Sexual
Health on College Campuses:
First-Year
College Students Perceptions of Condoms Provided in Dormitories
Klaire
W. Harris
University
of Iowa
Abstract
Sexual health is not
usually the most funded or looked after aspect of a university or college, but
it has been studied around the country. There have not, however, been many
studies on the perceptions and effect on first-year students in particular. In
this research, there was a seven question survey that looks into students’
comfortability, personal impact, and their idea on overall well-being. We found
that the students never found the information harmful to them or their peers,
but the condom distribution program sometimes had no effect, but was mostly beneficial.
Introduction
College campuses offer an extensive list of opportunities
for their students. Sexual health, however, is not usually what the general
population looks to check at a university, but it remains a crucial aspect of
the health of the attending students. Sex has been a topic of research for
thousands of years, and even though many details have been investigated, there
is more data to be found on the climate of sexual health on college campuses.
Research on health resources has found a variance on what
is accessible on different college campuses. Data from multiple studies shows “traditional”
services such as STI (sexually transmitted infection) testing and treatment are
consistently common, but forms beyond a clinical interaction- peer education
programs, barrier education, and condom distribution are not quite as
prevalent; they, however, are effective and on the rise (Butler et al.,
Eisenberg et al.). Condoms, when used properly, significantly assist in the
prevention of STI transmission, reducing the need for the secondary and
tertiary clinical services.
Condom distribution at universities has also been a
common topic among researchers of sexual health. Sexual activity is
particularly high among secondary-education populations, and condoms are one of
the cheapest and simplest methods of protection during intercourse. Sources
that have conducted research on this topic have found that most colleges and
universities are implementing distribution programs for condoms, whether to
protect from STIs, HIV/AIDS, or as a general concern for healthy and safe
sexual behavior (Butler et al., Eisenberg et al., Horn and Brigham, Trojan
Brands).
Researchers have also found it beneficial to include the
opinions of the general population of students attending the universities
studied. Eisenberg et al. and Horn and Brigham chose to interview students of
both two and four-year universities for their thoughts, finding that most found
the sexual health services offered were positives aspects of their campus
(Eisenberg et al., Eisenberg et al.). These studies, however, provided little expanded
detail into why students believed the available services were thought to be
positive.
Plenty of research was been conducted about resources for
sexual health, condom distribution, and even the opinions of general students
attending different style colleges. There has not, however, been enough data
reported on first-year students’ perception of provided condoms. This research
explored whether this population, in particular, has found that condom
distribution within dorms has improved their sexual safety- by increasing use
of the barrier- or if the open accessibility has made students more comfortable
around this type of contraceptive. The anonymous survey conducted asked
first-year students specifically about their thoughts regarding this topic.
Methods
Participants
This survey was completed by thirty first-year college
students at the University of Iowa. The participants were studying various
majors including biomedical science, biochemistry, political science, education,
business, psychology, as well as those undecided and many others across the
spectrum of fields. The survey respondents came from differing backgrounds and
home locations as well- Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Colorado, and even two
international students from New Zealand and Amsterdam. They were all part of a “New Student Housing”
LLC, or living learning community, in Catlett hall, floors five and six. This
type of LLC was more likely to have a diverse population of personalities and
opinions than a sample of an interest-specific LLC would.
Procedures
This research was obtained through the collection of data
by survey. The survey was handed out on a sheet of paper, one per person, that
clearly stated the purpose of the research and an assurance of anonymity. See
appendix one for an example of the exact survey taken by the students. It was seven
questions long, mostly yes or no answer choices, with some a variation of the
like. One had three other answer choices, and the last question was a write-in
follow up question to the one preceded it.
Data Analysis
Data from the
survey was sorted out and compared. Each question was analyzed to provide a
valid observation of a prominent answer chosen by the students. The amount of
people who answered each question was converted into a percentage for better data
comparison. It was crucial to find similarities between the responses given for
the write-in question in order to categorize and compare opinions of the
students. The opportunity to have the students provide their own answers for
that question allowed aspects students thought important to this topic, but possibly
not covered in the survey questions, to be addressed.
Results
The
data from the survey was sorted into three groups- comfortability, personal
sexual health impact, and thoughts on overall effect of dorm distribution on
the campus’s well-being. These results were drawn from firsthand experiences of
the survey participants in order to gain a greater understanding of first-year
students’ perceptions of condoms in the dormitories. For references to the
questions of the survey, see Appendix for exact format.
Comfortability
Condom
distribution occurs more often on college campuses than high school campuses.
Because of this, students may not be used to the presence of the contraceptive,
let alone such a blatant accessibility, creating a possible new atmosphere. Therefore,
results from the survey were analyzed for comfortability as a critical aspect
of first-year students’ perspectives. Conclusions of comfortability were drawn
from questions one and five.
 |
Figure
1.1: Responses based on previous personal comfort with dormitory condom
distribution- question 1. Percentages are converted from the amount of people
responding with that answer out of 30.
This
was the first question on the survey. Almost one-third of the participants
answered
that no, they were not surprised
by the condom distribution in dormitories. A feeling of surprise could suggest
that the participant was less comfortable around condoms at least at the
beginning of the adjustment to the new environment. While completing the
survey, one participant mentioned that her older sibling told her that there
would be condoms in the hallways, but it still felt different for the
respondent. Lack of surprise, to address the other side, may indicate an experience
around condoms or a previous knowledge of what the new environment would be
like, which may suggest comfortability.
Figure
1.2: Responses based on present personal comfort with the dormitory condom
distribution – question 5. Percentages calculated the same.
Results from question five indicate that very few of the
surveyed population feel uncomfortable by the blatant distribution of condoms
in a location so intrinsic to their day-to-day lives. A slight majority, 53.3%,
found their comfort level unaffected by the location and accessibility of these
condoms, but according to the data, a very similar number of respondents, 40%,
reported that they do, in fact, feel more comfortable around condoms after
living with this form of distribution. Self-efficacy can be achieved or
strengthened by a sense of comfortability. With a sense of self-efficacy, there
will usually follow an increase of approaching the use of various things,
including condoms, in a healthy manner. The next focus will analyze the data
for that purpose.
Personal
Impact
A condom
distribution program is not effective if it is not able to successfully promote
healthy sexual behavior. Questions two, three, and four each asked the
participant about the effect of the condom accessibility on their own sexual
health choices in order to find if the program is effective in these students’
lives.
The results of question two were a surprise. This
question asked if the respondent has grabbed at least one condom from a supply
displayed on campus. Answer choices were only “Yes” and “No,” and the outcome
was completely split, 50% for each response. “Yes” responses were expected to
be in the majority, but that turns out not to be the case. That was the
hypothesis based on how quickly the provided condoms are taken. A personal
interview would have possibly opened a conversation as to why it is only half,
but conceivable reasons are a lack of necessity, the stigma of being seen
grabbing one, or that the individuals who did take, did not leave any for
others.
Questions three and four were very similar, the only
difference being one is asking about condom use for vaginal or anal sex, and
the other is asking about condom use to perform oral sex.
Figure
2.1: Responses based on likelihood of condom use for vaginal/anal sex since they
are supplied and free on campus for student accessibility- question 3.
The data collected
from the third question was not unexpected. Even though there were some that
would not have wanted to use the provided condoms, and one that doesn’t use
condoms at all for vaginal or anal sex, almost 47% reported that they would
have gotten and used one even if they were not provided, and a close 43.3%
answered that the accessibility of condoms would make them more likely to use
them. These results may indicate that the distribution programs may not be the
primary source for contraceptives for sexually active students, but they do
positively affect almost half of students’ sexual health, as well as their bank
account.
Figure
2.2: Results based on likelihood of condom use for oral sex since they are
supplied and free on campus for student accessibility- question 4.
Even though
question three and four are set up almost the exact way- the only difference
being what type of sex- the results were immensely different. As you can see in
figures 2.1 and 2.2, the amount of people who do not use a condom grows
significantly between vaginal/anal and oral sex, with the gap at approximately
57%. In this chart, however, the next greatest is “No change- would have gotten
and used one anyway,” which received 16.7% of the answers, very different from the
question before it. This data collected from the students suggests that condom
distribution, even though it increased the likelihood of about 13% of students,
it does not have an effect on most students for oral sex.
Campus
Well-Being
If a secondary
institution is putting money into a certain program, especially for health,
they are going to wasn’t a certainty that it is going to be beneficial for
their campus. The questions and answers for the last questions, numbers six and
seven, went together to assess students’ thoughts on the overall effect of the
condom distribution program on students’ well-being.
Figure
3.1: Results based on what effect students found the condom distribution in
dorms to have on their enrolled population overall- question 6.
These results strongly demonstrate students’ approval of
the condom distribution program the University of Iowa campus has. None of the
participants thought the program to be harmful to the well-being of students,
and only one of the thirty believed it had no effect. This does not correlate
perfectly to the data from the students’ personal health impact, but it does
still make a critical point.
Question
seven did not fit the same format as the other questions, but it was an
interesting part of the research. Each person had the opportunity to write why
they believed this program has had the effect is did, in their own words. Even
though phrases were different, most commented on how the increased
accessibility results in more people using the condoms. Close after that was
the response that these provided condoms prevent the spread of STIs, and
another was that this blatant display promotes safe sex, that students will
have sex regardless, and some mentioned that the people have “no excuse” not to
use a condom since they are free and provided. The student that said the
program has no effect on students’ well-being said that there is no change
because “if they were concerned, they would get one [a condom] anyway.”
Discussion
This study
addressed the gap of research on student sexual health programs- first-year
students’ perspectives and relationship with the condom distribution in the
dormitories. This data indicates that while students may not have become
necessarily more “comfortable” around condoms, the effect on students’ personal
sexual health, as well as on the general student population of the campus, if
present, is highly thought to be beneficial.
The methods of the study were limited to a short survey,
so details of the research are not as in-depth as they could have been. It
would have been more informational to have follow-up questions behind many of
the questions, or more answer choices to be more clear and inclusive to those
that may not be sexually active or planning on it, or that do not need to use
condoms because of the genitalia involved in the sexual activities. Also,
students could have lied if they felt guilty about a certain answer.
First-year students now have a voice in the findings of
the effect of condom distribution, which has not been specifically seen or
studied much before. Since the first year is a critical turning point for many
people, they can be more highly affected and influenced by environments.
Future research could investigate further into usage
among freshmen, expanding the pool of respondents and going deeper into the
questioning.
References
Butler, S. M., Ragan, K.,
Black, D. R., Funke, B. (2014). Theoretical assessment of university
condom
distribution programs: An institutional perspective. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 17, 4-15. http://www.ejhs.org/volume17/assessment.html
Eisenberg, M. E., Garcia
C. M., Frerich, E. A., Lechner, K.E., Lust, K. A. (2012). Through
the
eyes of the student: What college students look for, find, and think about
sexual
health
resources on campus. Sexuality Research
and Social Policy, 9(4), 4-5. DOI: 10.1007/s13178-012-0087-0
Eisenberg, M. E.,
Lechner, K. E., Frerich, E. A., Lust, K. A., Garcia, C. M. (2012).
Characterizing
sexual health resources on college campuses. Journal of
Community Health, 37(5),
2-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-011-9536-6
Horn, P. A., Brigham, T.
A. (1996). A self-management approach to reducing aids risk in
sexually
active heterosexual college students. Behavior
and Social Issues, 6(1), 4-10.
(2016). 2016 Sexual health report card. Retrieved
from http://www.trojanbrands.com/en/sex-information/Sexual-Health-Report-Card
Appendix
Student Research Survey
The purpose of
this survey is to provide data on whether first year dorm residents think or
act differently about condoms after having them clearly displayed and
accessible.
Note: You will remain anonymous throughout the
survey and subsequent analysis writing- please answer honestly for accurate
data
1.
When you moved in were you surprised
to see condoms in the hallways of dorms?
a.
Yes
b.
No
2.
Have you grabbed at least one condom
from a supply displayed on campus?
a.
Yes
b.
No
a.
Yes, more likely
b.
No, I do not/would not want to use the
condoms provided in dorms
c.
No change- would have gotten and used
one anyway
d.
No change- I do not use condoms during
this sexual activity
4.
Are you more likely to use a condom
for oral sex since they are
supplied than if they were not?
a.
Yes, more likely
b.
No, I do not/would not want to use the
condoms provided in dorms
c.
No change- would have gotten and used
one anyway
d.
No change- I do not use condoms during
this sexual activity
5.
Do you feel more comfortable around
condoms since living in a space with them in the open?
a.
Yes
b.
No, I am uncomfortable
c.
No change
6.
(Fill in the blank): Having condoms
free and accessible to students is/has _______ to students’ well-being.
a.
Beneficial
b.
Harmful
c.
No effect
7.
(Write in) Referring to #6: Why?
