The Challenges of Unprotected Sex: Statistical Analysis of a
Global Sex Survey
MBF Fontes1, PR Roach2
1John Hopkins School of Publich Health, Baltimore, MD, United
States, 2SSL-International, London, United Kingdom
Introduction Since the start of AIDS, studies have
questioned whether sex education should target the population or groups at risk.
A question in the Durex Global Sex Survey (DGSS) asked: “Have you ever had
unprotected sex with a sexual partner without knowing their sexual history?”
In-depth statistical analysis of this and other questions examined if there are
means of predicting what influences people to have unprotected sex and what
measures can be undertaken to combat this.
Background The DGSS was designed by SSL-International in
1996 to better understand sexual behavior globally. In 2005, 41 countries
participated with more than 317,000 responses. The survey included 31 questions
about sexuality profiles and behaviors.
Design and methods The main dependent variable is
unprotected sex. Based on different Rates of Unprotected Sex (RUS), t-tests
based on various population profiles were performed. Moreover, a MLR model shows
the different unadjusted and adjusted associations between RUS and five
independent variables: condom use; number of sexual partners (NSPs); sex
frequency; age of first sexual education; and age at first sex. Authors also
carried-out analysis of RUS statistical differences based on three country
groups.
Results and outcome NSPs, age, age at first sex, and
location are associated with RUS (p-value < 0.05). For every year delay of sex initiation, RUS reduces by 6.3%. NSPs is also a predictor of RUS. NSPs explains 63% (R2 = 0.63) of the variance of RUS. If the average NSPs
is increased by one in a country, RUS increases by 3.5%. If a country averages
10 sexual partners, RUS is expected to range between 48 and 53%. Homosexuals
reported having, on average, 21.0 partners. This fell to 14.6 and 8 for
bisexuals and heterosexuals respectively. Finally, males report having had more
sexual partners (10.2) than females (6.9). The effects of gender, sexual
orientation, and relationship status do not have a direct influence on RUS (p-value
> 0.05).
Conclusion While delaying sex initiation leads to RUS
reduction, evidence suggests that the opposite is happening. This means that
measures need to be introduced to encourage people to take responsibility for
their sexual health and use reliable methods of contraception. Results of MLR
suggest that in a given country, a 1% increase in the rate of condom use results
in 0.21% decrease in RUS. Also, results reveal differences in the average age
which people are receiving sex education globally. On average, people living in
low/low-middle income countries, are a year older (14) than people in
upper-middle income countries (13) and two years older than people in high
income countries (12) when they first receive sex education.