Table 1.
Number and percentage of participants who received each code.
| Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | N | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| School-based sexuality education (N = 56) | Type | None | 6 | 11% |
| Abstinence only | 15 | 27% | ||
| Covered sexual health in some way | 40 | 71% | ||
| Inclusivity | Heteronormative | 26 | 46% | |
| LGBTQ-inclusive | 15 | 27% | ||
| Inclusivity was not discussed | 22 | 39% | ||
| Other sources | Parents (N = 46) | Didn’t talk to | 14 | 30% |
| Talked about sexual health | 19 | 41% | ||
| Talked about other aspects of sex | 8 | 17% | ||
| Don’t know what they talked about | 8 | 17% | ||
| Friends (N = 25) | Talked about sexual health | 11 | 44% | |
| Talked about other aspects of sex | 8 | 32% | ||
| Don’t know what they talked about | 9 | 36% | ||
| Internet (N = 35) | Searched for information | 25 | 71% | |
| Learned from pornography | 18 | 51% | ||
| Gaps in knowledge (N = 54) | LGBTQ-specific gaps | 26 | 48% | |
| General (i.e., not LGBTQ-specific) gaps | 17 | 31% | ||
| Sexual communication | 11 | 20% | ||
| Other | 17 | 31% | ||
| None | 12 | 22% | ||
| PrEP | Knowledge (N = 53) | Had not heard of it | 21 | 40% |
| Had heard of it, but did not know anything about it | 11 | 21% | ||
| Had heard of it and described it accurately | 20 | 38% | ||
| Had heard of it, but described it wrong | 2 | 4% | ||
| Knows that teens can use it (N = 25) | Yes | 12 | 48% | |
| Unsure | 13 | 52% | ||
| Preferences for sexuality education programs | Usefulness (N = 38) | Useful | 37 | 97% |
| Not useful | 1 | 3% | ||
| Benefits (N = 56) | Benefits of a program for bi+ male youth | 11 | 20% | |
| Benefits of a program for bi+ and gay male youth | 23 | 41% | ||
| Benefits of a program for all youth | 4 | 7% | ||
| Did not describe benefits | 27 | 48% |
Note. The sample included 56 participants, but percentages are based on how many participants were asked questions about each topic. Themes within each section are not mutually exclusive (i.e., one participant could receive more than one code).