Risky Sexual Behaviors and Associated Factors among Male and Female Students in Jimma Zone Preparatory Schools, South West Ethiopia: Comparative Study

Abstract

BackgroundYouth engage in risk sexual behavior due to insufficient knowledge of reproductive health and family planning. Youth sexual behavior is important not only because of the possible reproductive outcomes, but also because of sexually transmitted infections. The level of risks and sexual behaviors are different between male and female youth due to sexual exposure and socio-cultural factors. The aim of this study was to compare risky sexual behaviors and associated factors among male and female preparatory school (grades 11 and 12) students in Jimma Zone.MethodsA comparative cross-sectional study was conducted in 5 randomly selected preparatory schools of Jimma Zone. A total of 520 students were selected using simple random sampling technique. A structured, pretested and self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data. Both descriptive analysis and binary logistic regressions were performed on the data to understand risky sexual behaviors among students.ResultsTwenty-two (25.9%) of male and 25(21.6%) of female students had two or more sexual partners in the last six months. Eighty-three (32.3%), 113(43.5%) male and female students were sexually at risk in the last six months. Only 8(9.4%) of the male and 10(8.6%) of the female students used condom consistently in the last six months. Female students living away from their parents were 3 times more likely to be at risk than students living with their parents (OR 95%CI 3.0(1.48–6.34)). Female students who consumed alcohol were 7 times more likely to be at risk than those who did not consume alcohol (OR 95%CI 7.27(3.36–15.7)). Male students who consumed alcohol were 2.8 times more likely to be at risk than those who did not consumed alcohol (OR 95%CI, 2.81(1.3–6.06)). Male students who chewed khat were 4.6 times more likely to be at risk than students who did not chew khat (OR 95%CI, 4.58(1.95–10.76).ConclusionLiving arrangement, educational status of parents, family connectedness, alcohol consumption and khat-chewing were the major predictors of risky sexual behavior. Therefore, School, family and zonal education office should be involved in reducing the risky sexual behavior of school youth.

Sexual Behaviors and Lexicons of Words Used to Talk on Sexual Issues among Young People: The Case of Debre Berhan University Students, Ethiopia

“…This finding is similar with what have been reported by other studies conducted in similar settings [7,10,18,21,33]. Having sex and multiple sexual partners during campus life are considered as modernity in our study area.…”

“…As a result, unintended pregnancy and abortion were frequently observed among University students as reported by FGD participants. Consistent findings were reported from previous studies [1,7,10]. In University of Cape Town, decision to use or not to use condom was left to men [33].…”

“…Having multiple sexual partners and sexual practices without condom were among the risky sexual behaviors described by most of the FGD discussants in the current study. Similarly, risky sexual practice is prevalent, 32.3% in male and 43.5% in female, among Jimma University students, Ethiopia [7]. Having multiple sexual partners and inconsistent condom use with new partner were very common among Jimma and Ugandan University students [7,10,21].…”

“…Previous studies elsewhere have shown that young people engaged in risky sexual behaviors [7,9,11,13,20,21], but little has been explored about among Debre Berhan University students. As to our knowledge, lexicons of words used during communication about sexual matters were not investigated.…”

Risky Sexual Behaviors and Associated Factors among Mizan, Bonga and Tepi Preparatory School Students, Southwestern, Ethiopia, 2016: A Cross Sectional Study

“…Sample size was determined using single population proportion formula n= Z2 p (1-p)/d2, with the following assumptions: prevalence (p) 43.5% (12). 95% confidence level, 5% margin of error, 5% for anticipated non-response rate and 1.5 design effect.…”