Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Sage Choice logoLink to Sage Choice
. 2026 Jan 26;31(11):4472–4487. doi: 10.1177/13591053251408560

Developing the Seeking Sexual Healthcare Services Scale among emerging adults

Ariana Cervantes 1, Miguel A Garcia 1, Andrea Rodriguez-Crespo 2, Miguel Urbina 1, Theodore V Cooper 1, Osvaldo F Morera 1,✉
PMCID: PMC13490666  PMID: 41588845

Abstract

Emerging adults may look for sexual healthcare services less frequently than other age groups. This study constructed the Seeking Sexual Healthcare Services Scale to assess behaviors toward seeking sexual healthcare services among emerging adults. In Study 1 (n = 350), 24 items were developed, and an exploratory factor analysis revealed a 17-item 4-factor model. In Study 2 (n = 280), two experts in sex-related research reviewed the identified factors and provided feedback on the results from Study 1. Subsequently, 23 items were tested and an exploratory factor analysis revealed a 20-item 4-factor structure, where factors were identified as Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare Importance, Perceived Barriers, Perceived Trust and Support, and Stigma. These factors demonstrated adequate internal reliability and convergent and discriminant validity. This scale may be a reliable and valid tool to assess access to sexual healthcare services and may facilitate continued research efforts to improve access to sexual healthcare services.

Keywords: sexual health, sexual healthcare services, emerging adults, scale development, exploratory factor analysis

Introduction

There is greater engagement in sexual risk behaviors within the U.S. compared to most other industrialized countries (World Population Review, 2022). Sexual risk behaviors (e.g. condomless sex, multiple sex partners) are sexual acts that contribute to adverse health outcomes for one or more persons (Senn, 2013) and can be detrimental to one’s well-being (Alonso-Martinez et al., 2021). Specifically, these sexual behaviors may lead to sexually transmitted infections (STIs), which if left untreated, may result in cancer, infertility, increased risk of HIV, and pelvic inflammatory disease (Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy (OIDP), 2024). Individuals between 18 and 25 years of age, or emerging adults (Arnett, 2007), may be at increased risk for adverse sexual health outcomes as they are more likely to engage in sexual risk behaviors compared to older aged adults (Arnett, 2000; Ertl et al., 2022). Furthermore, people between 15 and 24 years of age account for a quarter of those who are sexually active, yet account for one-half of all new yearly STI cases (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) , 2018). These disparate rates of STI contraction among emerging adults may be attributed to multiple factors such as a lack of education, lack of resources, and barriers when seeking sexual healthcare services. Sexual healthcare services may include preventative, diagnostic, and treatment for health issues such as pregnancy, STIs, HIV, and health guidance and counseling (CDC, 2024). As such, these factors elucidate a need for quantitative measurements to assess access to sexual healthcare services.

There have been generational shifts in the acceptability of sexual experimentation (Twenge et al., 2015), signaling decreases in taboo. This normalization of sexual experimentation may contribute to increased sexual satisfaction. That said, positive sexual satisfaction may contribute to future engagement in certain sexual risk behaviors (e.g. casual sex; Hawkins et al., 2023). Emerging adults in the U.S. may be more vulnerable to adverse sexual health outcomes than emerging adults in other countries due to a lack of fundamental sexual health education (Hall et al., 2016; Sekhar et al., 2024). While sex education is mandated in other industrialized countries (Ketting and Ivanova, 2018), only 17 out of 50 states in the U.S. mandate medically accurate sexual health education for young people (Guttmacher Institute, 2020). Furthermore, the sexual health information provided may still differ across states in which some states may focus extensively on abstinence and exclude pertinent information for sexual safety (CDC, 2019). States with abstinence-only education programs have higher teen pregnancy rates than states with comprehensive sexual education (Atkins and Bradford, 2021; Cheedalla et al., 2020; Fox et al., 2019). These differences in sexual health information may leave adolescents with insufficient knowledge in how to address their sexual health concerns and where to obtain information when seeking sexual healthcare services as they transition into emerging adulthood.

Indeed, emerging adults may seek services less frequently than other age groups (Adams et al., 2018; Caal et al., 2013) which may be due to an inability to confide in others with sexual health concerns (Jones et al., 2019). Specifically, emerging adults may desire sexual health information from family and friends but may encounter barriers such as confidentiality, stigma (Jones et al., 2019), or lack of support systems where they can obtain information (Bender and Fulbright, 2013; Jones et al., 2019; Scheinfeld, 2021). When disclosing sensitive information, emerging adults may feel stigmatized or judged by family and peers for asking questions about sexual health (Jones et al., 2019). This stigmatization may enhance the appeal of obtaining sexual health information from internet sources which may not always be reliable and can contribute to increased sexual risk (Fuxman et al., 2015). Adequately measuring potential barriers and facilitators to sexual healthcare access that emerging adults may experience is essential in order to promote sexual wellbeing and reduce sexual risk among this population.

Despite the proliferation of general sexual health research conducted in a wide array of modalities, most research on sexual healthcare seeking utilizes qualitative measures (e.g. focus groups, interviews; Decker et al., 2021). For example, Decker et al. (2021) state that qualitative assessments of sexual healthcare seeking are typically focused on obtaining information from specific interest groups rather than broader populations. While qualitative research is informative and essential for the development of quantitative measures, assessments using only qualitative methodology is not intended to generalize results to representative samples, so there is a lack of research leading to generalization. Specifically, the information obtained from in-depth interviews and focus groups provides invaluable information on how to best proceed in creating a quantitative measure for assessing intentions and behaviors for seeking sexual health services.

Present study

The primary aim of this study was to advance much-needed sexual health research by developing and testing a scale that measures behaviors in seeking sexual healthcare services in a sample of emerging adults. Given the above literature in which emerging adults may encounter difficulties in accessing such services (Caal et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2019), we developed a scale that was expected to reflect the following three themes: (1) sexual healthcare service seeking, (2) perceived barriers in seeking sexual healthcare services, and (3) perceived social support in seeking sexual healthcare services. The secondary aim of the present study were to assess convergent validity with Sexual Health Practices Self-Efficacy Scale (Barthalow Koch et al., 2011) and discriminant validity with the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (Study 1; Zakrisson, 2005) and Need for Cognition Scale (Study 2; Cacioppo et al., 1984).

