ArticleBMC public health2025
Investigating the influence of partner attitudes, norms and risk behavior on condom use decision-making during penile-vaginal sex with casual partners: a vignette study among dutch young people.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAmong young persons, declining condom use trends in many countries, high prevalences of chlamydia, and recent increases in gonorrhea diagnoses highlight the need to promote condom use. Individual social-cognitive factors and those of partners are known to influence condom use decision-making in steady partnerships, whereas research on casual partnerships is lacking. Our vignette study examined the influence of partner characteristics on condom use decision-making during casual vaginal sex.
methodsDutch young people aged 16–24 (n = 1070) were recruited online in 2023. Participants indicated the likelihood of using a condom (‘If I were in this situation, I would use a condom’) after reading one of six randomly assigned partner vignettes. The last sentence of each vignette indicated the partner characteristics. The different partner characteristics in the vignettes were attitudes (positive/negative), norms (condom use/condom nonuse), and risk behavior (higher risk/lower risk). We performed three ANOVA analyses with Benjamini-Hochberg corrections; the dependent variable was the participant’s condom use decision, the three manipulated constructs were categorical between-participant independent variables. We explored interactions between the conditions and participant characteristics (i.e., demographic, social-cognitive and sexual behavior).
resultsParticipants were on average 19 years old, 55% was assigned female at birth. Participants were more likely to use a condom if the fictitious partner; had positive attitudes ηp²=0.17; indicated positive condom use norms ηp²=0.01; or engaged in more risk behavior ηp²=0.02. Different sexual behavior- and social-cognitive factors moderated these effects, e.g. condition effects were stronger in persons with more lifetime sexual partners or negative attitudes towards condom use. For example, participants who had more positive affective associations with condom use were less affected by a partner’s negative attitudes toward condom use.
conclusionsFindings demonstrate that new, casual partners can influence condom use decision-making in young people, especially the partner’s attitudes may be of importance. Our findings suggest that individuals go along with their partner’s attitudes or norms, and may be more inclined to use a condom based on higher risk behavior of the partner. Considering a partner’s influence and promoting positive attitudes towards condom use, specifically, but also promoting positive condom use norms may positively impact condom use.
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.