| Title |
Trends in Inequalities in the Use of Condom by Urban Teenagers in Spain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Urban Health, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11524-015-9985-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laia Alvarez-Bruned, Xavier Garcia-Continente, Mercè Gotsens, Anna Pérez, Gloria Pérez |
| Abstract |
Social and economic inequalities in condom use by adolescents have been reported previously. Also, condom use has declined during the last decade. The aim of the study was to describe trends in the use of condoms in our setting, and how these trends may differ between socioeconomic groups in boys, and separately in girls, aged 17-19 years attending school in Barcelona between 2004 and 2012. We analyzed data from three annual surveys on risk factors in secondary students, which included a representative sample of the city's population; individuals who had previously had sexual intercourse (n = 1570) were included in the study. We calculated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) and their confidence intervals (95 % CI) using robust Poisson regression models. The prevalence of condom use among boys was 87.0 % in 2004 and 76.2 % in 2012, and 76.7 and 64.7 % among girls, respectively. This decrease was greater in adolescents with a low socioeconomic level, both in boys (aPR = 0.80) and girls (aPR = 0.84). The observed increase of socioeconomic inequalities in condom use in adolescents highlights a possible deterioration in good sexual practices and policies during the studied period. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 9 | 64% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 86% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 20% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 18 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 December 2015.
All research outputs
#2,998,255
of 24,987,787 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Urban Health
#358
of 1,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,448
of 274,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Urban Health
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,987,787 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,365 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,990 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.