Study 1: Item development

Items for our scale assessing seeking sexual healthcare services were developed from previous sexual health scales, theory, and qualitative research. Specifically, items from the Health Belief Model Scale for Cervical Cancer and Pap Smear Test developed by Guvenc et al. (2011) informed item development as the current measure assessed seeking sexual health services beyond cervical cancer screening. Moreover, similar to previous scale development work (e.g. Champion et al., 2013), the Health Belief Model (Rosenstock et al., 1988) was also referred to for item development such that we examined the perceived barriers and benefits of seeking sexual healthcare services. Third, previous qualitative research revealing themes related to barriers, social support, and other facilitators for seeking sexual healthcare services was also referred to for item development (Caal et al., 2013; Scheinfeld, 2021).

Method

Participants

Monte Carlo simulations were used to determine sample size. Assuming items had standardized factor loadings of 0.30, standardized residual error variances of 0.91, and inter-factor correlations of 0.375 among the three hypothesized factors for a 24-item measure, all factor loadings had power that exceeded 0.90, and all inter-factor correlations had power that exceeded 0.80 with a sample size of 300. An additional 20% of the sample size (n = 60) was added to account for attrition and incomplete data, resulting in a desired sample size of 360.

To participate in the study, participants had to reside in the U.S. and be between 18 and 25 years of age. Three-hundred and sixty participants were ultimately recruited. However, 10 participants were excluded from analysis for not passing at least three out of four attention checks, resulting in a final analyzable sample size of 350 emerging adults (Mage = 22.32, SD = 1.99; 48.0% women).

Materials

Sociodemographic survey

This 10-item demographic survey assesses age, sex, gender, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, highest level of education completed, and current romantic relationship status.

Seeking Sexual Healthcare Services Scale (SSHSS)

The SSHSS is a 24-item scale that assesses intentions and behaviors toward seeking sexual healthcare services. The SSHSS contained items reflecting the following three themes: (1) Service Seeking, (2) Perceived Barriers, and (3) Perceived Social Support. Items utilize a 7-point Likert scale (1-Strongly Disagree – 7-Strongly Agree), and an average score is computed for each factor. Items assess views toward seeking sexual and reproductive healthcare services such as contraceptive use, STI screenings, and reproductive cancer screenings (e.g. cervical, ovarian, testicular, prostate), and potential deterrents and sources of support in seeking sexual and reproductive healthcare services. Higher scores indicate a greater likelihood of seeking sexual healthcare services.

Sexual Health Practices Self-Efficacy Scale (SHPSES)

This 20-item scale measures the confidence and knowledge of engaging in safe sexual practices (Barthalow Koch et al., 2011). Items utilize a 5-point scale (1-Not at all Confident – 5-Extremely Confident), and a mean score is computed with higher scores indicating greater levels of the scale construct (α = 0.91). This scale was used to assess convergent validity with the SSHSS as the SSHSS assesses theoretically related concepts to the SHPSES (e.g. perceptions regarding sexual service acquisition), and albeit having distinct dimensions, these scales were expected to be strongly correlated.

Right Wing Authoritarianism Scale

This 15-item scale measures authoritarian aggression, authoritarian submission, and conventionalism (Zakrisson, 2005). Items utilize a 7-point Likert scale (1-Very Negative – 7-Very Positive), and a mean score is computed with higher scores indicating greater attitudes toward authoritarianism (α = 0.85). This scale was used to assess discriminant validity with the SSHSS as the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale focuses on broad attitudes relating to authoritarianism and was expected to differ conceptually from the SSHSS which assesses sexual health service seeking. Based on these conceptual differences, the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale was expected to be uncorrelated with the SSHSS.

Procedure

Prior to study implementation, IRB approval was obtained. Data were collected on April 17, 2023. Participants were recruited via Prolific, an online crowd-sourcing platform for research, then were directed to the Qualtrics platform to first read and electronically sign a consent form. Once consent was obtained, participants completed a series of questionnaires in randomized order to protect against order effects. Following the measures, participants were asked to answer an open-ended question to summarize their thoughts on the survey which served as a captcha to remove potential automated responses (“bots”) in the present sample. Participants were then debriefed, offered sexual health resources (e.g. telephone numbers for STI/HIV testing), and received $3.00 as compensation.

Approach to analyses

Descriptive statistics revealed participant characteristics. Parallel analysis was conducted to determine the number of retained factors; factor extraction stops at the last factor in which the data eigenvalue is greater than the random eigenvalue. Exploratory factor analysis assessed the factor structure of the SSHSS using Mplus 8.11 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2025) in which maximum likelihood estimation was used for factor extraction and Geomin (oblique) rotation was used as the rotation method. To analyze model fit and factorial validity, indices of fit including the Satorra-Bentler chi-square (SB χ2) and its associated p-value, comparative fit index (CFI) ⩾ 0.95, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ⩽ 0.06, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) ⩽ 0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1999) were used. Slightly more liberal thresholds were also accepted, including CFI ⩾ 0.90 (Blackburn et al., 2004) and RMSEA ⩽ 0.08 (MacCallum et al., 1996). To assess internal reliability, Cronbach’s alpha (α) was used. The SHPSES and Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale were used to assess convergent and discriminant validity with the SSHSS, respectively, using Pearson’s correlation coefficient.

One hierarchical multiple linear regression was performed to assess if the subscales of the SSHSS predicted SHPSES scores. Participant sex, age, and ethnicity were controlled for and entered in Step 1 given that past research has observed links between these variables and this study’s variables of interest (e.g. Caal et al., 2013), and the factors of the SSHSS were entered in Step 2. Gender was not controlled for, given that too few participants identified as a gender other than man or woman (i.e. 2.9%–3.6%) to make meaningful comparisons.

Results

Descriptive statistics and participant characteristics are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and participant characteristics for Study 1.

Characteristic Percentage Frequency
Biological sex
 Women 48.0% 168
 Men 51.7% 181
Ethnicity
 Hispanic/Latinx 19.4% 68
 Non-Hispanic/Latinx 80.6% 282
Race
 White/Caucasian 68.0% 238
 Black or African American 15.1% 53
 American Indian/Native American or Alaska Native 2.6% 9
 Asian 16.3% 57
 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.6% 2
 Other 3.7% 13
 Preferred not to say 1.7% 6
Highest level of education
 Some high school or less 1.1% 4
 High school diploma or GED 18.6% 65
 Some college, but no degree 35.7% 125
 Associate’s or Technical degree 7.4% 26
 Bachelor’s degree 34.3% 120
 Graduate or Professional degree 2.0% 7
 Prefer not to say 0.9% 3
Measure Mean Median SD Min./Max.
Age 22.32 22.00 1.99 18–25
SSHSS
 Importance of screening 6.04 6.17 0.74 3.33–7.00
 Perceived barriers 4.11 4.00 1.27 1.00–7.00
 Perceived support 5.14 5.20 1.01 1.60–7.00
 Stigma 5.69 6.00 1.25 2.00–7.00
SHPSES 3.33 3.30 0.75 1.20–5.00
RWAS 3.02 2.97 0.94 1.00–5.93
Open in a new tab

Note. Any sample size deviations are a result of missing data; the sum of the percentages for race exceeds 100% as participants could have selected more than one option.

SSHSS: Seeking Sexual Healthcare Services Scale; SHPSES: Sexual Health Practices Self-Efficacy Scale; RWAS: Right Wing Authoritarianism Scale.

Exploratory factor analysis

Parallel analysis suggested that four factors be retained. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the fit of the four-factor dimensionality of the SSHSS was: SB χ2 (186, N = 350) = 379.056, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.921, RMSEA = 0.054 (90% CI: 0.047, 0.062), SRMR = 0.036. Geomin rotated factor loadings were examined to assess how the 24-items loaded on these four factors. Using recommendations from past literature (Costello and Osborne, 2005; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001), an item was considered to demonstrate fidelity to a factor (dimension) if that item had a factor loading of 0.32 or above on that factor and did not crossload (i.e. the item loaded at 0.32 or above on two or more factors). If an item did not meet these criteria, then dimensional fidelity was not established and that item was removed. Using these guidelines, rotated factor loadings within each dimension showed six items loading on factor one (λ’s = 0.377–0.852), three items loading on factor two (λ’s = 0.342–0.665), five items loading on factor three (λ’s = 0.324–0.767), and three items loading on factor four (λ’s = 0.503–0.561). By assessing these retained items, the four factors were titled as: (1) Screening Importance (variance explained = 37.35%), (2) Perceived Barriers (variance explained = 11.74%), (3) Perceived Support (variance explained = 10.53%), and (4) Stigma (variance explained = 8.42%; Table 2).

Table 2.

Exploratory factor analysis of significant geomin rotated factor loadings for the seeking sexual healthcare services scale in Study 1.

Item Factor 1 (SE) Factor 2 (SE) Factor 3 (SE) Factor 4 (SE)
1. I believe that having a sexual health screening is the best way to detect a sexually transmitted infection. 0.695 (0.049)
2. A sexual health screening will greatly improve my health. 0.438 (0.087) −0.292 (0.072)
3. If I had a sexually transmitted infection, I would want to get treatment. 0.609 (0.057) 0.149 (0.073)
4. It is important to get regular checkups to screen for reproductive cancers (e.g. breast, ovarian, Human papillomavirus, prostate, testicular). 0.679 (0.046)
5. I want to detect sexually transmitted infections early. 0.852 (0.037)
6. I would still seek a reproductive health checkup even if my insurance does not cover it. 0.366 (0.123) −0.449 (.118)
7. I trust in the reliability of contraceptives. 0.276 (.075) .3240.324 (0.076)
8. It is important to get contraceptives if I were to be sexually active. 0.377 (0.075) 0.185 (0.078) 0.239 (0.078)
9. My gender plays a positive role in how motivated I am to maintain my reproductive health. 0.278 (0.079) 0.189 (0.078) .207 (0.069)
10. I won’t feel judged by my partner if I decide to use contraceptives. .197 (0.074) 0.302 (0.078) 0.172 (0.077)
11. I believe getting a sexual health screening is a financial burden. a 0.342 (0.086)
12. I know of a doctor’s office or community organization (e.g. planned parenthood) where I can go if I were to get infected with a sexually transmitted infection. 0.150 (0.074) 0.302 (0.078)
13. Getting a sexual health screening makes me uncomfortable. a 0.661 (0.072)
14. If I use contraceptives, then I feel other people will judge me. a 0.503 (0.094)
15. There is a health center near where I live where I cannot obtain a sexual health screening. a 0.273 (0.078)
16. I would feel embarrassed to ask my family members/peers about locations to get screened for reproductive cancers. a −0.168 (0.075) 0.665 (0.107)
17. I would not seek contraceptives if I believed my family would find out. a 0.561 (0.127)
18. Using contraceptives goes against my family values. a 0.551 (0.069)
19. Once infected with a sexually transmitted infection, there is no cure. a 0.159 (0.072) 0.197 (0.079)
20. I believe I have a trustworthy group that will help me seek sexual health services. 0.631 (0.074) −0.196 (0.089)
21. I would feel supported by my peers if I told them that I want to seek reproductive health services. 0.767 (0.065)
22. I would feel supported by my family members if I told them that I want to seek reproductive health services. 0.634 (0.097)
23. A good relationship with my doctor will increase my motivation to get reproductive health services. 0.295 (0.067) 0.308 (0.075)
24. I feel encouraged by my close family members and friends to obtain reproductive health services if I needed them. 0.291 (0.108) 0.583 (0.088)
Eigenvalue 6.350 1.995 1.790 1.431
Variance 37.35% 11.74% 10.53% 8.42%
Open in a new tab

Note. Significant factor loadings at the 0.05 alpha level and standard errors (SE) are shown; Bolded items and corresponding factor loadings were retained on that factor and in the overall scale; Items and corresponding factor loadings not bolded were removed from the scale (i.e. items 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, and 23); Observed data eigenvalues and variances for each factor are also presented.

a

Represents reverse coded item; Total variance explained = 68.04%.

Coefficient alpha for the four factors of the SSHSS were adequate except for Perceived Barriers: Screening Importance, α = 0.76; Perceived Barriers, α = 0.55; Perceived Social Support, α = 0.78; Stigma, α = 0.76. Screening Importance was positively correlated with Perceived Barriers (r = 0.170, p = 0.001), Perceived Social Support (r = 0.493, p < 0.001), and Stigma (r = 0.455, p < 0.001). Perceived Barriers was positively correlated with Perceived Social Support (r = 0.322, p < 0.001) and Stigma (r = 0.378, p < 0.001). Perceived Social Support was positively correlated with Stigma (r = 0.418, p < 0.001).

