ArticlePsychology of violence2023
Coercive Condom Use Resistance: A Scoping Review.
Article in Psychology of violence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Event-Level Investigation of Young Men's Condom Use Resistance: Associations with Global Sex-Related Alcohol Expectancies and Daily Drinking and Sex Motives.Journal of sex research · 2026Article
- Adult Men's Sexual Assault Victimization and Condom Use Resistance: A Preliminary Investigation.Psychology of men & masculinity · 2026Article
- Integrating the Confluence Model and I³ Model to predict sexual assault perpetration intentions.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2025Article
- Coerced Condomless Sex: A Scoping Review of Qualitative Studies.Journal of sex research · 2025Article
- Men's Coercive Condom Use Resistance: The Roles of Alcohol and Emotional Factors.Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs · 2025Article
- Adversarial Heterosexual Beliefs, Sexual Entitlement Cognitions, and Condom Use Resistance Intentions among Sober versus Intoxicated Men: A Multigroup Mediation Model.Applied cognitive psychologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Sexual aggression research has recently expanded to include empirical investigations of coercion during condom negotiation and use. This scoping review presents and discusses peer-reviewed, quantitative, English-language studies conducted on coercive condom use resistance (CUR) behavior and intentions. Method: Our systematic literature search yielded 20 articles that assessed coercive CUR perpetration behaviors or intentions and met other inclusion criteria. Data on rates and correlates of coercive CUR behavior and intentions were extracted. Results: Identified studies used varied methods including cross-sectional surveys, 3-month longitudinal studies, and alcohol administration experiments, primarily with young adult samples. Overall, results indicated that a substantial minority (up to 42.6%) of sampled individuals endorsed lifetime perpetration of coercive CUR, with men reporting higher prevalence of coercive CUR perpetration than women. The majority of studies (70%) assessed coercive CUR through the Condom Use Resistance Tactics Scale (Davis et al., 2014). Although correlates largely differed by gender, alcohol-related variables emerged as risk factors for both men and women. Conclusions: Burgeoning evidence indicates that coercive CUR is relatively common, and, particularly for men, risk factors are similar to those associated with sexual aggression more generally. Review findings demonstrate that continued research in this area is warranted and should expand to include more diverse populations, to consider other risk factors and sequelae, and to utilize novel methodological approaches.
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.