ライフサイエンスコーパス: condom

1 e (vasectomy) or not sufficiently effective (condom).

2 ar the humiliation associated with procuring condoms.

3 behavior, including use of contraceptives or condoms.

4 ; 22.4% used oral contraceptives; 40.8% used condoms; 11.8% used withdrawal or other method; 15.7% us

5 1% [P = .002]; pills, 41% to 65% [P < .001]; condoms, 25% to 45% [P = .003]; withdrawal, 74% to 90% [

6 e infected because of delayed application of condoms (4.3% of uses), breakage (2.0%), early removal (

7 urs after vaginal intercourse without a male condom (5 visits total, including the baseline visit).

8 n overestimated the typical effectiveness of condoms (75%), contraceptive injections (57%), and oral

9 chanical problems (male condom, 9.6%; female condom, 9.4%) but less frequent with other problems (3.0

10 more frequent with mechanical problems (male condom, 9.6%; female condom, 9.4%) but less frequent wit

11 n than those reporting no anal sex without a condom (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 5.11, 95% CI 1.55-16

12 ing more likely to report having ever used a condom (adjusted OR = 2.62, 95%CI:2.32-2.95).

13 Data supporting the efficacy of condoms against human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in

14 (wow) Condom Feminine, and the Cupid female condom-against the existing second-generation female con

15 espondents could select birth control pills; condoms; an intrauterine device or implant; injection, p

16 Condom and lubricant access for MSM globally is highly c

17 During this time, comfort procuring condoms and ability to convince sexual partners to use c

18 Condoms and counseling were available in most of the cli

19 ntrolled trial, ART used in combination with condoms and counselling reduced HIV transmission by 96.4

20 mly assigned to begin the study with 10 male condoms and then switch to 10 female condoms (n = 55), o

21 Condoms and vasectomy are male-controlled family plannin

22 pants received risk-reduction counseling and condoms and were regularly tested for HIV-1 and HIV-2 an

23 s but suffer from limitations in compliance (condoms) and limited reversibility (vasectomy); thus man

24 hours after vaginal intercourse with a male condom, and 2-6 hours and 10-14 hours after vaginal inte

25 , acceptance of more money for sex without a condom, and experience of client violence.

26 h even among those who reported always using condoms, and its associations with always using condoms

27 ived HIV testing, risk-reduction counseling, condoms, and management of sexually transmitted infectio

28 e screening, partner notification, promoting condoms, and preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

29 ients per day (AOR, 3.3; 1.8-6.1), no use of condoms (AOR, 3.8, 2.1-7.1), and frequent alcohol use (A

30 Condoms are recommended as an effective preventive metho

31 a) consistent condom use, defined as using a condom at each occasion of sexual intercourse in the pre

32 of 113 participants who reported not using a condom at enrolment reported using condoms at their firs

33 parate item asked whether respondents used a condom at last sexual intercourse.

34 t using a condom at enrolment reported using condoms at their first follow-up visit (p<0.0001).

35 nprotected transactional sex, than levels of condom awareness and availability.

36 police to avoid trouble, having police take condoms away, experiencing a workplace raid, and being a

37 ion motivated many to get HIV tested and use condoms, but such affect also led some to avoid HIV test

38 The use of condoms by young people remained stable during this peri

39 tent straight catheters (ISCs), and external condom catheters for hospitalized adults on medical serv

40 ceptive for men since the development of the condom, centuries ago.

41 LARC users were about 60% less likely to use condoms compared with oral contraceptive users (adjusted

42 n with no steady sex partner who always used condoms, compared with those who never used condoms (haz

43 and parents tended to be more likely to use condoms consistently and be tested for HIV.

44 Half reported not using condoms consistently and one quarter had not been HIV-te

45 ess of HIV serostatus, along with reinforced condom counseling for HIV-serodiscordant couples.

46 ure was 3.43% for FC2, 3.85% for the Woman's Condom (difference 0.42%, 90% CI -1.42 to 2.26), 3.02% f

47 sting, HIV antiretroviral therapy (ART), and condom distribution programmes.