The four factors of the SSHSS demonstrated acceptable convergent validity with the SHPSES. SHPSES was positively correlated with Screening Importance (r = 0.331, p < 0.001), Perceived Barriers (r = 0.382, p < 0.001), Perceived Social Support (r = 0.446, p < 0.001), and Stigma (r = 0.296, p < 0.001). The four factors of the SSHSS demonstrated low-to-adequate discriminant validity with the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale. Right wing authoritarianism was negatively correlated with Screening Importance (r = −0.319, p < 0.001), Perceived Social Support (r = −0.316, p < 0.001), and Stigma (r = −0.402, p < 0.001), but not correlated with Perceived Barriers (r = −0.020, p = 0.706).

Regression analysis

The full regression model predicting SHPSES from the four factors of the SSHSS was statistically significant (F(7,339) = 20.160, R2 = 0.294 (Adjusted R2 = 0.279), p < 0.001). Participants who reported greater sexual health practices self-efficacy also reported greater levels of recognizing the importance of screening (β = 0.127, p = 0.024), fewer perceived barriers of seeking sexual healthcare services (β = 0.260, p < 0.001), and greater perceived social support in seeking sexual healthcare services (β = 0.315, p < 0.001; Supplemental Table 1). Participant age, sex, and ethnicity were controlled for and not associated with SHPSES scores in the full model (β’s = −0.031 to 0.047, p’s > 0.05).

Study 2: Item refinement

Study 1 revealed that the SSHSS was best explained by a 17-item four-factor structure including Screening Importance, Perceived Barriers, Perceived Social Support, and Stigma in which retained items demonstrated strong fidelity by dimension. However, internal reliability was low for the Perceived Barriers factor, and Right-Wing Authoritarianism did not exhibit adequate discriminant validity with the Screening Importance, Perceived Support, and Stigma factors. Thus, for Study 2, two experts in sex-related research reviewed the items of the SSHSS and provided feedback in improving item structure by increasing the clarity of items and adding four items to the Perceived Barriers factor and two items to the Stigma factor. Furthermore, to establish discriminant validity with the SSHSS, the Need for Cognition scale (Cacioppo et al., 1984) was used.

Method

Participants

Monte Carlo simulations were used to determine sample size in which values were based on values observed in Study 1. Assuming the items had standardized factor loadings of 0.40, standardized residual error variances of 0.84, and inter-factor correlations of 0.40 among the four factors for a 23-item measure, all factor loadings had power that exceeded 0.90 and all inter-factor correlations had power that exceeded 0.80 with a sample size of 210. An additional 20% of the sample size (n = 42) was added to account for attrition and incomplete data, resulting in a desired sample size of 252.

Three hundred and eighteen participants were recruited for Study 2. However, 33 participants were excluded from analysis for not passing at least three of four attention checks and five duplicate entries were removed, resulting in a final analyzable sample size of 280 emerging adults (Mage = 19.87, SD = 1.70 86.1% women).

Materials

Sociodemographic survey

This 19-item sociodemographic survey assesses typical demographic information such as age, sex, ethnicity, household income, and parents’ highest level of education.

SSHSS – Refined

After analyzing the SSHSS in Study 1 and consultation with two experts in sex-related research, the SSHSS became a 23-item four-factor scale that assesses participants’ intentions and behaviors toward seeking sexual healthcare services. The SSHSS reflects four themes: (1) SRH (Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare) Importance, (2) Perceived Barriers, (3) Perceived Trust and Support, and (4) Stigma. Items utilize a 7-point Likert scale (1-Strongly Disagree – 7-Strongly Agree), an average score is computed with higher scores indicating greater likelihood of seeking sexual healthcare services.

SHPSES

The SHPSES was again used to assess the confidence and knowledge one has to engage in safe sexual practices (Barthalow Koch et al., 2011) as described in Study 1. This scale was again used in Study 2 (α = 0.88), given that item refinement of the SSHSS was not expected to impact previously observed convergent validity.

Need for cognition

The Need for Cognition scale was used to assess discriminant validity; this 18-item scale measures one’s ability to organize and evaluate information provided (Cacioppo et al., 1984). Items utilize a 9-point scale (−4-Very strong disagreement – 4-Very strong agreement), and a mean score is computed with higher scores indicating greater need for cognition (α = 0.82). The Need for Cognition scale was used to assess discriminant validity given that this scale measures unrelated concepts (e.g. information processes) to the SSHSS and may not be influenced by confounding relationships exhibited by the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (e.g. conservatism) as observed in Study 1.

Procedure

IRB approval was obtained prior to study implementation; data were collected between August 2024 and October 2024. Participants were recruited via SONA, a secure web-based recruitment website. Participants first read and signed a consent form indicating that they agreed to participate in the survey. After, participants completed a separate series of questionnaires via Qualtrics, were debriefed, and were offered course credit for their participation.

Approach to analyses

The same approach to analyses was conducted for Study 2 as was done in Study 1. In short, descriptive statistics revealed participant characteristics, and parallel and exploratory factor analysis were performed to assess factor structure using maximum likelihood estimation and Geomin (oblique) rotation. To analyze model fit and factorial validity, indices of model fit included the SB χ2 and its associated p-value, CFI ⩾ 0.95, RMSEA ⩽ 0.06, and SRMR ⩽ 0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1999). A CFI ⩾ 0.90 (Blackburn et al., 2004) and RMSEA ⩽ 0.08 (MacCallum et al., 1996) were also accepted. Cronbach’s alpha was computed for internal reliability, and the SHPSES and Need for Cognition Scale were used to assess convergent and discriminant validity with the SSHSS, respectively, using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Further, one hierarchical multiple linear regression was performed to assess if the subscales of the SSHSS predicted SHPSES scores while controlling for sex, age, and ethnicity.

Results

Descriptive statistics and participant characteristics are reported in Table 3. Interestingly, for one question included in the demographic survey (“How likely are you to seek sexual health services (e.g. cervical or testicular cancer screenings, sexually transmitted infection screenings, contraceptive care) if you needed them?”), participants reported moderate-to-high levels of seeking sexual health services (M = 5.65, SD = 1.62; Range = 1-Very Unlikely – 7-Very Likely).

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics and participant characteristics for Study 2.

