| Literature DB >> 31461479 |
Anthony Idowu Ajayi1, Emmanuel Olawale Olamijuwon2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risky sexual behaviours are not uncommon among young adults particularly those in the higher levels of education. It is known that higher self-efficacy could contribute to better sexual and reproductive health outcomes including the use of condoms. However, there is limited research on the role of socio-demographic, behavioural and parental factors as predictors of condom-use self-efficacy. As a result, this exploratory study was designed to assess the predictors of self-efficacy for condom use among university students in Nigeria.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31461479 PMCID: PMC6713390 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221804
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Proposed model for understanding the predictors of condom use self-efficacy among university students in Nigeria.
Descriptive profile of young adults in the sample.
| Socio-Demographic Characteristics | n = 755 |
|---|---|
| Adolescents (16–19) | 207 (27.4%) |
| Young adults (20–34) | 548 (72.6%) |
| Female | 370 (49.0%) |
| Male | 385 (51.0%) |
| 100 L | 229 (30.3%) |
| 200 L | 184 (24.4%) |
| 300 L | 135 (17.9%) |
| 400+ L | 207 (27.4%) |
| Receive No Support | 58 (7.7%) |
| Receive Support | 697 (92.3%) |
| Never Had Sex | 141 (18.7%) |
| Had Sex | 614 (81.3%) |
| Never Smoked | 582 (77.1%) |
| No longer Smoke | 63 (8.3%) |
| Currently Smokes | 110 (14.6%) |
| Never Drank Alcohol | 425 (56.3%) |
| No longer Drink | 92 (12.2%) |
| Currently Drinks | 238 (31.5%) |
| Never used Drugs | 568 (75.2%) |
| No longer use Drugs | 54 (7.2%) |
| Currently use Drugs | 133 (17.6%) |
| Ilorin | 359 (47.6%) |
| Nasarawa | 396 (52.4%) |
| Not Important | 21 (2.8%) |
| Moderately Important | 146 (19.3%) |
| Very Important | 588 (77.9%) |
| Never | 633 (83.8%) |
| Occasionally/Often | 122 (16.6%) |
| Never | 399 (52.8%) |
| Occasionally/Often | 356 (47.2%) |
Means and correlations of self-efficacy item measures.
| Range | Mean | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | (11) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partner Communication Self-Efficacy | ||||||||||||||
| (1) | partner_eff_05 | 1–3 | 2.22 (0.84) | - | ||||||||||
| (2) | partner_ eff_06 | 1–3 | 2.26 (0.82) | 0.718 | - | |||||||||
| (3) | partner_ eff_07 | 1–3 | 2.32 (0.82) | 0.522 | 0.597 | - | ||||||||
| (4) | partner_ eff_08 | 1–3 | 2.42 (0.76) | 0.447 | 0.548 | 0.624 | - | |||||||
| (5) | partner_ eff_09 | 1–3 | 2.28 (0.81) | 0.378 | 0.462 | 0.534 | 0.583 | - | ||||||
| (6) | partner_ eff_10 | 1–3 | 2.29 (0.80) | 0.396 | 0.443 | 0.483 | 0.540 | 0.531 | - | |||||
| Self-Efficacy for Condom Purchase and Use | ||||||||||||||
| (7) | own_eff_01 | 1–3 | 2.09 (0.85) | 0.041 | 0.118 | 0.141 | 0.128 | 0.037 | 0.042 | - | ||||
| (8) | own_eff_02 | 1–3 | 1.98 (0.88) | 0.015 | 0.076 | 0.121 | 0.129 | 0.056 | 0.025 | 0.694 | - | |||
| (9) | own_eff_03 | 1–3 | 1.93 (0.88) | -0.032 | 0.082 | 0.127 | 0.098 | 0.037 | 0.012 | 0.674 | 0.726 | - | ||
| (10) | own_eff_04 | 1–3 | 2.00 (0.89) | 0.004 | 0.089 | 0.140 | 0.120 | 0.065 | 0.049 | 0.693 | 0.722 | 0.714 | - | |
| (11) | own_eff_12 | 1–3 | 2.06 (0.82) | -0.038 | 0.031 | 0.097 | 0.056 | 0.009 | -0.054 | 0.492 | 0.518 | 0.521 | 0.502 | - |
Note
* p < 0.05
Summary indicator description and construct reliability.
| Construct | Item | Question/indicator | Factor loadings (EFA) | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partner communication efficacy | Partner_eff_05 | I would not feel confident suggesting using condoms with a new partner because I would be afraid, he or she would think I have a sexually transmitted disease | 0.649 | 0.864 | 0.562 |
| Partner_eff_06 | I would not feel confident suggesting using condoms with a new partner because I would be afraid, he or she would think I thought they had a sexually transmitted disease | 0.729 | |||
| Partner_eff_07 | I would not feel confident suggesting using condoms with a new partner because I would too shy to | 0.813 | |||
| Partner_eff_08 | If I were to suggest using a condom to a partner, I would feel afraid that he or she would reject me | 0.842 | |||
| Partner_eff_09 | If I were unsure of my partner’s feelings about using condoms, I would not suggest using one | 0.746 | |||
| Partner_eff_10 | If my partner and I were to try to use a condom and did not succeed, I would feel embarrassed to try to use one again (e.g. not being able to unroll condom, putting it on backwards or awkwardness) | 0.703 | |||
| Self-Efficacy for condom purchase and use | Own_eff_01 | I feel confident in my ability to put a condom on myself or my partner | 0.813 | 0.898 | 0.647 |
| Own_eff_02 | I feel confident I could purchase condoms without feeling embarrassed | 0.869 | |||
| Own_eff_03 | I feel confident I could remember to carry a condom with me should I need one | 0.854 | |||
| Own_eff_04 | I feel confident I could gracefully remove and dispose of a condom after sexual intercourse | 0.857 | |||
| Own_eff_12 | I feel that I know how to use a condom properly. | 0.593 | |||
| Lifestyle Behaviour | Smoker | Do you currently smoke? | 0.858 | 0.825 | 0.630 |
| Drinker | Do you currently smoke? | 0.700 | |||
| Drug User | Do you currently use substance/drugs like codeine, smoke weed, tramadol for pleasure or to ease tension? | 0.815 |
NOTE: All factor loadings are statistically significant at p< 0.05; RMSEA = 0.032 (CI = 0.023–0.041); CFI = 0.974; TLI = 0.967; SRMR = 0.47
Standardized path coefficients of the predictors of condom use self-efficacy.
| Lifestyle Behaviours | Sexual Behaviours | Self- Efficacy for condom purchase and use | Partner Communication Efficacy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standardized Coefficients [Standard Error] | ||||
| Sexual Experience: | 0.73 | 0.08 [0.07] | ||
| Lifestyle Behavioural | -0.06 [0.06] | -0.10 [0.05] | ||
| Sex: | 0.10 | -0.14 | 0.42 | 0.02 [0.04] |
| Age Group: | 0.09 | 0.50 | -0.29 | -0.07 [0.05] |
| Education | 0.10 | 0.03 [0.05] | 0.05 [0.04] | 0.01 [0.04] |
| Family Support: | -0.15 | -0.06 | 0.04 [0.03] | 0.07 |
| Importance of Religion | -0.34 | -0.15 | -0.08 | -0.03 [0.03] |
| Sex Education with Father: | 0.04 [0.03] | 0.08 | -0.01 [0.04] | 0.01 [0.03] |
| Sex Education with Mother: | -0.06 | 0.08 [0.04] | 0.01 [0.04] | 0.04 [0.04] |
| Recruitment Site: | -0.25 | 0.06 [0.05] | 0.01 [0.04] | 0.30 |
| 0.332 | 0.330 | 0.516 | 0.128 | |
RMSEA = 0.020 [90CI: 0.010–0.028]; CFI = 0.988; TLI = 0.982; pclose = 1.000; SRMR = 0.067
Note
*** p < 0.001
** p < 0.01
* p < 0.05
Fig 2A standardized path model for understanding the predictors of condom use self-efficacy among university students in Nigeria.
Note: FamSupp = family support; rel_imp = importance of religious activities; Behaviour = lifestyle behaviours; hadSex = sexual experience. Standardized path coefficients are reported. Statistically insignificant paths are excluded. Error co-variances are also excluded.
Summary of standardized direct and indirect effects of socio-demographic, parental behavioural factors on condom use self-efficacy.
| Self-efficacy for condom purchase and use | Partner communication efficacy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Std. Coeff | SE | Std. Coeff | SE | ||
| Sexual Experience: | |||||
| Total Effect | 0.73 | 0.39 | 0.08 | 0.13 | |
| Direct Effect | 0.73 | 0.39 | 0.08 | 0.13 | |
| Lifestyle Behavioural | |||||
| Total Effect | -0.06 | 0.07 | -0.10 | 0.04 | |
| Direct Effect | -0.06 | 0.07 | -0.10 | 0.04 | |
| Sex: | |||||
| Total Effect | 0.31 | 0.05 | -0.01 | 0.03 | |
| Indirect Effect | -0.11 | 0.07 | -0.02 | 0.01 | |
| Direct Effect | 0.42 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.04 | |
| Age Group: | |||||
| Total Effect | 0.08 | 0.06 | -0.04 | 0.04 | |
| Indirect Effect | 0.36 | 0.13 | 0.03 | 0.04 | |
| Direct Effect | -0.29 | 0.13 | -0.07 | 0.06 | |
| Education | |||||
| Total Effect | 0.07 | 0.02 | -0.01 | 0.02 | |
| Indirect Effect | 0.02 | 0.02 | -0.01 | 0.00 | |
| Direct Effect | 0.05 | 0.03 | -0.01 | 0.02 | |
| Family Support: | |||||
| Total Effect | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.05 | |
| Indirect Effect | -0.04 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.01 | |
| Direct Effect | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.05 | |
| Importance of Religion | |||||
| Total Effect | -0.17 | 0.05 | -0.01 | 0.03 | |
| Indirect Effect | -0.09 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.02 | |
| Direct Effect | -0.08 | 0.06 | -0.03 | 0.03 | |
| Sex Education with Father: | |||||
| Total Effect | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.04 | |
| Indirect Effect | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.01 | |
| Direct Effect | -0.01 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.04 | |
| Sex Education with Mother: | |||||
| Total Effect | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.03 | |
| Indirect Effect | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.01 | |
| Direct Effect | -0.01 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.03 | |
| Recruitment Site: | |||||
| Total Effect | 0.06* | 0.05 | 0.33 | 0.04 | |
| Indirect Effect | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.02 | |
| Direct Effect | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.30 | 0.04 | |
Note
*** p < 0.001
** p < 0.01
* p < 0.05