ArticlePloS one2020
Mobile sex-tech apps: How use differs across global areas of high and low gender equality.
Article in PloS one, 2020. 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.
- The Media and Sexual Violence Among Adolescents: Findings from a Qualitative Study of Educators Across Vietnam.Archives of sexual behavior · 2024Article
- Queer and feminist reflections on sextech.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2023Article
- Learning on OnlyFans: User Perspectives on Knowledge and Skills Acquired on the Platform.Sexuality & culture · 2023Article
- Technology-Mediated Sexual Interactions, Social Anxiety, and Sexual Wellbeing: A Scoping Review.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2022Article
- Love in the Time of Corona: Predicting Willingness to Engage in Sexting During the First COVID-19-Related Lockdown.Archives of sexual behavior · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital technologies are increasingly intertwined into people's sexual lives, with growing scholarly interest in the intersection of sex and technology (sex-tech). However, much of the literature is limited by its over emphasis on negative outcomes and the predominance of work by and about North Americans, creating the impression that sex-tech is largely a Western phenomenon. Based on responses from 130,885 women in 191 countries, we assessed how women around the world interact with mobile technology for sex-related purposes, and whether in areas of greater gender inequality, technological accessibility may be empowering women with knowledge about sexuality. We investigated women's use of technology to find sexual partners, learn about sex and improve their sexual relationships, and track their own sexual health. About one-fifth reported using mobile apps to find sexual partners. This use varied by region: about one-third in Oceania, one-fourth in Europe and the Americas, and one-fifth in Asia and Africa. Staying connected when apart was the most commonly selected reason for app use with a sexual partner. About one-third had used an app to track their own sexual activity. Very few reported that the app they used to improve their sexual relationships was detrimental (0.2%) or not useful (0.6%). Women in countries with greater gender inequality were less likely to have used mobile apps to find a sexual partner, but nearly four times more likely to have engaged in sending and receiving sexts. To our knowledge, this study provides the most comprehensive global data on sex-tech use thus far, demonstrates significant regional variations in sex-tech use, and is the first to examine women's engagement in sex-related mobile technology in locations with greater gender disparities. These findings may inform large-scale targeted studies, interventions, and sex education to improve the lives of women around the world.
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.