Kristen P Mark1, Rachel V Smith2, April M Young3, Richard Crosby4. 1. Department of Kinesiology & Health Promotion, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA. 2. Departments of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA. 4. Department of Health Behavior, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine discrepancies between self-report methods and methodological issues related to sexual risk taking. We examined sexual behaviour assessed via 3-month electronic recall and by daily electronic reporting among a large cohort of patients attending STI clinics. METHODS: STI clinic attenders (N= 628) aged 15 to 60 years reported on demographic information (at baseline), penile-vaginal sex acts, condom-unprotected penile-vaginal sex and STI history using 3-month recall and daily reports. Additionally, interviewer-participant match related to race and gender, as well as study site were considered as covariates. RESULTS: Concordance between recall and daily reports on penile-vaginal sex was moderately strong (Spearman's r (rs)=0.62; p<0.001). Comparison for reports for condom-unprotected penile-vaginal sex resulted in a correlation coefficient of 0.61 (p<0.001), also indicating moderately strong agreement between the two methods. Two generalised logit models were conducted to explain lack of strong concordance in penile-vaginal sex acts and condom-unprotected penile-vaginal sex. The odds of a female reporting higher frequency of sex in daily reports compared with recall were more than two times that of a male. Every five person increase in the number of lifetime sexual partners was associated with five times the odds of a discrepancy in reporting methods. Age was also significantly associated with unequal daily versus recall sex frequency reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Shifting focus to methodological considerations of technological reports can help ensure better investment of resources into sexual health research due to greater understanding of the methodological properties of data collection methods. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine discrepancies between self-report methods and methodological issues related to sexual risk taking. We examined sexual behaviour assessed via 3-month electronic recall and by daily electronic reporting among a large cohort of patients attending STI clinics. METHODS: STI clinic attenders (N= 628) aged 15 to 60 years reported on demographic information (at baseline), penile-vaginal sex acts, condom-unprotected penile-vaginal sex and STI history using 3-month recall and daily reports. Additionally, interviewer-participant match related to race and gender, as well as study site were considered as covariates. RESULTS: Concordance between recall and daily reports on penile-vaginal sex was moderately strong (Spearman's r (rs)=0.62; p<0.001). Comparison for reports for condom-unprotected penile-vaginal sex resulted in a correlation coefficient of 0.61 (p<0.001), also indicating moderately strong agreement between the two methods. Two generalised logit models were conducted to explain lack of strong concordance in penile-vaginal sex acts and condom-unprotected penile-vaginal sex. The odds of a female reporting higher frequency of sex in daily reports compared with recall were more than two times that of a male. Every five person increase in the number of lifetime sexual partners was associated with five times the odds of a discrepancy in reporting methods. Age was also significantly associated with unequal daily versus recall sex frequency reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Shifting focus to methodological considerations of technological reports can help ensure better investment of resources into sexual health research due to greater understanding of the methodological properties of data collection methods. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Entities:
Keywords:
CONDOMS; GENDER; HEALTH PROMOTION; REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH; SEXUAL HEALTH
Authors: Jessica Clark Newman; Don C Des Jarlais; Charles F Turner; Jay Gribble; Phillip Cooley; Denise Paone Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Maryanne Garry; Stefanie J Sharman; Julie Feldman; G Alan Marlatt; Elizabeth F Loftus Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Shelley Lees; Claire Cook; Andrew Vallely; Nicola Desmond; Caroline Allen; Kagemlo Kiro; Joyce Wamoyi; Lemmy Medard; Robert Pool; Richard J Hayes; David A Ross Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Hannah R Crowder; Sarah E Brown; Christina A Stennett; Elizabeth Johnston; Amelia M Wnorowski; Katrina S Mark; Rebecca M Brotman Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Katia Giguère; Luc Béhanzin; Fernand A Guédou; François A Leblond; Ella Goma-Matsétsé; Djimon M Zannou; Dissou Affolabi; René K Kêkê; Flore Gangbo; Moussa Bachabi; Michel Alary Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2019-01-09 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Eileen O Dareng; Sally N Adebamowo; Olabimpe R Eseyin; Michael K Odutola; Paul P Pharoah; Clement A Adebamowo Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2017-07-17