21. Ott MA mais aussi al., This new exchange-out of between hormonal contraceptives and you will condoms among adolescents, Viewpoints with the Sexual and Reproductive Wellness, 2002, 34(1):6–fourteen.
twenty-two. Wilson EK and Koo Hp, Associations ranging from reasonable-money ladies’ matchmaking qualities in addition to their birth prevention use, Views into Sexual and you can Reproductive Health, 2008, 40(3):171–179.
23. Aalsma MC mais aussi al., Family relations and you can friend closeness in order to adolescent sexual people for the link to condom have fun with, Log of Adolescent Health, 2006, 38(3):173–178.
24. Sayegh MA ainsi que al., The fresh developmental association from matchmaking high quality, hormonal contraception solutions and you will condom low-fool around with among adolescent feminine, Log out-of Adolescent Health, 2006, 39(3):388–395.
twenty five. Umphrey L and Sherblom J, Relational connection and you may dangers so you can matchmaking restoration requirements: influences to your condom fool around with, Diary regarding Western College or university Wellness, 2007, 56(1):61–68.
27. Manning WD mais aussi al., Younger adult dating relationships therefore the handling of sexual exposure, People Research and Policy Remark, 2012, 31(2):165–185.
28. Manlove J mais aussi al., Teen mothers inside foster care and attention: chance issues and outcomes for youthfulness in addition to https://kissbridesdate.com/hot-colombian-women/ their college students, Browse Temporary, Arizona, DC: Youngster Styles, 2011.
31. DiClemente RJ et al., Sexual chance practices of that have old sex lovers: a study of black teenage ladies, Sexually Carried Problems 2002, 29(1):20–24.
32. Fortenberry JD ainsi que al., Condom use while the a purpose of amount of time in the new and you may founded adolescent sexual dating, Western Record out of Societal Fitness, 2002, 92(2):211–213.
33. Manlove JS, Ryan S and you will Franzetta K, Chance and you will defensive factors of this transition to help you a primary sexual relationship with an adult mate, Journal away from Adolescent Fitness, 2007, 40(2):135–143.
34. Manlove J, Ryan S and you may Franzetta K, Birth prevention use models all over teens’ sexual dating, papers exhibited at annual meeting of your Inhabitants Organization from The united states, Philadelphia, .
35. Manning WD, Giordano Pc and you may Longmore MA, Connecting: the partnership contexts regarding “nonrelationship” sex, Log away from Teenage Lookup, 2006, 21(5):459–483.
thirty-six. Carlson MJ and Furstenberg FF, Jr, The effects away from multi-partnered fertility to possess parental tips and you can matchmaking, papers displayed within annual conference of one’s Organization getting Personal Coverage Studies and you may Management, Washington, DC, .
37. Lichter DT and you may Graefe DR, Looking a pal? The relationship and you may cohabitation records off unwed mothers, in: Wu LL and you can Wolfe B, eds., Away from Wedlock: Factors and you will Consequences out of Nonmarital Fertility, Nyc: Russell Sage Basis, 2001, pp. 317–343.
40. Kirby D, Emerging Answers 2007: Look Results into Applications to minimize Teen Maternity and you will Sexually Carried Illness, Washington, DC: National Strategy to get rid of Teenager and you will Unexpected Maternity, 2007.
41. Kirby D, The latest feeling from applications to boost contraceptive play with certainly adult women: a peek at fresh and you can quasi-experimental studies, Perspectives on the Sexual and you may Reproductive Wellness, 2008, 40(1):34–41.
Author’s Affiliations
Jennifer Manlove try program urban area director and elderly browse scientist, Kate Welti is lookup scientist, Age Wildsmith is actually older research scientist and Megan Barry is research specialist, the from the Youngster Trends, Bethesda, MD.
Records
In the first data, that used a neighbor hood-city decide to try from teens in the Ohio, Manning and colleagues 9 grouped relationships qualities with the one list out-of positive services (particularly personal worry about-revelation, romantic like and you will dating salience) and one list regarding bad attributes (such disagreement and you will nonexclusivity). They learned that highest scores to your possibly directory have been regarding the quicker condom texture. Descriptive analyses including ideal one to a combination of high self-confident and you will higher negative results try of this reduced condom surface.
Inside the per round, players was indeed requested “Once the date out-of past interviews, are you currently in the a dating matchmaking the place you envision of on your own included in a few?” I felt participants to be in an internet dating matchmaking once they responded sure of course, if the latest companion try a recent dating mate, unlike a wife, cohabiting companion or previous mate. Same-sex relationship matchmaking and the ones where in fact the respondent had previously cohabited into the partner had been excluded. Total, cuatro,013 participants stated a recently available dating dating throughout 2002–2005. Of the remaining participants, 553 weren’t regarding try for the cycles interesting, 1,876 were cohabiting otherwise hitched, and you can 2,542 didn’t come with newest matchmaking relationship. Participants within take to had been old 18–twenty-six.
Dating connection was according to one or two strategies. The initial try good 0–10 level in which respondents rated the likelihood which they and their companion might be to each other from inside the 6 months. A rating out-of zero expressed absolutely no way; an excellent ten conveyed 100% possibilities. I classified it probability due to the fact reasonable (lower than 6), medium (6–9) or highest (10). With the next way of measuring partnership, i integrated a varying having if the few had talked about wedding or cohabitation; responses was categorized due to the fact talked about neither, discussed cohabitation otherwise discussed relationship. (Respondents who advertised with chatted about one another cohabitation and you will marriage was indeed included regarding the relationship category.)
Heterogeneous birth prevention outcomes contained in this long term relationship also may help define all the way down contraception surface during the prolonged teenage dating, despite greater odds of ever before-entry to contraceptives. 32, 33 Previous research has interpreted it shopping for from the positing one couples are willing to sporadically go without birth-control use in more serious relationships; thirty-two, 34 not, the performance advise that reduced contraceptive fool around with may be focused for the long-er label matchmaking characterized by highest disagreement minimizing connection.
Acknowledgments
20. Ku L, Sonenstein Fl and Pleck JH, The latest personality out of more youthful men’s room condom use during and you may round the relationship, Friends Believed Views, 1994, 26(6):246–251.