Purchasing condoms near a college campus: environmental barriers
Annie M. Wilson A and Melinda J. Ickes B CA Transylvania University, 300 North Broadway, Lexington, KY 40508, USA.
B Department of Kinesiology and Health Promotion, University of Kentucky, 111 Seaton Building, Lexington, KY 40506-0219, USA.
C Corresponding author. Email: Melinda.ickes@uky.edu
Sexual Health 12(1) 67-70 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH14155
Submitted: 12 August 2014 Accepted: 7 January 2015 Published: 9 February 2015
Abstract
Background: Given the propensity for college students to engage in sexual activity and the subsequent lack of consistent condom use, there is a need to determine environmental factors that may be motivating or deterring factors for college students to access condoms. This study aimed to determine the number of businesses available to purchase condoms from near a large, south-eastern college campus and investigate environmental differences between types of businesses. Methods: Environmental factors (e.g. distance from campus, barriers to purchasing, selection availability and price) were collected among businesses within a 2-mile radius of the campus. Both χ2 and ANOVA determined significant differences between types of businesses (P ≤ 0.05). Results: Forty-two businesses sold condoms, 66.7% of which were convenience-type stores. The average distance from the campus was 1.33 miles (s.d. = 0.58). The average unit price of male condoms was significantly higher in drug store/pharmacies (M = 1.68) compared with convenience-type stores (M = 1.22) and grocery stores (M = 0.97); P = 0.005. Assistance was needed to purchase condoms in 25% of businesses. Barriers to purchasing condoms were significantly higher in convenience stores/gas stations (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Environmental barriers related to purchasing condoms exist and must be considered when targeting sexual health promotion on college campuses.
Additional keywords: contraceptives, sexual health, young adult.
References
[1] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs); 2011. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/std/default.htm [verified 13 July 2013].[2] Finer LB, Zolna MR. Unintended pregnancy in the United States: incidence and disparities. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2006.
[3] American College Health Association. American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment II: Reference Group Data Report Spring; 2013. Hanover, MD: American College Health Association; 2013.
[4] Conley T, Collins B. Differences between condom users and condom nonusers in their multidimensional condom attitudes. J Appl Soc Psychol 2005; 35 603–20.
| Differences between condom users and condom nonusers in their multidimensional condom attitudes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[5] Helweg-Larsen M, Collins BE. The UCLA multidimensional condom attitudes scale: documenting the complex determinants of condom use in college students. Health Psychol 1994; 13 224–37.
| The UCLA multidimensional condom attitudes scale: documenting the complex determinants of condom use in college students.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK2czjtlaktg%3D%3D&md5=4011a9833320e1d57997901045ed0fdbCAS | 8055858PubMed |
[6] Moore S, Dahl D, Gorn G, Weinberg C. Coping with condom embarrassment. Psychol Health Med 2006; 11 70–9.
| Coping with condom embarrassment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17129896PubMed |
[7] Welch Cline RJ, McKenzie NJ. Sex differences in communication and the construction of HIV/AIDS. J Appl Commun Res 1994; 22 322–37.
| Sex differences in communication and the construction of HIV/AIDS.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Brackett K. College students’ condom purchase strategies. Soc Sci J 2004; 41 459–64.
| College students’ condom purchase strategies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[9] Scott-Sheldon LA, Glasford DE, Marsh KL, Lust LA. Barriers to condom purchasing: effects of product positioning on reactions to condoms. Soc Sci Med 2006; 63 2755–69.
| Barriers to condom purchasing: effects of product positioning on reactions to condoms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16962220PubMed |
[10] Rizkalla C, Bauman LJ, Avner JR. Structural impediments to condom access in a high HIV/STI-risk area. J Environ Public Health 2010; 2010 1–5.
| Structural impediments to condom access in a high HIV/STI-risk area.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Klein J, Rossbach C, Nijher H, Geist M, Wilson K, Cohn S, Siegel D, Weitzman M. Where do adolescents get their condoms? J Adolesc Health 2001; 29 186–93.
| Where do adolescents get their condoms?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MvotFShuw%3D%3D&md5=1c18e05e490a716d2cb990f76176707fCAS | 11524217PubMed |
[12] Dahl DW, Gorn GJ, Weinberg CB. The impact of embarrassment on condom purchase behavior. Can J Public Health 1998; 89 368–70.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK1M7isFeitw%3D%3D&md5=48355b8fef27487af2ecbc6b69c221acCAS | 9926492PubMed |
[13] Huber LR, Ersek JL. Contraceptive use among sexually active university students. J Womens Health 2009; 18 1063–70.
| Contraceptive use among sexually active university students.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] Cohen D, Scribner R, Bedimo R, Farley TA. Cost as a barrier to condom use: the evidence for condom subsidies in the United States. Am J Public Health 1999; 89 567–8.
| Cost as a barrier to condom use: the evidence for condom subsidies in the United States.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1M3gslGhug%3D%3D&md5=bde8c83048e91a5422ed2806904ce4f4CAS | 10191804PubMed |
[15] Bell J. Why embarrassment inhibits the acquisition and use of condoms: a qualitative approach to understanding risky sexual behaviour. J Adolesc 2009; 32 379–91.
| Why embarrassment inhibits the acquisition and use of condoms: a qualitative approach to understanding risky sexual behaviour.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18691747PubMed |