Characteristic Percentage Frequency
Biological Sex
 Women 86.1% 241
 Men 13.9% 39
Ethnicity
 Hispanic/Latinx 90% 252
 Non-Hispanic/Latinx 10% 28
Race
 White/Caucasian 83.2% 233
 Black or African American 4.6% 13
 American Indian/Native American or Alaska Native 2.5% 7
 Asian 2.5% 7
 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.4% 1
 Other 2.5% 7
 Preferred not to say 7.5% 21
Household income
 Less than $10,000 8.6% 24
 $10,000−$19,999 9.0% 25
 $20,000−$29,999 15.8% 44
 $30,000−$39,999 9.0% 25
 $40,000−$49,999 11.8% 33
 $50,000−$59,999 9.3% 26
 $60,000−$69,999 7.9% 22
 $70,000−$79,999 7.9% 22
 $80,000−$89,999 3.2% 9
 $90,000−$99,999 5.0% 14
 $100,000–$149,999 7.2% 20
 More than $150,000 5.4% 15
Measure Mean Median SD Min./Max.
Age 19.87 20.00 1.70 18–25
SSHSS
 SRH importance 6.47 6.67 0.60 4–7
 Perceived barriers 4.39 4.40 1.24 1–7
 Perceived trust and support 5.02 5.20 1.34 1–7
 Stigma 5.72 6.00 1.29 1–7
SHPSES 3.76 3.75 0.67 1.60–5
NFC 0.42 0.44 1.01 −3.06 to 3.72
Open in a new tab

Note. Any sample size deviations are a result of missing data; the sum of the percentages for race exceeds 100% as participants could have selected more than one option.

SSHSS: Seeking Sexual Healthcare Services Scale; SRH: Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare; SHPSES: Sexual Health Practices Self-Efficacy Scale; NFC: Need for Cognition.

Exploratory factor analysis

Parallel analysis suggested that four factors be retained. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the fit of the four-factor dimensionality of the refined SSHSS items was: SB χ2 (167, N = 280) = 427.882, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.890, RMSEA = 0.075 (90% CI: 0.066, 0.083), SRMR = 0.041. Geomin rotated factor loadings were examined to assess how the 23-items loaded on these four factors. Similar to Study 1, an item was considered to demonstrate fidelity to a given factor (dimension) if that item had a factor loading of 0.32 or above on that factor and did not crossload (i.e. the item loaded at 0.32 or above on two or more factors). If an item did not meet these criteria, then that item was removed from the scale. Using these guidelines, rotated factor loadings showed six items loading on factor one (SRH Importance; λ’s = 0.480–0.757; variance explained = 30.66%), five items loading on factor two (Perceived Barriers; λ’s = 0.474–0.668; variance explained = 12.16%), five items loading on factor three (Perceived Trust and Support; λ’s = 0.433–0.854; variance explained = 11%), and four items loading on factor four (Stigma; λ’s = 0.431–0.786; variance explained = 6.89%; Table 4).

Table 4.

Exploratory factor analysis of significant geomin rotated factor loadings for the seeking sexual healthcare services scale in Study 2.

Item Factor 1 (SE) Factor 2 (SE) Factor 3 (SE) Factor 4 (SE)
1. I believe that having a sexual health screening is the best way to
detect a sexually transmitted infection. 		0.607 (0.053)
2. A sexual health screening will greatly improve my health. 0.485 (0.057)
3. If I had a sexually transmitted infection, I would want to get treatment. 0.460 (0.061) 0.249 (0.081)
4. It is important to get regular checkups to screen for reproductive cancers (e.g. breast, ovarian, Human papillomavirus, prostate, testicular). 0.726 (0.046) 0.297 (0.069)
5. I want to detect sexually transmitted infections early. 0.757 (0.042)
6. It is important to get contraceptives if I were to be sexually active. 0.480 (0.060) 0.184 (0.080)
7. I believe getting a sexual health screening is a financial burden. a 0.556 (0.069)
8. Getting a sexual health screening makes me uncomfortable. a 0.641 (0.058)
9. I would feel embarrassed to ask my family members/peers about locations to get screened for reproductive cancers. a 0.668 (0.059)
10. I do not have the time to obtain a sexual health screening. a 0.515 (0.070) 0.186 (0.058)
11. I know where I can obtain sexual and reproductive healthcare services. 0.433 (0.070)
12. Getting a sexual or reproductive health screening is difficult due to not having reliable transportation. a 0.267 (0.082) 0.180 (0.078)
13. I do not want to face the results of a sexual or reproductive health screening. a 0.136 (0.066) 0.474 (0.078)
14. I trust in the reliability of contraceptives. 0.201 (0.074) 0.210 (0.072)
15. I believe I have a trustworthy group that will help me seek sexual health services. 0.197 (0.064) 0.627 (0.053)
16. I would feel supported by my peers if I told them that I want to seek sexual and reproductive health services. 0.173 (0.066) 0.680 (0.050)
17. I would feel supported by my family members if I told them that I want to seek sexual and reproductive health services. −0.109 (0.051) 0.816 (0.035) 0.113 (0.057)
18. I feel encouraged by my close family members and friends to obtain sexual and reproductive health services. 0.854 (0.030)
19. If I use contraceptives, then I feel other people will judge me. a 0.276 (0.085) −0.175 (0.059) 0.551 (0.070)
20. I would not seek contraceptives if I believed my family would find out. a 0.786 (0.056)
21. Using contraceptives goes against my family values. a 0.719 (0.052)
22. I feel my healthcare provider would judge me if I asked for sexual health information. a 0.401 (0.086) 0.383 (0.082)
23. I would feel ashamed of myself if I sought sexual and reproductive health services. a 0.181 (0.058) 0.318 (0.086) 0.431 (0.079)
Eigenvalue 6.132 2.431 2.200 1.378
Variance 30.66% 12.16% 11.00% 6.89%
Open in a new tab

Note. Statistically significant factor loadings at the 0.05 alpha level and standard errors (SE) are shown; Bolded items and corresponding factor loadings were retained on that factor and in the overall scale; Items and corresponding factor loadings not bolded were removed from the scale (i.e. items 12, 14, and 22); Observed data eigenvalues and variances for each factor are also presented.

a

Represents reverse coded item; Bolded items indicate final retained survey items; Total variance explained = 60.71%.

Coefficient alpha for the four factors of the SSHSS were acceptable: SRH Importance, α = 0.76; Perceived Barriers, α = 0.73; Perceived Trust and Support, α = 0.82; Stigma, α = 0.79. SRH Importance was positively correlated with Perceived Barriers (r = 0.242, p < 0.001), Perceived Trust and Support (r = 0.305, p < 0.001), and Stigma (r = 0.338, p < 0.001). Perceived Barriers was positively correlated with Perceived Trust and Support (r = 0.341, p < 0.001) and Stigma (r = 0.495, p < 0.001). Perceived Trust and Support was positively correlated with Stigma (r = 0.268, p < 0.001).

