ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
"You Do It without Their Knowledge." Assessing Knowledge and Perception of
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coerced Condomless Sex: A Scoping Review of Qualitative Studies.Journal of sex research · 2025Article
- Just in case: undergraduate students identifying and mitigating barriers to their sexual and reproductive health needs.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Article
- A Scoping Review of Nonconsensual Condom Removal ("Stealthing") Research.Trauma, violence & abuse · 2024Article
- Associations Among Alcohol-Related Factors and Men's Nonconsensual Condom Removal Perpetration.Journal of interpersonal violence · 2023Article
- Perceptions and experiences of sexual violence among Chinese men who have sex with men in Hong Kong.Journal of advanced nursing · 2023Article
- Unmet Healthcare Needs among College Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Implications for System-Wide and Structural Changes for Service Delivery.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, the act of nonconsensual condom removal, termed stealthing, has become commonly discussed on social and print media; yet, little to no evidence exists on the current knowledge and perception of stealthing among young adults. As such, we assessed what college students know and feel regarding stealthing. We employed an exploratory mixed-method analysis where focus groups were followed by a quantitative survey. A qualitative assessment was conducted using grounded theory analyses and questions for a quantitative survey were developed based on emergent themes from focus groups. Quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive and bivariate analyses with alpha less than 0.05 to denote significance. Though limited knowledge exists, participants felt that stealthing was a violation of their privacy, trust, sexual consent, and their ability to make a health decision, and should be considered an assault. Participants noted stealthing may have become acceptable due to its popularity in social media and young adult culture, especially porn. We also found sex differences in the perception of stealthing being considered a sexual assault with lower rates among males as compared to females. Our results demonstrate that there is a need for health educators to assess the prevalence of such a behavior among college students and policy makers to assess the legal implications of nonconsensual condom removal.
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.