48 uding provision of pre-exposure prophylaxis, condom distribution, and male circumcision, could avert

49 prevention measures such as needle exchange, condom distribution, and opioid substitution therapy in

50 structed to use one applicator of gel plus a condom during each vaginal sex act.

51 Spousal partnerships and never using a condom during sex were associated with larger age differ

52 ompare the frequency of sex-unprotected by a condom-during the 12 months after compared with the 12 m

53 ghly infectious STD to avoid underestimating condom effectiveness.

54 Condom efficacy has not previously measured on a per-act

55 Condom efficacy was computed as the proportionate reduct

56 RC methods may no longer perceive a need for condoms even if they have multiple sexual partners, whic

57 report receptive anal intercourse without a condom, even if they perceive their partners to be HIV n

58 Non-inferiority was shown for all condom failure events for the three new devices versus t

59 Total female condom failure was 3.43% for FC2, 3.85% for the Woman's

60 were total clinical failure and total female condom failure, with a non-inferiority margin of 3%.

61 gainst the existing second-generation female condom (FC2).

62 e Woman's Condom, the VA worn-of-women (wow) Condom Feminine, and the Cupid female condom-against the

63 ners in the past 3 months, and never using a condom for anal sex in the past 6 months were independen

64 in condom use may reflect motivations to use condoms for backup pregnancy prevention.

65 lescent LARC users may be less likely to use condoms for preventing sexually transmitted infections c

66 The efficacy of condoms for protection against transmission of herpes si

67 one partner and insertive anal sex without a condom had the highest NNTs (100 and 77, respectively).

68 .91 [95% CI, 0.60-1.39; P = .39] for using a condom half the time or less with a casual partner).

69 New designs of female condom have been developed to reduce costs and improve a

70 condoms, compared with those who never used condoms (hazard ratio, 0.54), after adjustment for count

71 x partners, compared with men who never used condoms (hazard ratio, 1.29), after adjustment for count

72 eported significantly more consistent use of condoms, hormonal contraception, and dual-method contrac

73 The male condom, if used correctly and consistently, has been pro

74 her proportion of coital acts protected by a condom in analyses adjusted for study visit and coital f

75 h men who had had anal intercourse without a condom in the previous 90 days.

76 ge of coital acts reported as protected by a condom increased from 56% at baseline to 68% at the 6-mo

77 ner would hit her if she asked him to wear a condom (indirect effect = 1.5 [95% CI -0.3, 3.3]).

78 ner would hit her if she asked him to wear a condom (indirect effect = 1.5, 95% CI: -0.3, 3.3).

79 omote specific behaviors, such as the use of condoms, injectable methods or permanent sterilization.

80 ing >/=16 lifetime sexual partners and using condoms intermittently.

81 s, male and female sterilisations, implants, condom, lactational amenorrhea method, vaginal barrier m

82 t majority (n = 1,200 [94%]) reported recent condom-less sex.

83 study was to examine if the installation of condom machines in Ethiopia predicts changes in student

84 There was no evidence that the condom machines led to an increase in promiscuity.

85 The results suggest that condom machines may be associated with more condom procu

86 A study in Thailand suggests condom machines may provide comfortable condom procureme

87 After installing condom machines, the average number of trips made to pro

88 2,000), six months after the installation of condom machines.

89 10 male condoms and then switch to 10 female condoms (n = 55), or vice versa (n = 53), and were train

90 porting receptive anal intercourse without a condom (NNT 36), cocaine use (12), or a sexually transmi

91 gaging in sexual intercourse with the use of condoms (odds ratio [OR], 6.3 [95% confidence interval {

92 women completed follow-up, with at least one condom of each type.

93 the average number of trips made to procure condoms on-campus significantly increased 101% for sexua

94 prevention guidelines recommend that men use condoms or abstain from sex for 6 months after ZIKV expo

95 ncrease supply of prevention methods such as condoms or clean needles can be effective.

96 al sex, receptive anal intercourse without a condom, or more than five partners in the past 3 months.

97 vaginal coitus, vaginal coitus with use of a condom, or no coitus.

98 le, those who have a current STI, do not use condoms, or have multiple partners, resulting in a moder

99 imental arm, with <10% in each arm selecting condoms, oral contraception, or intrauterine devices (IU

100 % among those who reported they "never" used condoms (P for trend = .008).

101 ion (PR 0.77, 0.62-0.95) and receipt of free condoms (PR 0.77, 0.67-0.89).

102 condom machines may be associated with more condom procurement among vulnerable female students in E

103 anges in student sexual behavior, as well as condom procurement and associated stigma over the subseq

104 ests condom machines may provide comfortable condom procurement, but the relevance to a high-risk Afr

105 coverage of NSP, OST, HIV testing, ART, and condom programmes for PWID.

106 African heterosexual epidemic suggests that condom promotion and distribution programmes in South Af

107 ention portfolio for Nairobi should focus on condom promotion for male sex workers and MSM in particu

108 d spread to future partners is in support of condom promotion to prevent sexually transmitted infecti

109 ering cost of drug and delivery, undermining condom promotion, and facilitating resistant strains) th

110 ement strategies, including behavior change, condom promotion, and therapy have not reduced the globa

111 The scale-up of existing interventions (condom promotion, antiretroviral therapy, and male circu

112 ated 113 480 sex acts, of which 17% were not condom protected, was reported within 1672 HIV-serodisco

113 uitment did not occur without coitus or with condom-protected coitus.

114 es included the following: (1) proportion of condom-protected sexual acts in the 6 months and 90 days

115 al condition reported a higher proportion of condom-protected sexual acts in the 90 days (mean differ

116 1 PSA-positive participants (36.2%) reported condom-protected vaginal sex only; their reports also in

117 r age, with more schooling, who reported non-condom receptive anal intercourse, who had more sexual p

118 porting receptive anal intercourse without a condom seroconverted significantly more often than those

119 Condoms should be promoted in combination with HPV vacci

120 mutual HIV testing, and a desire to not use condoms, suggesting that trust, commitment and intimacy

121 Interruption to condom supplies and peer education would make population

122 safety of three new condom types-the Woman's Condom, the VA worn-of-women (wow) Condom Feminine, and

123 9% among men who reported they "always" used condoms to 53.9% among those who reported they "never" u

124 about the importance of dual protection with condoms to decrease HIV-1 risk.

125 lack of clarity surrounding the relevance of condoms to PrEP eligibility.

126 Women were asked to use five of each condom type and were interviewed after use of each type.

127 Participants were not masked to condom type, but allocation was concealed from study inv

128 ility, of whom 600 were randomly assigned to condom-type order (30, 120, and 150 women in the three s

129 nctional performance and safety of three new condom types-the Woman's Condom, the VA worn-of-women (w

130 Universal Access to Female Condoms (UAFC).

131 ines in Ethiopia predicts changes in student condom uptake and use, as well as changes in procurement

132 who had sex at an early age, those with less condom usage, and those with more lifetime sexual partne

133 nic types only was estimated by frequency of condom use ("always" or "not always").

134 8% in the last injection), the low levels of condom use (20%-54% ever condom use), the high levels of

135 0-1 vs 8-14 days after last vaginal sex) and condom use (22.6% higher concordance in never vs always

136 el use (96.2% Carraguard, 95.9% placebo) and condom use (64.1% in both groups) at last sex acts were

137 {CI}, 1.46-2.53]), decreased with consistent condom use (adjIRR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.36-0.89]) and male c

138 In MSM, history of inconsistent condom use (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.09; 95% CI, 1.

139 [AHR] = 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0), inconsistent condom use (AHR = 1.9; 95% CI, 1.0-3.3), and being non-A

140 or erectile dysfunction (p<0.0001), and 100% condom use (p<0.0001) increased over time, whereas the p

141 Condom use after male circumcision is essential for HIV

142 t with self-reported increases in consistent condom use after the implementation of Avahan or with a

143 ct HSV-2 transmission rates with and without condom use among 911 African HSV-2 and human immunodefic

144 per-bound risk may be unfeasible due to high condom use among HIV-serodiscordant couples in most rese

145 in premarital sex, multiple partnership and condom use among young people (15-24 years) in Zambia fr

146 However, condom use among young people has remained low and stabl

147 We investigated self-reported frequency of condom use and detection of genital HPV among men.

148 terventions is needed for further increasing condom use and for reversing the rising trend of HIV epi

149 ogram (China Global Fund Round 5 Project) on condom use and HIV infection, we analyzed four yearly cr

150 indicate that similar factors influence the condom use and HIV testing of MSM in Beirut as those obs

151 to examine associations between frequency of condom use and HPV detection.

152 Reported associations of condom use and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection have

153 Reported associations between condom use and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in m

154 h hunger was associated with reduced odds of condom use and increased odds of itchy vaginal discharge

155 Changes in the rates of condom use and number of sexual partners were evaluated

156 By key population, condom use and recent experiences of stigma and violence

157 Prevention will be modeled via consistent condom use and self-awareness via STD testing frequency.

158 regular virological monitoring, reporting on condom use and sexual activity.

159 ) and consistent (40.4% to 48.8%, p < 0.001) condom use as well as condom use during commercial anal

160 s reports and of increased HIV knowledge and condom use at last intercourse among women.

161 women's UBL significantly increased reported condom use at last intercourse.

162 sexual IPV, comprehensive HIV knowledge, and condom use at last intercourse.

163 Self-reported condom use at last sex with a male partner increased fro

164 ns was an independent predictor of increased condom use at last sex with a male partner over time (ad

165 s ratio [AOR] = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48-0.92) and condom use at last sexual intercourse (AOR = 0.75; 95% C

166 lnerable groups for STDs show differences in condom use behaviors (CUBs) depending on their STD infec

167 se of hormonal creams, alcohol drinking, and condom use by a sexual partner.

168 Similar increases were observed for condom use by all partner types.

169 n sexual positioning in anal intercourse and condom use by partner type and fitted the model to HIV s

170 significantly lower likelihood of consistent condom use by rural venue-based FSWs (adjusted OR: 0.34

171 pared self-reports of recent vaginal sex and condom use collected through ACASI or face-to-face inter

172 rust, commitment and intimacy play a role in condom use decisions.

173 As PrEP implementation expands and condom use declines, routine HCV counseling and screenin

174 umcision (VMMC) and for partner reduction or condom use driven by HIV testing and counselling (HTC).

175 P = .045), recent anal sex (P = .04), and no condom use during anal sex (P = .04) were associated wit

176 % to 48.8%, p < 0.001) condom use as well as condom use during commercial anal sex (46.5% to 55.0%, p

177 Condom use during last oral or anal sex was relatively u

178 Additionally, reports of condom use during last sexual intercourse showed a non-s

179 of adult males circumcised, the frequency of condom use during sex acts, acceptance of HIV testing, l

180 er number of new sex partners (P = .024) and condom use during vaginal sex (P = .003) were associated

181 egarding number of partners and frequency of condom use during vaginal sex in the past 3 months (5 ca

182 A 25-percentage-point drop in condom use from the 2015 levels among FSW and MSM would

183 ts, the evidence was weaker, with consistent condom use generally already high before Avahan began.

184 uch communication to youth contraceptive and condom use has not been empirically synthesized.

185 ted in 62% lower incidence; cessation of all condom use in 2000 resulted in a 424% increase in incide

186 s among PrEP users and reported decreases in condom use in a subset, there were no new HIV infections

187 tween SES and HIV/AIDS-related knowledge and condom use in sub-Saharan Africa in terms of communicati

188 associated with a reduced odds of consistent condom use in the past 12 mo (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]

189 poor predictor of recent sexual activity and condom use in this study, regardless of interview mode,

190 ult in more risky sexual behaviors, reported condom use increased and number of partners decreased.

191 r with a counterfactual (assuming consistent condom use increased at slower, pre-Avahan rates) using

192 The finding that condom use limited onward spread to future partners is i

193 Observed differences in condom use may reflect motivations to use condoms for ba

194 Significant decreases in condom use occurred in both male circumcision acceptors

195 eterosexual anal and oral sex and associated condom use on a more frequent basis.

196 refore, we examined the effect of consistent condom use on genital HPV acquisition and duration of in

197 Effects did not differ for contraceptive vs condom use or among longitudinal vs cross-sectional stud

198 ting testing and treatment, without changing condom use or circumcision rates, resulted in an 89% red

199 e reductions in partner numbers or increased condom use or should not be considered as contributing t

200 change over time was reported in consistent condom use or the number of sexual partners in the last

201 rotective against HSV-2 transmission by sex; condom use reduced per-act risk of transmission from men

202 Self-reported condom use reduced the per-act risk by 78% (RR = 0.22 [9

203 Increased condom use should be promoted to avoid the erosion of th

204 Client requests for condom use significantly predicted protected sex (P < .0

205 e large self-reported increase in consistent condom use since Avahan implementation.

206 ar need exists to incorporate messages about condom use specifically for sexually transmitted infecti

207 unprotected sex threaten the high levels of condom use that contributed to the decline in Zimbabwe's

208 ch incorporated the higher rates of reported condom use that we found with non-cohabiting partners, w

209 HIV/AIDS-related knowledge and the degree of condom use varies by socioeconomic status (SES).

210 ysis shows that the likelihood of consistent condom use was higher among urban venue-based FSWs for w

211 Condom use was higher for men who have sex with men (MSM

212 x were associated with greater STI risk, but condom use was not.

213 urse during menses in the previous 6 months; condom use was protective.

214 Consistent condom use was strongly associated with lower HPV preval

215 ll and at each anatomic site by frequency of condom use were calculated.

216 FSW who reported more frequent condom use were more likely to be infected with M. genit

217 However, the magnitudes of decrease in condom use were not significantly different between the

218 No protective effects of condom use were observed among monogamous men.

219 No significant differences in condom use were observed between LARC users and Depo-Pro

220 elationship between sexual risk behavior and condom use when they had experience of STD infection.

221 infections, and with increases in consistent condom use with all clients.

222 we considered were 15% relative increase in condom use with clients and 10% relative increase with s

223 last 7 days, with high levels of consistent condom use with clients and low use with steady partners

224 mbining the four interventions of increasing condom use with clients and stable partners, extending A

225 and depression, depression and inconsistent condom use with clients, and depression and HIV infectio

226 potential side effects, the need to combine condom use with PrEP, and for regular HIV testing.

227 e among FSW-IDUs, and had no effect on FSWs' condom use with their noncommercial partners.

228 partners' reports of number of sex acts and condom use with their study partner.

229 Risk reduction strategies included condom use within partnerships and/or with other partner

230 gh its immediate and sustained effect on non-condom use) among FSWs and their clients in the next dec

231 es among non-adherers (over 80% reduction in condom use) and a low PrEP conditional efficacy (40%) wo

232 d by other behavior changes (e.g., increased condom use) in HIV status aware serodiscordant partnersh

233 lf-reported behavioral change (eg, increased condom use) that reduce STI risk (OR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.10

234 C (a reduction in the per-act probability of condom use), and the STI screening interval.

235 , the low levels of condom use (20%-54% ever condom use), the high levels of having sex with sex work

236 transmitted infection symptoms, inconsistent condom use, acceptance of more money for sex without a c

237 targets) with differing combinations of male condom use, adult male circumcision, HIV testing, and ea

238 es different types of sex acts, incorporates condom use, and distinguishes between regular and casual

239 osttreatment sexual partner and inconsistent condom use, and halved with use of estrogen-containing c

240 of sexual partners, partner characteristics, condom use, and history of sexually transmitted infectio

241 se disorders and violence, alcohol/drug use, condom use, and HIV/sexually transmitted infection (STI)

242 uilding on the backbone of behaviour change, condom use, and medical male circumcision, as well as ex

243 rates, innovative interventions to increase condom use, and reduced PrEP costs will be key to achiev

244 Differences in STI diagnoses, self-reported condom use, and self-reported unprotected sex at 3 month

245 completed questionnaires on sexual history, condom use, and sociodemographic characteristics.

246 ished data for HIV prevalence and incidence, condom use, and structural determinants among this group

247 least one of: HIV incidence, HIV prevalence, condom use, and uptake of HIV testing.

248 transmission were plasma HIV-1 RNA level and condom use, and, in HIV-1-uninfected partners, herpes si

249 of PrEP is reduced if those on PrEP decrease condom use, but only extreme behaviour changes among non

250 Self-reported outcomes were (a) consistent condom use, defined as using a condom at each occasion o

251 n in number of sexual partners, increases in condom use, etc) that are achieved by use of multilevel

252 ronment where clients' preferences determine condom use, FSWs effectively use their individual capita

253 , together with other interventions, such as condom use, it can serve as a strong weapon to fight aga

254 ated promising findings - such as consistent condom use, less impaired sex, and less unprotected vagi

255 ntercourse in the previous 12 mo; (b) recent condom use, less stringently defined as using a condom w

256 cale-up of existing interventions (promoting condom use, male circumcision, early antiretroviral ther

257 ions against gonorrhoea, including increased condom use, more frequent screening and immunisation, co

258 For multiple partnerships and condom use, the explained variance was 29 and 18% in 200

259 intercourse together with a 33% decrease in condom use, the resulting preventive effect was 47% (95%

260 tal status, age, number of sex partners, and condom use.

261 individual capital to negotiate the terms of condom use.

262 ected sex could help maintain high levels of condom use.

263 ensive sexuality education including regular condom use.

264 en SES, media use, HIV-related outcomes, and condom use.

265 ely to cleanse after sex if they reported no condom use.

266 V/AIDS and are significantly associated with condom use.

267 01) after adjusting for age, HIV status, and condom use.

268 roup to assess independent associations with condom use.

269 onship between high-risk sexual behavior and condom use.

270 ssociated with low premarital sex and higher condom use.

271 , sexual beliefs, sexual risk behaviors, and condom use.

272 tios (PRs) for HPV according to frequency of condom use.

273 by age, duration of sexual relationship, and condom use.

274 x partner-specific coitus and event-specific condom use.

275 f sexual partners, past use of hormones, and condom use.

276 ntinuation, treatment failure, and levels of condom use.

277 ge, human immunodeficiency virus status, and condom use.

278 increases in sexual contact and declines in condom use.

279 artner numbers and 12.8% reporting increased condom use.

280 should be counseled on sexual abstinence and condom use.

281 Sustaining the high condom-use levels among key populations should remain an

282 doms, and its associations with always using condoms varied among countries.

283 Always using condoms (vs using them less frequently) was associated w

284 porting receptive anal intercourse without a condom was 64% (prevalence 60%).

285 e adjusted PR for always vs not always using condoms was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], .77-.97)

286 We found that condoms were differentially protective against HSV-2 tra

287 Condoms were more likely to be used with casual partners

288 th one or both partners, and in one-quarter, condoms were never used with either partner.

289 d ability to convince sexual partners to use condoms were significantly higher for sexually active ma

290 %) of 45 who tested HIV-positive (p<0.0001); condoms were used in all eight intercourse events after

291 In over half of the gaps, condoms were used inconsistently with one or both partne

292 as drug use, sexual practices, and how often condoms were used.

293 mbers of partners, especially without use of condoms, were risk factors.

294 ey were infected with STDs, FSWs always used condom when they had high sexual beliefs.

295 PAF for receptive anal intercourse without a condom with an HIV-positive partner was 1% (prevalence 1

296 me from receptive anal intercourse without a condom with partners with unknown serostatus (PAF 53%, p

297 dom use, less stringently defined as using a condom with the most recent sexual partner; and (c) itch

298 Many described not using condoms with a regular partner in the context of a meani

299 gher among nonmonogamous men who always used condoms with nonsteady sex partners, compared with men w

300 Dyads that always used condoms with previous partner(s) were 27% (95% confidenc

301 rol device, or the Woman's, VA wow, or Cupid condoms, with 12 potential allocations.