The four factors of the SSHSS demonstrated acceptable convergent validity with the SHPSES. SHPSES was positively correlated with SRH Importance (r = 0.394, p < 0.001), Perceived Barriers (r = 0.368, p < 0.001), Perceived Trust and Support (r = 0.370, p < 0.001), and Stigma (r = 0.247, p < 0.001). Further, the single question assessing likelihood of seeking sexual health services stated above was positively correlated with SRH Importance (r = 0.313, p < 0.001), Perceived Barriers (r = 0.163, p = 0.001), Perceived Trust and Support (r = 0.204, p < 0.001), and Stigma (r = 0.164, p = 0.001). The new four factors of the SSHSS also demonstrated adequate discriminant validity with the Need for Cognition Scale. Need for cognition was not correlated with SRH Importance (r = 0.087, p = 0.147), Perceived Trust and Support (r = 0.103, p = 0.086), or Stigma (r = 0.074, p = 0.219); however, need for cognition was positively (weakly) associated with Perceived Barriers (r = 0.158, p = 0.008).

Regression analysis

The final regression model predicting sexual health practices self-efficacy from the new four factors of the SSHSS was statistically significant (F(7,272) = 15.10, R2 = 0.280 (Adjusted R2 = 0.261), p < 0.001). Participants who reported greater sexual health practices self-efficacy also reported greater levels of recognizing the importance of receiving sexual and reproductive health services (β = 0.289, p < 0.001), fewer perceived barriers of seeking sexual healthcare services (β = 0.249, p < 0.001), and greater perceived trust and support in seeking sexual healthcare services (β = 0.213, p < 0.001; Supplemental Table 2). Participant age, sex, and ethnicity were controlled for and not associated with SHPSES scores in the full model (β’s = −0.096 to 0.036, p’s > 0.05).

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to advance much needed sexual health research by developing and testing the Seeking Sexual Healthcare Services Scale in emerging adults. Hypotheses for the present study included that an exploratory factor analysis of the SSHSS would include factors reflecting the following themes: (1) sexual healthcare service seeking, (2) perceived barriers in seeking sexual healthcare services, and (3) perceived social support in seeking sexual healthcare services, and that factors revealed from the SSHSS would positively predict scores on the SHPSES. These hypotheses were partially supported such that the SSHSS revealed four factors reflecting the following themes: (1) SRH Importance, (2) Perceived Barriers, (3) Perceived Trust and Support, and (4) Stigma. Furthermore, the second hypothesis was partially supported such that three of the four factors (i.e. SRH Importance, Perceived Barriers, Perceived Trust and Support) in both studies predicted greater sexual health practices self-efficacy in the expected direction, demonstrating convergent validity.

The final 20-item scale (as demonstrated from Study 2) as well as the four factors showed adequate internal reliability and convergent validity. All factors were positively correlated with greater likelihood of seeking sexual and reproductive healthcare services. This shows that the SSHSS may be a useful tool for quantitatively assessing access to sexual healthcare services. Furthermore, the presence of these factors is congruent with past literature which suggests that perceived benefits, perceived barriers, social support, and stigma may be associated with access to sexual healthcare services (Newton-Levinson et al., 2016; Ramaswamy et al., 2018; Suanda et al., 2013). Indeed, greater perceived benefits and social support may facilitate access to sexual healthcare services by normalizing service utilization and emphasizing the importance of maintaining sexual well-being (Hall et al., 2018). Fewer perceived barriers and reduced stigma may also contribute to service utilization by facilitating accessibility of such services (Suanda et al., 2013).

That the best fitting model was composed of four factors and included Stigma is consistent with past literature. Indeed, Jones et al. (2019) noted that there are prevalent stigmatized attitudes among emerging adults seeking sexual healthcare services, and these attitudes may promote an aversion to acquire such services. In Study 2, we expanded on this factor by soliciting expert consultation to improve the items in this factor and increase the predictive power of this construct in which items reflecting self-stigma were added. Expert consultations improved the SSHSS in Study 2, specifically the Stigma and Perceived Barriers factor, as internal reliability for both of these factors increased from Study 1 to Study 2. However, model fit was still slightly less than acceptable with regard to CFI (CFI = 0.890), so future studies should continue to assess the validity of this scale in similar age groups as well as other age groups such as adolescents given that 16% of individuals engage in sexual intercourse by the age of 15 (Finer and Philbin, 2013).

In Study 1, the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale was negatively correlated with three of the SSHSS factors, which demonstrated insufficient evidence for discriminant validity in our developed SSHSS. However, this may not be surprising given today’s volatile climate toward sexual health services (Pugh, 2019). The Right-Wing Authoritarian Scale measures the extent to which people adhere to established authority, display aggression toward outgroups, and support the traditional values that are endorsed by the authority (e.g. conservatism; Zakrisson, 2005). Therefore, participants may have political opinions about seeking healthcare services, specifically women’s healthcare. Due to this weak discriminant validity, the Need for Cognition Scale (Cacioppo et al., 1984) was used for Study 2. Need for cognition adequately displayed discriminant validity with the SRH Importance, Perceived Trust and Support, and Stigma factors. However, Need for Cognition Scale was positively correlated with the Perceived Barriers factor. This could indicate that those with higher cognitive abilities may be more perceptive and therefore more likely to recognize barriers to accessing sexual healthcare services; future studies may wish to further explore this relationship.

Furthermore, the ethnic composition of the samples differed from Study 1 to Study 2. Given that 90% of individuals in the second sample identified as Latinx, other cultural factors may have influenced exploratory factor analyses findings. Past studies have noted that cultural factors (e.g. marianismo, machismo) may impact how Latinos navigate sexual healthcare service acquisition (Ertl et al., 2018; Rivera et al., 2021). Thus, future studies may be warranted to continue validating this measure in different ethnocultural groups.

