Back to Annual Meeting Page		American Public Health Association 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition December 10-14, 2005 Philadelphia, PA

Abstract #112592

Rosemary Diaz, BA¹, Dugeidy Ortiz, BA¹, Pamela Erickson, PhD², and Amy Cassidy³. (1) Anthropology Dept., University of Connecticut, Beach Hall, Room #432, Unit 2176, 354 Mansfield Road, Storrs, CT 06269-2176, (860) 486-4514, Rosemary.Diaz@uconn.edu, (2) Department of Anthropology, University of Conneticut, U-176, Storr, CT 06269, (3) Family Planning Council, 260 S. Broad Street, 10th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102

We discuss the fielding of data collection using focus group discussions with free listing exercises (FGDs, N=17 FGDs, 145 participants) on types of sexual and romantic relationships, sexual behaviors, and communication and decision-making about sex and relationships reported by inner city African American and Puerto Rican heterosexual young adults (18-25) in Hartford and Philadelphia. The data were collected in 17, 3-4 hour FGDs for a CDC-funded study of sexual communication and decision making among inner city youth in order to understand the social context of sexual relationships. We collected terminology for sexual behaviors and relationship types and queried participants about condom use in different kinds of relationships. Using free list and ranking techniques, we explored the kinds of things youth consider before having sex with someone and the kinds of risks involved in relationships and the salience of these factors in decision-making about sex. We also explored communication about sex and prevention behaviors. Although the FGDs were designed to elicit terms for use in subsequent research and interventions, they gave us an intimate understanding of sexuality in this population. FGD participants were animated and engaged in the discussion and with each other over the entire 3-4 hours. Many said that they had never thought about these issues or discussed them with anyone before. FGD participation led them to think about their own risk-taking. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using FGDs like these as an intervention strategy to increase safer sex and the challenge of evaluating the intervention.

Learning Objectives: At the end of this presentation, attendees will be able to

• List three reasons why the chance to talk about sex in a non-threatening environment can raise awareness about personal risk.
• Describe the characteristics of FGDs that foster open discussion about sex and relationships.
• List the advantages and disadvantages of using FGDs as an intervention strategy.

Keywords: Minorities, Methodology

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

I wish to disclose that I have NO financial interests or other relationship with the manufactures of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services or commercial supporters.

Recorded presentation