| Literature DB >> 33823835 |
Elias Mpofu1,2,3, Kayi Ntinda4,5, Lisa Lopez Levers6, Angelique van Rensberg7, Fidelis Nkomazana5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ways church youth make sexual decisions are incompletely understood and yet important for public health interventions. This study aimed to examine personal religiosity influences on the sexual decisions by church youth from the country of Botswana, taking into account their sense of personal agency.Entities:
Keywords: Abstinence; religiosity; Contraception; Personal control; Self-efficacy; Sexual decisions; Youth
Year: 2021 PMID: 33823835 PMCID: PMC8025555 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-10645-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Participant demographics
| Demographic | N | % |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Female | 158 | 67.2 |
| Male | 77 | 32.8 |
| Age | ||
| 12–15 years | 36 | 15.3 |
| 16–19 years | 86 | 36.6 |
| 20–23 years | 111 | 47.3 |
| Singles | 149 | 63.4 |
| With first sex | 62 | 26.3 |
| HIV/AIDS identity | ||
| Orphans | 58 | 24.6 |
| Living with HIV | 51 | 21.7 |
| Congregation Location | ||
| Urban | 172 | 73.1 |
| Rural | 63 | 26.8 |
| Education level | ||
| Primary-Junior | 59 | 25.1 |
| High School | 91 | 38.7 |
| Tertiary | 85 | 36.1 |
Note. Singles = not in a romantic relationship
Correlations and descriptive statistics of the study variables
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.Primary abstinence | – | 2.60 | 1.02 | |||||||||
| 2.Scondary abstinence | −.01 | – | 4.38 | .79 | ||||||||
| 3.Contraception | .21 | .24* | – | 3.14 | 1.24 | |||||||
| 4.Personal agency | .08 | .41** | .14 | – | 4.15 | .70 | ||||||
| 5.Extrinsic religiosity | .19 | .26** | −.07 | .26** | – | 1.23 | .43 | |||||
| 6. Intrinsic religiosity | .16 | .24** | −.04 | .28** | .35** | – | 1.66 | .33 | ||||
| 7.Sex | .02 | −.07 | −.03 | −.10 | .00 | −.01 | – | – | – | |||
| 8.Age | .45** | .05 | −.14 | .09 | .30** | .26** | .03 | – | – | – | ||
| 9. Singles | .08 | .06 | −.16 | .20 | .09 | .04 | .02 | −.03 | – | – | – | |
| 10. First sex | – | .15* | .46** | −.04 | .17* | .13 | .08 | .39** | .03 | – | 17.72 yrs | 3.52 |
| N | 123 | 216 | 114 | 194 | 163 | 181 | 225 | 223 | 141 | 225 | – | – |
Note. *p <. 05, **p < .01; Single =0; In relationship =1; First sex = only those with sexual debut
Fig. 1Structural model of contraption use with sexual abstinence, personal agency and personal religiosity (The dashed lines represent the non-significant paths/Solid line the significant associations)
Moderation analyses
| Coeff | SE | t | LLCI | ULCI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | −0.05 | 0.04 | −1.54 | 0.13 | −0.13 | 0.02 |
| Personal agency X Age | 0.07 | 0.04 | 1.49 | 0.14 | −0.02 | 0.15 |
| Gender | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.53 | 0.60 | −0.06 | 0.10 |
| Personal agency X Gender | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.45 | 0.65 | −0.10 | 0.16 |
| Education level | −0.08 | 0.03 | −2.92 | 0.00* | −0.13 | −0.03 |
| Personal agency X Education level | 0.11 | 0.07 | 3.96 | 0.00* | 0.05 | 0.16 |
| Age | 0.07 | 0.03 | 2.16 | 0.03* | 0.01 | 0.14 |
| Personal agency X Age | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.29 | 0.77 | −0.07 | 0.10 |
| Gender | 0.00 | 0.04 | −0.11 | 0.91 | −0.08 | 0.07 |
| Personal agency X Gender | 0.06 | 0.06 | 1.00 | 0.32 | −0.06 | 0.18 |
| Education level | −0.02 | 0.03 | −0.89 | 0.37 | −0.08 | 0.03 |
| Personal agency X Education level | 0.00 | 0.03 | −0.04 | 0.97 | −0.06 | 0.05 |
| Age | 0.08 | 0.10 | −1.75 | 0.08 | −0.39 | 0.02 |
| Personal religiocity X Age | −0.20 | 0.19 | −1.04 | 0.30 | −0.58 | 0.18 |
| Gender | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.33 | 0.74 | −0.08 | 0.11 |
| Personal religiocity X Gender | 0.10 | 0.28 | 0.34 | 0.73 | −0.46 | 0.66 |
| Education level | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.42 | 0.68 | −0.05 | 0.08 |
| Personal religiocity X Education level | 0.11 | 0.15 | 0.73 | 0.47 | −0.18 | 0.39 |
* Note. LLCI Lower level confidence internal, ULCI Upper level confidence interval; Level of confidence for all confidence intervals were 0.05