free condom distribution programs. However, individuals purchasing condoms in stores encounter numerous barriers. This study assessed the environmental and physical barriers surrounding condom purchases in stores in downtown Atlanta. The findings revealed a combination of high environmental and physical barriers, low visibility of condoms in stores and limited selection of safer sex supplies. In the most densely populated area of the city, stores which sold condoms were few (n = 25), equating to 1 store per ~ 7000 people. In 80% of stores, personnel were required in order to access the condoms. In 28% of stores, condoms were hidden underneath the counter. The majority of stores offered only one brand of male condoms with a limited selection of lubricants and no dental dams or internal condoms. Barriers and discomfort surrounding purchasing condoms can contribute to embarrassment, which has a negative impact on condom acquisition and ultimately on condom use. Efforts must be made to lower barriers in Atlanta and make condoms more readily available to high-risk populations. Community advocacy has been effective in removing barriers to condoms. Access can furthermore be improved by: installing condom vending machines in public locations, offering self-check-out in stores that do not have physical barriers and encouraging individuals to order condoms online.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31055703What 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.