Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

NYC Condom Use and Satisfaction and Demand for Alternative Condom Products in New York City Sexually Transmitted Disease Clinics

  • Published:
Journal of Urban Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 2007, via a high-profile media campaign, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (NYC DOHMH) introduced the “NYC Condom,” the first specially packaged condom unique to a municipality. We conducted a survey to measure NYC Condom awareness of and experience with NYC Condoms and demand for alternative male condoms to be distributed by the DOHMH. Trained interviewers administered short, in-person surveys at five DOHMH-operated sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics in Spring 2008. We systematically sampled eligible patients: NYC residents aged ≥18 years waiting to see a physician. We approached 539; 532 agreed to be screened (98.7% response rate); 462 completed the survey and provided NYC zip codes. Most respondents were male (56%), non-Hispanic black (64%), aged 18–24 years (43%) or 25–44 years (45%), employed (65%), and had a high school degree/general equivalency diploma or less (53%). Of those surveyed, 86% were aware of the NYC Condom, and 81% of those who obtained the condoms used them. NYC Condom users were more likely to have four or more sexual partners in the past 12 months (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0–3.8), use condoms frequently (AOR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.3–3.6), and name an alternative condom for distribution (AOR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.3–3.9). The most frequently requested condom types respondents wanted DOHMH to provide were larger size (28%), ultra thin/extra sensitive (21%), and extra strength (16%). We found high rates of NYC Condom use. NYC Condom users reported more sexual partners than others, suggesting the condom initiative successfully reached higher-risk persons within the STD clinic population. Study results document the condom social marketing campaign’s success.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bedimo AL, Pinkerton SD, Cohen DA, et al. Condom distribution: a cost-utility analysis. Int J STD AIDS. 2002; 13: 384–392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cohen DA, Wu S, Farley TA. Comparing the cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention interventions. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004; 37: 1404–1414.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cohen DA, Farley TA, Bedimo-Etame JR, et al. Implementation of condom social marketing in Louisiana, 1993 to 1996. Am J Public Health. 1999; 89: 204–208.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Renaud T, Bocour A, Irvine M, et al. The free condom initiative: promoting condom availability and use in New York City. Public Health Rep. 2009; 124(4): 481–489.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Burke RC, Wilson J, Bernstein KT, et al. The NYC Condom: use and acceptability of New York City’s branded condom. Am J Public Health. 2009; 99(12): 2178–2180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. New York City HIV Epidemiology and Field Services Semiannual Report. 2008; 3(2): 2.

  7. Cohen D, Scribner R, Bedimo R, et al. Cost as a barrier to condom use: the evidence for condom subsidies in the United States. Am J Public Health. 1999; 89: 567–568.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Meekers D. The Implications of Free and Commercial Distribution for Condom Use: Evidence from Cameroon. Washington, DC: Population Services International; 1997. Working Paper No. 9.

  9. Agha S, Karlyn A, Meekers D. The promotion of condom use in non-regular sexual partnerships in urban Mozambique. Health Policy Plan. 2001; 16: 144–151.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ullman R, Lathrop L. Impact of free condom distribution on the use of dual protection against pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Can J Hum Sex. 1996; 5(1): 25–29.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rhodes SD, Hergenrather KC, Yee LJ, et al. Condom acquisition and preferences within a sample of sexually active gay and bisexual men in the Southern United States. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2007; 21(11): 861–869.

  12. Grady W, Klepinger D, Billy J, Tanfer K. Condom characteristics: the perceptions and preferences of men in the United States. Fam Plann Perspect. 1993; 25: 67–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Boldsen J, Jeune B, Madsen P. Aspects of comfort and safety of condom: a study of two thousand intercourses among volunteer couples. Scand J Soc Med. 1992; 20(4): 247–252.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the managers and staff at the DOHMH STD clinics for accommodating the study staff on interview days.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth M. Begier.

Additional information

This study was partly supported by an appointment to the Applied Epidemiology Fellowship Program administered by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists and funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cooperative agreement (U60/CCU007277).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burke, R.C., Wilson, J., Kowalski, A. et al. NYC Condom Use and Satisfaction and Demand for Alternative Condom Products in New York City Sexually Transmitted Disease Clinics. J Urban Health 88, 749–758 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-011-9597-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-011-9597-y

Keywords

Navigation