Limitations and strengths

Several limitations of our study are worth mentioning. First, the sample in Study 1 was comprised of predominantly non-Latinx (80.6%) individuals and had an even distribution of females to males (48.0% vs 51.7%). In contrast, Study 2 was comprised of predominantly Latinx (90%) and female (86.1%) participants. These differences in sample composition may have impacted the exploratory factor analysis given that past studies have noted differences in treatment-seeking by gender and ethnicity (Eastman-Mueller et al., 2022; Sutton et al., 2021). Second, no confirmatory factor analyses were conducted highlighting the need to confirm our observed 20-item four-factor model in future studies. Third, we did not conduct measurement invariance analyses across socioeconomic measures (e.g. highest level of education, household income) as our study reported on exploratory factor analyses. Fourth, the fit of the second exploratory factor analysis was a slightly less than acceptable fit given that CFI did not meet the 0.90 threshold, suggesting that future studies may be required to improve on model fit. Despite these limitations, this is the first study to create a quantitative measure to help facilitate the assessment of seeking sexual healthcare services among emerging adults by utilizing past qualitative research on sexual healthcare service acquisition.

Future directions and clinical implications

Future studies are warranted to continue exploring and validating the SSHSS. Specifically, studies should confirm the factor structure of the SSHSS and conduct measurement invariance analyses of the SSHSS across socioeconomic measures. Similarly, validating the SSHSS among other important groups such as adolescents and racial/ethnic and gender minorities is paramount given that these groups may also encounter additional cultural and age-specific difficulties when seeking sexual healthcare services (Decker et al., 2021; Sutton et al., 2021). Furthermore, translation to other languages may help increase the utility of this measure to non-English-speaking populations.

This measure contributes substantially to sexual health literature and clinical practice by serving as a tool to assess the likelihood of sexual healthcare service utilization and to help reduce potential barriers and stigma when accessing services. The brevity and standardization of this measure allows for practitioners to assess accessibility of sexual health resources in a cost-effective manner. Moreover, the present study builds a foundation for the future development of scales aiming to measure sexual healthcare seeking behaviors as this measure may facilitate continued research efforts to improve access to sexual healthcare services. This is paramount given recent funding cuts to sexual health research (Cohen, 2023) and sexual health disparities among emerging adults (CDC, 2022).

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-hpq-10.1177_13591053251408560 – Supplemental material for Developing the Seeking Sexual Healthcare Services Scale among emerging adults
sj-docx-1-hpq-10.1177_13591053251408560.docx (25.8KB, docx)

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-hpq-10.1177_13591053251408560 for Developing the Seeking Sexual Healthcare Services Scale among emerging adults by Ariana Cervantes, Miguel A. Garcia, Andrea Rodriguez-Crespo, Miguel Urbina, Theodore V. Cooper and Osvaldo F. Morera in Journal of Health Psychology

Acknowledgments

The authors would also like to thank Chelsea Queen and Grace Hanzelin for facilitating data collection for Study 1 and their invaluable feedback on this manuscript. We would also like to thank Mitchell Kirwan for his feedback on the refinement of scale items in Study 2.

Footnotes

ORCID iD: Theodore V. Cooper Inline graphic https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6890-0353

Ethical considerations: All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Institutional review board approval was obtained from the University of Texas at El Paso (Study 1 approval number: 2047002; Study 2 approval number: 2190063).

Consent to participate: All participants provided written consent to be included in the study prior to data collection.

Consent for publication: Participants provided consent for their anonymized data to be used in publications.

Author contributions: Cervantes: Conceptualization, Investigation, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – original draft; Garcia: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft; Rodriguez-Crespo: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – review and editing; Urbina: Conceptualization, Writing – review and editing; Cooper: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review and editing; Morera: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Investigation, Resources, Supervision, Funding Acquisition, Writing – review and editing.

Funding: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Study 1 received funding from the last author’s overhead funds. Study 2 received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement: The dataset generated during and/or analyzed during the present study are available in the Figshare repository: Study 1 is available at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28764956.v1. Study 2 is available at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28764959.

