| Literature DB >> 35860207 |
Abstract
Purpose: To date, no studies have examined the association between gender-driven power dynamics and the decision-making process for condom use in South Korea. This study aimed to identify predictors of condom-use behaviors among female emerging adults in South Korea. Participants andEntities:
Keywords: condoms; nursing theory; sexual behavior; sexually transmitted diseases
Year: 2022 PMID: 35860207 PMCID: PMC9292050 DOI: 10.2147/PRBM.S374392
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Psychol Res Behav Manag ISSN: 1179-1578
Demographic Characteristics of the Participants (N=169)
| Demographics | Classification | N (%) | Mean ± SD (Min-Max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 18–19 | 48 (28.2) | 20.97 ± 1.759 (18–25) |
| 20–21 | 52 (30.6) | ||
| 22–23 | 57 (33.5) | ||
| 24–25 | 13 (7.7) | ||
| Year in college | Freshman | 65 (38.2) | |
| Sophomore | 41 (24.1) | ||
| Junior | 32 (18.8) | ||
| Senior | 32 (18.8) | ||
| Major | Humanities & Social Science | 76 (44.7) | |
| Science & Technology | 24 (14.1) | ||
| Health & Medical | 41 (24.1) | ||
| Arts & Physical Education | 20 (11.8) | ||
| Other | 9 (5.3) | ||
| Religion | Protestant | 29 (17.1) | |
| Catholic | 22 (12.9) | ||
| Buddhist | 9 (5.3) | ||
| None | 107 (62.9) | ||
| Other | 3 (1.8) | ||
| Type of residence (current) | Home or with relatives | 119 (70.0) | |
| Living alone | 39 (22.9) | ||
| Dormitory | 12 (7.1) | ||
| Family’s perception toward sexual behavior | Conservative | 68 (40.0) | |
| Neutral | 81 (47.6) | ||
| Open | 21 (12.4) | ||
| Receiving sex education since becoming a college student | Yes | 85 (50.0) | |
| No | 85 (50.0) | ||
| Age at first sexual intercourse (years) | 11–15 | 1 (0.6) | |
| 16–20 | 109 (64.1) | ||
| 21–25 | 60 (35.3) | ||
| Having had sexual intercourse over the past three months | Yes | 143 (84.1) | |
| No | 27 (15.9) | ||
| If yes, number of sexual partners over the past three months | 1 | 124 (72.9) | |
| Types of sexual partners over the past six months | Committed monogamous (steady) | 138 (81.2) | |
| Regular casual | 29 (17.1) | ||
| Unexpected (hook-ups or one-night stands) | 3 (1.8) | ||
| Ever had any STDs | Yes | 9 (5.3) | |
| No | 161 (94.7) | ||
| Ever had an unwanted pregnancy | Yes | 3 (1.8) | |
| No | 167 (98.2) | ||
| Have ever been forced to have sexual intercourse with partner | Yes | 20 (11.8) | |
| No | 150 (88.2) | ||
| Condom-use behaviors in the past six months* | Never (0%) | 18 (10.6) | |
| Rare (25%) | 21 (12.4) | ||
| Sometimes (50%) | 14 (8.2) | ||
| Often (75%) | 39 (22.9) | ||
| Always (100%) | 78 (45.9) |
Note: *Dependent variable.
Average Scores (N=169)
| Instrument | n (%) | Mean ± SD | Score Range | Median (Min-Max) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Moderate | High | ||||
| Sexual double standard score | 75 (44.1) | 22 (12.9) | 73 (43.0) | 15.62 ± 4.928 | 10–50 | 15.0 (10–33) |
| Sexual assertiveness score | 76 (44.7) | 10 (5.9) | 84 (49.4) | 60.79 ± 4.555 | 18–90 | 61 (50–71) |
| Sexual security score | 84 (49.4) | 10 (5.9) | 76 (44.7) | 27.46 ± 5.429 | 5–35 | 28.0 (5–35) |
| Attitude score | 56 (32.9) | 44 (25.9) | 70 (41.2) | 13.98 ± 2.26 | 5–20 | 14.0 (5–18) |
| Norm score | 60 (35.3) | 46 (27.1) | 64 (37.6) | 13.82 ± 2.44 | 5–20 | 14.0 (5–18) |
| Self-efficacy score | 81 (47.6) | 18 (10.6) | 71 (41.8) | 22.48 ± 3.08 | 9–27 | 23.0 (9–27) |
| Barrier score | 61 (35.9) | 43 (25.3) | 66 (38.8) | 6.06 ± 1.92 | 3–12 | 6.0 (3–11) |
Notes: The median was considered to be a moderate score, while participants with scores below the median (median – 1*IQR) were considered to have low scores, and scores above the median (median + 1*IQR) were considered to be high.
Illustrates Spearman’s Rho Correlation and p-values (N=169)
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sexual double standards | ||||||||
| 2. Sexual assertiveness | −0.356*** (<.001) | |||||||
| 3. Sexual security | −0.027 (0.731) | 0.045 (0.563) | ||||||
| 4. Attitudes | −0.081 (0.292) | 0.166* (0.030) | −0.180* (0.019) | |||||
| 5. Subjective norms | −0.143 (0.062) | 0.152* (0.048) | −0.075 (0.329) | 0.642*** (<.001) | ||||
| 6. Self-efficacy | −0.383*** (<.001) | 0.486*** (<.001) | 0.077 (0.318) | 0.131 (0.089) | 0.147 (0.055) | |||
| 7. Barriers | 0.271*** (<.001) | −0.223** (0.004) | −0.079 (0.307) | 0.051 (0.506) | −0.006 (0.934) | −0.221* (0.004) | ||
| 8. Condom-use behaviors | 0.001 (0.988) | 0.197* (0.010) | −0.092 (0.231) | 0.459*** (<.001) | 0.380*** (<.001) | 0.126 (0.102) | 0.009 (0.909) |
Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Results of the Gamma Regression (N=169)
| Variables | Exp (B) | 95% CI | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Condom use | Sexual double standard | 1.017 | 1.002–1.033 | 0.022* |
| Sexual assertiveness | 1.011 | 0.994–1.027 | 0.202 | |
| Sexual security | 0.999 | 0.988–1.010 | 0.851 | |
| Attitudes | 1.081 | 1.040–1.123 | <0.001** | |
| Subjective norms | 1.025 | 0.991–1.061 | 0.153 | |
| Self-efficacy | 1.011 | 0.987–1.036 | 0.380 | |
| Barriers | 1.006 | 0.973–1.041 | 0.711 | |
Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.001.
Abbreviations: Exp (B), exponentiation of the B coefficient; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval.