Meanings of Rough Sex across Gender, Sexual Identity, and Political Ideology: A Conditional Covariance Approach.

The purpose of this study was to investigate how various subgroups based on gender, sexual identity, and political ideology conceptualize rough sex. We used available data from a 2020 survey of randomly sampled undergraduate students at a large public university in the Midwestern U.S. (n = 4,989). The dichotomous responses to 13 items on the rough sex meaning scale were analyzed using a conditional covariance approach to better understand which behaviors commonly described as rough sex behaviors were prevalent. Our results showed that rough sex was conceptualized largely as a two-dimensional construct for vast majority of subgroups. Across all subgroups, nine of the 13 behaviors clustered along two dimensions in the same way. Specifically, four behaviors related to hair pulling, being pinned down, hard thrusting, and throwing someone onto a bed clustered together as one dimension (spanking and tearing clothes off being present along this dimension for vast majority of the subgroups). Being tied up, slapping, choking, punching, and making someone have sex behaviors formed a separate dimension of rough sex across all studied groups (with biting and scratching being associated with this dimension for vast majority of subgroups).

Frequency, Method, Intensity, and Health Sequelae of Sexual Choking Among U.S. Undergraduate and Graduate Students.

Although sexual choking is now prevalent, little is known about how people engage in choking in terms of frequency, intensity, method, or potential health sequelae. In a campus-representative survey of undergraduate and graduate students, we aimed to: (1) describe the prevalence of ever having choked/been choked as part of sex; (2) examine the characteristics of choking one's sexual partners (e.g., age at first experience, number of partners, frequency, intensity, method); (3) examine the characteristics of having been choked during sex; and (4) assess immediate responses of having been choked including the extent to which frequency and method (e.g., hand, ligature, limb) of having been choked predicts the range of responses endorsed by participants. A total of 4254 randomly sampled students (2668 undergraduate, 1576 graduate) completed a confidential online survey during Spring 2021. The mean age of first choking/being choked was about 19, with more undergraduates than graduate students reporting first choking/being choked in adolescence. Women and transgender/gender non-binary participants were significantly more likely to have been choked than men. Participants more often reported the use of hands compared to limbs or ligature. Common responses to being choked were pleasurable sensations/euphoria (81.7%), a head rush (43.8%), feeling like they could not breathe (43.0%), difficulty swallowing (38.9%), unable to speak (37.6%), and watery eyes (37.2%). About 15% had noticed neck bruising and 3% had lost consciousness from being choked. Greater frequency and intensity of being choked was associated with reports of more physical responses as was use of limb (arm, leg) or ligature.

Sexual choking/strangulation and its association with condom and contraceptive use: Findings from a survey of students at a university in the Midwestern United States.

INTRODUCTION: Consensual sexual choking has become prevalent among young United States (US) adults. In sex between women and men, women are overwhelmingly the ones choked, perhaps reproducing traditional heteronormative power dynamics. No research has examined the relationship between being choked during consensual sex and the use of external condoms and other contraceptives. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional campus-representative survey to 4989 undergraduate students at a large public Midwestern US university. RESULTS: Half of respondents (n = 1803) had ever been choked during sex. Having been choked was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of event-level condom use (OR = 0.32 [0.19, 0.54] for >5 times lifetime choking among men and OR = 0.35 [0.27, 0.45] for >5 times lifetime choking among women compared to those with no choking experiences) and in the past 6 months (OR = 0.42 [0.24, 0.72] for >5 times lifetime choking among men and OR = 0.59 [0.43, 0.81] for >5 times lifetime choking among women compared to those with no choking experiences). Also, having ever been choked was associated with a significantly greater likelihood of having used an implant/intra-uterine device in the past 6 months (OR = 1.85 [1.28, 2.68] for >5 times lifetime choking compared to those with no choking experiences). CONCLUSION: Recognition that sexual choking is prevalent among young people has only recently emerged and educational programs are lacking. Study findings could be used to engage people in discussions about choking in relation to gender, power, and reproductive health agency.

Prevalence and characteristics of choking/strangulation during sex: Findings from a probability survey of undergraduate students.

OBJECTIVE: In a random sample of undergraduate students, we aimed to: (1) establish the prevalence of choking and being choked; (2) examine demographic and situational predictors of being choked, and (3) examine demographic and situational predictors of choking someone.Participants: 4168 randomly sampled undergraduates at a large public U.S. university.Methods: A cross-sectional, confidential online survey.Results: We found that 26.5% of women, 6.6% of men, and 22.3% of transgender and gender non-binary participants reported having been choked during their most recent sexual event. Additionally, 5.7% of women, 24.8% of men, and 25.9% of transgender and non-binary participants reported that they choked their partner at their most recent event. Choking was more prevalent among sexual minority students.Conclusions: Choking is prevalent among undergraduate students; implications for college sexual health education are discussed.

Validation and utility study of the 10 item brief adult health capital scale (BACHS-10).

Current methods for assessing health capital are not accessible to clinicians. To increase accessibility, we evaluated a Brief Adult Health Capital Scale (BAHCS-10) using classical and modern testing theories. With 588 clients, we found an adequate fit for the BAHCS-10χscaled2(35)=97.19,p<.01, CFIscaled = 0.949, TLIscaled = 0.935, RMSEA = 0.077, and the SRMR = 0.060. We also found evidence of invariance across race but did find significant non-invariance across some items for gender and age. Future researchers should review items displaying noninvariance and develop optimal cut scores for the BAHCS-10 to further support clinician decision making.

Developing a Facilitators Scale in the Context of Travel: ReTRIP.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a scale for measuring factors that facilitate participation of people with spinal cord injury (SCI) in travel-related activities: Removing Travel Restrictions Influencing Participation (ReTRIP). DESIGN: A mixed-method approach where in the qualitative phase, items were developed and written based on results of interviewers with different stakeholder groups and in the quantitative phase, survey data were collected to examine the psychometric properties of the scale. SETTING: Home, work, and community settings. PARTICIPANTS: People living with SCI, caregivers or family members, therapists, travel professionals (N=333). INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: An 11-item ReTRIP scale that measures the facilitators that enhance the travel participation of people with SCI. RESULTS: In the qualitative phase of the study, 5 categories of travel facilitators were identified based on semistructured in-depth interviews with 83 respondents from 4 stakeholder groups. Initial items of the ReTRIP scale were written based on the travel facilitators identified. Items in the scale were then revised based on results of cognitive interviews and an expert panel review. In the quantitative phase, a total of 250 patients enrolled in a Spinal Cord Injury Model System were systematically selected to report their experience with each travel facilitator. Item-response theory-based Rasch analysis revealed that the 11-item ReTRIP has acceptable psychometric properties, containing 2 main dimensions: industry-oriented facilitators (6 items) and self-oriented facilitators (5 items). CONCLUSIONS: The 11-item ReTRIP scale demonstrates promising psychometric properties, allowing researchers and clinicians to potentially use self-reported environmental factors that are beneficial for people's participation in travel after SCI to properly design client-centered interventions. Future studies using a larger sample are needed to validate the scale.

Improving open and rigorous science: ten key future research opportunities related to rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in scientific research.

Background: As part of a coordinated effort to expand research activity around rigor, reproducibility, and transparency (RRT) across scientific disciplines, a team of investigators at the Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington hosted a workshop in October 2019 with international leaders to discuss key opportunities for RRT research. Objective: The workshop aimed to identify research priorities and opportunities related to RRT. Design: Over two-days, workshop attendees gave presentations and participated in three working groups: (1) Improving Education & Training in RRT, (2) Reducing Statistical Errors and Increasing Analytic Transparency, and (3) Looking Outward: Increasing Truthfulness and Accuracy of Research Communications. Following small-group discussions, the working groups presented their findings, and participants discussed the research opportunities identified. The investigators compiled a list of research priorities, which were circulated to all participants for feedback. Results: Participants identified the following priority research questions: (1) Can RRT-focused statistics and mathematical modeling courses improve statistics practice?; (2) Can specialized training in scientific writing improve transparency?; (3) Does modality (e.g. face to face, online) affect the efficacy RRT-related education?; (4) How can automated programs help identify errors more efficiently?; (5) What is the prevalence and impact of errors in scientific publications (e.g., analytic inconsistencies, statistical errors, and other objective errors)?; (6) Do error prevention workflows reduce errors?; (7) How do we encourage post-publication error correction?; (8) How does 'spin' in research communication affect stakeholder understanding and use of research evidence?; (9) Do tools to aid writing research reports increase comprehensiveness and clarity of research reports?; and (10) Is it possible to inculcate scientific values and norms related to truthful, rigorous, accurate, and comprehensive scientific reporting? Conclusion: Participants identified important and relatively unexplored questions related to improving RRT. This list may be useful to the scientific community and investigators seeking to advance meta-science (i.e. research on research).