RESUMEN
Consistent condom use can prevent sexually transmitted infections (STIs), but few studies have measured how the prevalence of consistent use changes over time. We measured the prevalence and correlates of consistent condom use over the course of a year. We did a secondary analysis of data from an HIV prevention trial in three sexually transmitted disease clinics. We assessed condom use during four three-month intervals for subjects and across their partnerships using unconditional logistic regression. Condom use was also assessed for subjects during all three-month intervals combined. The 2125 subjects reported on 5364 three-month intervals including 7249 partnership intervals. Condoms were always used by 24.1% of subjects and 33.2% of partnerships during a three-month interval. Over the year, 82% used condoms at least once but only 5.1% always used condoms. Always use of condom was more likely for subjects who had sex only once (66.5%) compared with >30 times (6.4%); one-time partnerships (64.1%) compared with main partnerships (22.2%); and in new partnerships (44.0%) compared with partnerships that were not new (24.5%). Although consistent condom use may prevent STIs, condoms were rarely used consistently during the year of follow-up.
Asunto(s)
Condones/estadística & datos numéricos , Infecciones por VIH/prevención & control , Sexo Seguro/estadística & datos numéricos , Enfermedades de Transmisión Sexual/prevención & control , Adolescente , Adulto , Instituciones de Atención Ambulatoria , Estudios de Cohortes , Consejo , Femenino , Infecciones por VIH/epidemiología , Humanos , Masculino , Prevalencia , Conducta Sexual , Parejas Sexuales , Enfermedades de Transmisión Sexual/epidemiología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Errors in the classification of male circumcision status could bias studies linking infection to lack of circumcision. GOAL: To determine the frequency and factors associated with the reproducibility of reporting circumcision status. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data using logistic regression modeling from a multicenter randomized controlled trial was performed. RESULTS: At follow-up assessment, 15.6% of clinician reports on circumcision status disagreed with baseline reports. Disagreement was more common if both clinicians were women than if both were men (odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% CI, 1.9-4.1). As compared with whites reported as circumcised (4%, 19/532 visits), the highest disagreement involved uncircumcised Hispanic (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.7-6.3), white (OR, 12.2; 95% CI, 5.8-25.6), or black (OR, 17.1; 95% CI, 10.4-27.9) men. CONCLUSIONS: This is one study among a small number of studies examining the reproducibility of clinician-reported circumcision status by comparing multiple clinical examinations of the same patient. The magnitude of the misclassification discovered could bias results and indicates the need for greater accuracy in reporting circumcision status in future studies.