Supplemental material: Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

  1. Adams SH, Park MJ, Twietmeyer L, et al. (2018) Association between adolescent preventive care and the role of the affordable care act. JAMA Pediatrics 172(1): 43–48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alonso-Martinez L, Fernandez-Hawrylak HS, Ortega-Sanchez D. (2021) Understand sexual risk behaviours in young adults and challenges in their education. Qualitative Research in Education 10(2): 172–203. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnett JJ. (2000) Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist 55(5): 469–480. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnett JJ. (2007) Emerging adulthood: What is it, and what is it good for? Child Development Perspectives 1: 68–73. [Google Scholar]
  5. Atkins DN, Bradford WD. (2021) The effect of state-level sex education policies on youth sexual behaviors. Archives of Sexual Behavior 50(6): 2321–2333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Barthalow Koch P, Colaco C, Porter A. (2011) Sexual health practices self-efficacy scale. In:Fisher TD, Davis CM, Yarber WL, et al. (eds) Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures. Routledge, Taylor & Francis, pp.345–347. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bender SS, Fulbright YK. (2013) Content analysis: A review of perceived barriers to sexual and reproductive health services by young people. European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care 18(3): 159–167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Blackburn R, Donnelly JP, Logan C, et al. (2004) Convergent and discriminative validity of interview and questionnaire measures of personality disorder in mentally disordered offenders: A multitrait-multimethod analysis using confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Personality Disorders 18(2): 129–150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Caal S, Guzman L, Berger A, et al. (2013) Because you’re on birth control, it automatically makes you promiscuous or something: Latina women’s perceptions of parental approval to use reproductive health care. Journal of Adolescent Health 53(5): 617–622. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Kao CF. (1984) The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment 48(3): 306–307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2018) Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2018. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://doi.org/10.15620/cdc.79370 (accessed 21 April 2023). [Google Scholar]
  12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2019) School Health Policies and Practices Study (SHPPS). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/shpps/index.htm (accessed 24 April 2023). [Google Scholar]
  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2022) Health disparities in Hispanic or Latino people. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/health-disparities-hiv-std-tb-hepatitis/populations/hispanic-latino.html (accessed 24 April 2023). [Google Scholar]
  14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2024) Sexual health services. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/healthy-youth/what-works-in-schools/sexual-health-services.html (accessed 24 September 2024). [Google Scholar]
  15. Champion JD, Harlin B, Collins JL. (2013) Sexual risk behavior and STI health literacy among ethnic minority adolescent women. Applied Nursing Research 26(4): 204–209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cheedalla A, Moreau C, Burke AE. (2020) Sex education and contraceptive use of adolescent and young adult females in the United States: An analysis of the national survey of family growth 2011–2017. Contraception: X 2: 100048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cohen A. (2023) CDC alerts states of cuts to STI workforce, blames debt deal. Roll Call. Available at: https://rollcall.com/2023/06/14/cdc-alerts-states-of-cuts-to-sti-workforce-blames-debt-deal/https://rollcall.com/2023/06/14/cdc-alerts-states-of-cuts-to-sti-workforce-blames-debt-deal/ (accessed 12 June 2024).
  18. Costello A, Osborne JW. (2005) Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation 10: 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  19. Decker MJ, Atyam TV, Zárate CG, et al. (2021) Adolescents’ perceived barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive health services in California: A cross-sectional survey. BMC Health Services Research 21(1): 1263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Eastman-Mueller H, Fu TC, Dodge BM, et al. (2022) The relationship between college students’ campus sexual health resource utilization and self-reported STI testing: Findings from an undergraduate probability survey. Journal of American College Health 70(3): 843–851. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Ertl MM, Dillon FR, Cabrera Tineo YA, et al. (2018) Sexual risk during initial months in US among Latina young adults. AIDS Care 30(3): 353–360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Ertl MM, Martin JL, Dillon FR, et al. (2022) Associations between ethnic identity commitment, discrimination, and sexism with sexual risk among Latina college students. Journal of Latinx Psychology 10(3): 207–224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Finer LB, Philbin JM. (2013) Sexual initiation, contraceptive use, and pregnancy among young adolescents. Pediatrics 131(5): 886–891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fox AM, Himmelstein G, Khalid H, et al. (2019) Funding for abstinence-only education and adolescent pregnancy prevention: Does state ideology affect outcomes? American Journal of Public Health 109(3): 497–504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Fuxman S, De Los Santos S, Finkelstein D, et al. (2015) Sources of information on sex and antecedents of early sexual initiation among urban Latino youth. American Journal of Sexuality Education 10(4): 333–350. [Google Scholar]
  26. Guttmacher Institute (2020) Sex and HIV Education. Guttmacher Institute. Available at: https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/sex-and-hiv-education (accessed 25 April 2023). [Google Scholar]
  27. Guvenc G, Akyuz A, Açikel CH. (2011) Health belief model scale for cervical cancer and pap smear test: Psychometric Testing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 67(2): 428–437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hall KS, Manu A, Morhe E, et al. (2018) Development and validation of a scale to measure adolescent sexual and reproductive health stigma: Results from young women in Ghana. Journal of Sex Research 55(1): 60–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hall KS, McDermott Sales J, Komro KA, et al. (2016) The state of sex education in the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health 58(6): 595–597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hawkins SE, DeLuca HK, Claxton SE, et al. (2023) Sexual behaviors, satisfaction, and intentions to engage in casual sexual relationships and experiences in emerging adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior 52(4): 1575–1591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hu L, Bentler PM. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6: 1–55. [Google Scholar]
  32. Jones K, Williams J, Sipsma H, et al. (2019) Adolescent and emerging adults’ evaluation of a Facebook site providing sexual health education. Public Health Nursing 36: 11–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Ketting E, Ivanova O. (2018) Sexuality education in Europe and Central Asia: State of the art and recent developments. Available at: https://healtheducationresources.unesco.org/library/documents/sexuality-education-europe-and-central-asia-state-art-and-recent-developments (accessed 25 April 2023).
  34. MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. (1996) Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods 1: 130–149. [Google Scholar]
  35. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. (1998. –2025) Mplus (Version 8.11). Muthén and Muthén. Available at: https://www.statmodel.com/ [Google Scholar]
  36. Newton-Levinson A, Leichliter JS, Chandra-Mouli V. (2016) Sexually transmitted infection services for adolescents and youth in low- and middle-income countries: Perceived and experienced barriers to accessing care. Journal of Adolescent Health 59(1): 7–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy (OIDP) (2024) Sexually transmitted infections (STIS). HHS.gov. Available at: https://www.hhs.gov/programs/topic-sites/sexually-transmitted-infections/index.html (accessed 30 October 2024).
  38. Pugh S. (2019) Politics, power, and sexual and reproductive health and rights: Impacts and opportunities. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 27(2): 1–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Ramaswamy M, Unruh E, Comfort M. (2018) Navigating social networks, resources, and neighborhoods: Facilitators of sexual and reproductive health care use among women released from jail. Women’s Reproductive Health 5(1): 44–58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Rivera DB, Brady JP, Blashill AJ. (2021) Traditional machismo, caballerismo, and the Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) cascade among a sample of Latino sexual minority men. Journal of Sex Research 58(1): 21–28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Rosenstock IM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH. (1988) Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Education Quarterly 15(2): 175–183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Scheinfeld E. (2021) Shame and STIs: An exploration of emerging adult students’ felt shame and stigma towards getting tested for and disclosing sexually transmitted infections. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(13): 7179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Sekhar MA, Edward S, Grace A, et al. (2024) Understanding comprehensive sexuality education: A worldwide narrative review. Cureus 16(11): e74788. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Senn T. (2013) Sexual risk behavior. In: Gellman MD, Turner JR. (eds) Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine. Springer, pp.1779–1782. [Google Scholar]
  45. Suanda J, Cawley D, Domegan C, et al. (2013) A review of the perceived barriers within the Health Belief Model on pap smear screening as a cervical cancer prevention measure. Journal of Asian Scientific Research 3(6): 677–692. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sutton MY, Anachebe NF, Lee R, et al. (2021) Racial and ethnic disparities in reproductive health services and outcomes, 2020. Obstetrics and Gynecology 137(2): 225–233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. (eds) (2001) Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th edn. Allyn and Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  48. Twenge JM, Sherman RA, Wells BE. (2015) Changes in American adults’ sexual behavior and attitudes, 1972-2012. Archives of Sexual Behavior 44(8): 2273–2285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. World Population Review (2022) STD rates by country 2022. Available at: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/std-rates-by-country (accessed 1 February 2023).
  50. Zakrisson I. (2005) Construction of a short version of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale. Personality and Individual Differences 39(5): 863–872. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

sj-docx-1-hpq-10.1177_13591053251408560 – Supplemental material for Developing the Seeking Sexual Healthcare Services Scale among emerging adults
sj-docx-1-hpq-10.1177_13591053251408560.docx (25.8KB, docx)

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-hpq-10.1177_13591053251408560 for Developing the Seeking Sexual Healthcare Services Scale among emerging adults by Ariana Cervantes, Miguel A. Garcia, Andrea Rodriguez-Crespo, Miguel Urbina, Theodore V. Cooper and Osvaldo F. Morera in Journal of Health Psychology

Articles from Journal of Health Psychology are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES