The data we use in this paper come from the
Hartford, CT component of the larger study using
the first two of seven research methods from a 5-
year qualitative and quantitative study of communication
and negotiation about barrier contraceptive
use for STD and pregnancy prevention among
low income, inner city African American and Puerto
Rican self-identified heterosexual young adults (age
18–25) in Hartford and Philadelphia. The major
goal of this project is to understand strategies and
patterns of communication and negotiation surrounding
condom and other barrier contraceptive
use in these sexually active at-risk populations. The
study weaves together a variety of qualitative and
quantitative methods, including focus group discussions,
systematic cultural assessment techniques
(Bernard, 2001), in-depth individual sexual and
romantic life history interviews, sexual behavior
diaries, scenario drama discussions, and structured
interviews staged over 4 years of data collection
(2004–2008). The aim of this design is to collect a
variety of data that will be triangulated to yield a
detailed and contextualized understanding of sexual
and romantic relationships in light of social and
cultural factors, and to use these data to inform the
development of targeted risk-reduction strategies.
Participants for all methods are recruited through
street outreach at two kinds of venues: general
street settings and specialized activity sites. The first
of these includes places with heavy pedestrian
traffic in areas identified through prior research.
The latter refers to the local community college,adult education centers, youth and young adult
programs, and park and recreation sites. To recruit
participants, project outreach workers approach
individuals who appear to meet inclusion criteria
and engage them in conversation about the goals of
the project, screen for inclusion criteria, and invite
participation.
In this paper, we use data from the first two
methods: focus group discussions (FGDs) and indepth,
individual sexual and romantic life histories
(SRIs). These two methods elicited data on the
socio-cultural context of relationships, the local
terms used by participants in discussing sexual and
romantic relationships and sexual behavior (FGDs),
and the natural history of sexual and romantic
relationships (SRIs). Participants in the FGDs were
allowed to participate in the SRIs, as the former
method collected group-level and the latter collected
individual-level data. Eight percent of SRI participants
were also FGD participants. While we will
report some difference across gender, for the issues
of concern to this analysis ethnicity did not appear
to be a significant factor.
The FGDs included free listing and ranking of
salient terms and a guided discussion surrounding
six domains of interest: (1) types of sexual and
romantic relationships; (2) types of sexual behavior
and understandings/thoughts/ideas about monogamy
and abstinence; (3) understanding of birth
control methods, condoms, and safer sex; (4) factors
considered when contemplating initiation of a new
sexual relationship; (5) the physical and emotional
risks of involvement in heterosexual relationships;
and (6) the socio-cultural and economic factors that
affect sexual and reproductive behavior. In Hartford,
eight FGDs were convened with African
American and Puerto Rican males and females
(i.e., two groups within each ethnic/gender group of
interest). A total of 61 people participated in the
eight, 5–6 h FGDs. Unusually long FGDs were used
as a means of gathering rich data that would assist
in the development of subsequent methods such as
the SRIs. Participants received $60 for their time.1
The SRIs were open-ended interviews with 60
individuals at each site (i.e., 15 each African
America and Puerto Rican males and females).
Interviewers used a written guide to elicit a detailed
history of each respondent’s self-determined most
important romantic and sexual relationships. The
goal was not to obtain data about contraceptive
use/risk reduction strategies in the past, but rather
to understand the range of sexual and romantic
relationships that are meaningful to inner city
young adults and the patterning of entry into and
exiting relationships over time as well as a general
sense of risk prevention behaviors. The SRI interviews
lasted about 2 h and participants were paid
$30.
In many ways, the in-depth, personal SRI interviews
provided a counterpoint to the FGDs in that
they elicited information about relationships (from
purely sexual to committed) and their personal,
emotional meaning to the participant. While the
FGDs provided a ‘‘universe’’ of relationship types
and sexual behaviors in which participants engage,
as well as what they think about and how they
decide about potential relationships, the SRIs
provided knowledge of what is important with
respect to feelings and emotional attachment in
relationships at the individual level. Together, these
methods provide an emic or insider view of sexual
and romantic relationships.
Each participant also completed a form that
collected basic demographic information. Table 1
provides the sociodemographic characteristics of the
study participants for the focus groups and sexual
and romantic history interviews in Hartford.
The research protocol for all methods in the study
was approved by the Institutional Review Boards
(IRB) at the CDC, the University of Connecticut, the
Hispanic Health Council in Hartford, and the Family
Planning Council of Philadelphia. Written informed
consent was obtained from each participant.
Participants in the two samples were quite similar
across all of the characteristics reported in Table 1.
The mean age of participants was just slightly over
20 years. While a majority of the individuals in both
groups had graduated from high school, a sizeable
percent in each group (40%) had dropped out of
high school or earlier. While very few of the participants in either group had ever been married,
over 40% of both groups had children. Large
percentages of both groups continued to live with
parents. The majority of participants in both groups
had been employed at least some of the time during
the last 6 months; however, only a minority was
employed at the time of their interview.
