Background Condom use is a key part of sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention for young men. Yet little is known about how younger adolescent boys initially learn about and use condoms. We examined sources of information, attitudes towards, acquisition, practice and early use of condoms among 14–16-year-old boys.
Methods Thirty 14–16-year-old boys were recruited from a teen clinic serving a community with high STI rates and were asked open-ended questions about condoms, such as, “Where did you learn about condoms?” and “In what situations would you/would you not, use condoms.” Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and coded. Qualitative analysis focused upon key concepts and shared social cognitions related to condom use.
Results Both sexually inexperienced and experienced participants perceived that sex feels or would feel less pleasurable with condoms. For almost all participants, families were the primary source of both information about condoms and of condoms themselves. This information focused on pregnancy prevention, with STIs secondary. Participants' views of condoms fell into three developmental groups: not interested in condoms and equating their use with interest in sex; exploring condoms out of either curiosity or in preparation for sex; and experienced with condom use. Exploring included behaviours such as checking condoms out and trying them on.
Conclusions Our findings of existing negative perceptions of condoms, the importance of families in learning about condoms and the developmental need to test and try on condoms before use have implications for adolescent STI prevention programmes.
- sexually transmitted diseases
- sexual behaviour
- qualitative research
Statistics from Altmetric.com
An earlier version of this analysis was presented at the Society for Adolescent Medicine National Meeting, Los Angeles, California, USA, March 26, 2009.
Funding This study was funded by NIH U10 AI31494-15, NIH 1 K23 HD 049444-01A2 and the Center for Sexual Health Promotion, Indiana University. Other funders: NIH.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis–Clarian Institutional Review Board.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.