Differences in sexual negotiation styles and sexual self-efficacy in use of condom in university men and woman of Queretaro, Mexico, 2018

9Citations
Citations of this article
44Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To compare sexual negotiation levels and self-efficacy in male condom use in men and women. Materials and methods: Comparative crosssectional study of undergraduate students carried out during the year 2018 in a private university in the city of Queretaro, Mexico. Non-probabilistic sampling was used. Measured variables included sociodemographic characteristics, risky sexual behaviors, negotiation skills and sexual self-efficacy for condom use. The Mann Whitney U test and non-parametric variance analysis (Kruskal-Wallis) were used. Results: Overall, 270 students were enrolled; 89.6% of university students were sexually active; the mean age of sexual activity initiation was 15.41 years. The average reported number of sexual partners was 4.2. In each sexual relation, 27.8% had used a condom. Differences were found between men and women in terms of sexual negotiation styles in the avoidance (p=0.04) and accommodation (p<0.00) domains, with higher scores for men compared to women. Women scored higher for self-efficacy in condom use (p<0.001). Conclusions: The young university students interviewed engage in risky sexual activities. Women exhibit greater sexual self-efficacy as well as better skills at negotiating condom use. Strengthening public policies targeted to the student population for the prevention of risky sexual behavior is needed. Further studies on interventions aimed at building strong sexual negotiation and self-efficacy among adolescents are required.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Palacios-Delgado, J. R., & Ortego-García, N. (2020). Differences in sexual negotiation styles and sexual self-efficacy in use of condom in university men and woman of Queretaro, Mexico, 2018. Revista Colombiana de Obstetricia y Ginecologia, 71(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.18597/RCOG.3327

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free