The data we use in this paper come from theHartford, CT component of the larger study usingthe first two of seven research methods from a 5-year qualitative and quantitative study of communicationand negotiation about barrier contraceptiveuse for STD and pregnancy prevention amonglow income, inner city African American and PuertoRican self-identified heterosexual young adults (age18–25) in Hartford and Philadelphia. The majorgoal of this project is to understand strategies andpatterns of communication and negotiation surroundingcondom and other barrier contraceptiveuse in these sexually active at-risk populations. Thestudy weaves together a variety of qualitative andquantitative methods, including focus group discussions,systematic cultural assessment techniques(Bernard, 2001), in-depth individual sexual andromantic life history interviews, sexual behaviordiaries, scenario drama discussions, and structuredinterviews staged over 4 years of data collection(2004–2008). The aim of this design is to collect avariety of data that will be triangulated to yield adetailed and contextualized understanding of sexualand romantic relationships in light of social andcultural factors, and to use these data to inform thedevelopment of targeted risk-reduction strategies.Participants for all methods are recruited throughstreet outreach at two kinds of venues: generalstreet settings and specialized activity sites. The firstof these includes places with heavy pedestriantraffic in areas identified through prior research.The latter refers to the local community college,adult education centers, youth and young adultprograms, and park and recreation sites. To recruitparticipants, project outreach workers approachindividuals who appear to meet inclusion criteriaand engage them in conversation about the goals ofthe project, screen for inclusion criteria, and inviteparticipation.In this paper, we use data from the first twomethods: focus group discussions (FGDs) and indepth,individual sexual and romantic life histories(SRIs). These two methods elicited data on thesocio-cultural context of relationships, the localterms used by participants in discussing sexual andromantic relationships and sexual behavior (FGDs),and the natural history of sexual and romanticrelationships (SRIs). Participants in the FGDs wereallowed to participate in the SRIs, as the formermethod collected group-level and the latter collectedindividual-level data. Eight percent of SRI participantswere also FGD participants. While we willreport some difference across gender, for the issuesof concern to this analysis ethnicity did not appearto be a significant factor.The FGDs included free listing and ranking ofsalient terms and a guided discussion surroundingsix domains of interest: (1) types of sexual andromantic relationships; (2) types of sexual behaviorand understandings/thoughts/ideas about monogamy
and abstinence; (3) understanding of birth
control methods, condoms, and safer sex; (4) factors
considered when contemplating initiation of a new
sexual relationship; (5) the physical and emotional
risks of involvement in heterosexual relationships;
and (6) the socio-cultural and economic factors that
affect sexual and reproductive behavior. In Hartford,
eight FGDs were convened with African
American and Puerto Rican males and females
(i.e., two groups within each ethnic/gender group of
interest). A total of 61 people participated in the
eight, 5–6 h FGDs. Unusually long FGDs were used
as a means of gathering rich data that would assist
in the development of subsequent methods such as
the SRIs. Participants received $60 for their time.1
The SRIs were open-ended interviews with 60
individuals at each site (i.e., 15 each African
America and Puerto Rican males and females).
Interviewers used a written guide to elicit a detailed
history of each respondent’s self-determined most
important romantic and sexual relationships. The
goal was not to obtain data about contraceptive
use/risk reduction strategies in the past, but rather
to understand the range of sexual and romantic
relationships that are meaningful to inner city
young adults and the patterning of entry into and
exiting relationships over time as well as a general
sense of risk prevention behaviors. The SRI interviews
lasted about 2 h and participants were paid
$30.
In many ways, the in-depth, personal SRI interviews
provided a counterpoint to the FGDs in that
they elicited information about relationships (from
purely sexual to committed) and their personal,
emotional meaning to the participant. While the
FGDs provided a ‘‘universe’’ of relationship types
and sexual behaviors in which participants engage,
as well as what they think about and how they
decide about potential relationships, the SRIs
provided knowledge of what is important with
respect to feelings and emotional attachment in
relationships at the individual level. Together, these
methods provide an emic or insider view of sexual
and romantic relationships.
Each participant also completed a form that
collected basic demographic information. Table 1
provides the sociodemographic characteristics of the
study participants for the focus groups and sexual
and romantic history interviews in Hartford.
The research protocol for all methods in the study
was approved by the Institutional Review Boards
(IRB) at the CDC, the University of Connecticut, the
Hispanic Health Council in Hartford, and the Family
Planning Council of Philadelphia. Written informed
consent was obtained from each participant.
Participants in the two samples were quite similar
across all of the characteristics reported in Table 1.
The mean age of participants was just slightly over
20 years. While a majority of the individuals in both
groups had graduated from high school, a sizeable
percent in each group (40%) had dropped out of
high school or earlier. While very few of the participants in either group had ever been married,
over 40% of both groups had children. Large
percentages of both groups continued to live with
parents. The majority of participants in both groups
had been employed at least some of the time during
the last 6 months; however, only a minority was
employed at the time of their interview.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..