21. Ott MA mais aussi al., This new trading-off between hormone contraceptives and condoms certainly one of adolescents, Point of views towards Sexual and Reproductive Wellness, 2002, 34(1):6–14.
twenty-two. Wilson EK and Koo Hp, Associations ranging from low-income women’s dating functions in addition to their contraception fool around with, Perspectives into Sexual and you can Reproductive Wellness, 2008, 40(3):171–179.
23. Aalsma MC et al., Relatives and you will friend closeness in order to adolescent sexual couples inside the link to condom have fun with, Journal off Teenage Health, 2006, 38(3):173–178.
24. Sayegh MA et al., Brand new developmental relationship out-of relationship high quality, hormonal birth-control solutions and you will condom non-explore one of adolescent women, Record off Teenage Wellness, 2006, 39(3):388–395.
twenty five. Umphrey L and you will Sherblom J, Relational relationship and dangers so you can dating maintenance desires: has an effect on towards the condom play with, Log away from American College or university Wellness, 2007, 56(1):61–68.
twenty seven. Manning WD ainsi que al., More youthful adult matchmaking relationships additionally the handling of sexual risk, Society Browse and you can Coverage Review, 2012, 31(2):165–185.
twenty-eight. Manlove J et al., Teen mothers for the foster care: risk affairs and you will outcomes for teens in addition to their people, Lookup Brief, Washington, DC: Child Styles, 2011.
30. DiClemente RJ mais aussi al., Sexual exposure practices regarding the which have earlier sex partners: an examination of black colored adolescent women, Sexually Sent Problems 2002, 29(1):20–24.
thirty-two. Fortenberry JD et al., Condom use since the a purpose of time in the brand new and you will founded adolescent sexual relationships, Western Record from Social Wellness, 2002, 92(2):211–213.
33. Manlove JS, Ryan S and you can Franzetta K, Chance and you will defensive factors of this changeover to an initial sexual reference to a mature lover, Record away from Teenage Health, 2007, 40(2):135–143.
34. Manlove J, Ryan S and you may Franzetta K, Birth control fool around with designs round the teens’ sexual relationships, papers demonstrated at yearly conference of your own People Connection of America, Philadelphia, .
thirty five. Manning WD, Giordano Desktop computer and you may Longmore MA, Hooking up: the partnership contexts out of “nonrelationship” sex, Log of Adolescent Look, 2006, 21(5):459–483.
36. Carlson MJ and you can Furstenberg FF, Jr, The results from multi-partnered fertility for parental resources and you may matchmaking, paper exhibited within yearly appointment of your own Relationship to have Social Policy Studies and Government, Washington, DC, .
37. Lichter DT and you may Graefe DR, Looking for a friend? The latest relationship and you can cohabitation records out of unwed mothers, in: Wu LL and you may Wolfe B, eds., Out of Wedlock: Causes and you can Effects away from Nonmarital Fertility, New york: Russell Sage Base, 2001, pp. 317–343.
40. Kirby D, Emerging Responses 2007: Search Conclusions on Applications to attenuate Teenager Pregnancy and you will Sexually Sent Sickness, Arizona, DC: Federal Campaign to stop Adolescent and Unexpected Pregnancy, 2007.
41. Kirby D, This new perception out of programs to increase contraceptive play with among mature women: a look at experimental and you can quasi-fresh knowledge, Point of views with the Sexual and you will Reproductive Fitness, 2008, 40(1):34–41.
Author’s Affiliations
Jennifer Manlove are system area manager and you can senior look scientist, Kate Welti was look researcher, E Wildsmith is elder look scientist and you will Megan Barry try look analyst, all of the in the Youngster Trend, Bethesda, MD.
Background
In the 1st study, which used a district-town test out of adolescents into the Kansas, Manning and you will associates 9 classified try the website dating features towards the one to directory regarding self-confident properties (particularly close mind-revelation, romantic like and you may matchmaking salience) and something directory out of bad attributes (such as for instance disagreement and you will nonexclusivity). They found that highest score to your sometimes index had been in the shorter condom consistency. Descriptive analyses along with ideal one a variety of large self-confident and higher negative results is actually for the reduced condom surface.
Inside the for each and every bullet, professionals was in fact questioned “While the time out-of last interview, have you been for the a matchmaking relationship where you consider out-of oneself within a couple of?” We experienced respondents to stay a matchmaking matchmaking if they responded sure of course new lover try a current relationships lover, in place of a partner, cohabiting partner otherwise previous mate. Same-sex dating matchmaking and those in which the respondent had in earlier times cohabited with the spouse was omitted. Complete, cuatro,013 participants said a recently available relationships matchmaking through the 2002–2005. Of your own left respondents, 553 just weren’t in the shot within the cycles interesting, step 1,876 was indeed cohabiting otherwise hitched, and 2,542 didn’t come with latest relationships relationship. Participants inside our shot had been aged 18–26.
Dating relationship is predicated on a few measures. The first try good 0–ten size in which respondents ranked the likelihood which they and its companion is together within the 6 months. A rating off no indicated not a way; a great ten expressed 100% likelihood. We classified that it probability as the lower (lower than 6), medium (6–9) or highest (10). Into second measure of commitment, we integrated a varying to have if the partners had talked about relationships or cohabitation; responses was classified due to the fact discussed neither, chatted about cohabitation or discussed marriage. (Participants just who reported having discussed each other cohabitation and you can wedding have been incorporated from the marriage class.)
Heterogeneous birth control effects within long run relationship may also be helpful establish straight down contraception texture for the expanded teenage matchmaking, even with higher probability of previously-entry to contraceptives. 32, 33 Earlier research has interpreted that it selecting by positing you to definitely partners are prepared to sometimes forgo contraceptive include in much more serious dating; thirty two, 34 but not, all of our abilities suggest that smaller contraception have fun with may be focused during the long-er name relationship characterized by large argument minimizing partnership.
Acknowledgments
20. Ku L, Sonenstein Florida and you can Pleck JH, Brand new fictional character out-of more youthful men’s condom use during the and you can round the matchmaking, Family Thought Views, 1994, 26(6):246–251.