Non-consensual condom removal among adults: prevalence, correlates, and outcomes in quantitative studies – A systematic review

Non-consensual condom removal among adults:... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-584" }, "headline": "Non-consensual condom removal among adults: prevalence, correlates, and outcomes in quantitative...", "datePublished": "2026-04-19T04:27:11", "dateModified": "2026-04-19T04:27:11", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Mamta Behera" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Dr Vasiliki Kravvariti" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Non-consensual condom removal (NCCR), generally referred to as “stealthing,” is an increasing trend among young people yet under-recognised as a form of sexual violence and may increase risk of STI/HIV transmission, unintended pregnancy, and psychological or psychosexual harm. Despite growing attention on social media platforms over the past few years, the epidemiology of NCCR remains unclear, and legal responses are inconsistent. This review asked: What is the prevalence of NCCR among adults (≥18 years), and how does it vary across populations and settings? The objectives were to synthesise quantitative prevalence estimates, describe demographic variation where data permit, and summarise reported outcomes. Methods Following PRISMA 2020, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and APA PsycINFO, supplemented by screening 200 Google Scholar records and backward/forward citation chasing. Eligible studies were English-language, peer-reviewed quantitative studies reporting NCCR prevalence (victimisation and/or perpetration) among adults. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, with disagreements resolved through discussion. EndNote was used for reference management and de-duplication. Study quality was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies. Due to heterogeneity in populations, recall periods, and measurement approaches, findings were synthesised narratively. Results Eleven studies were included from the United States (n = 6), Australia (n = 1), Australia/New Zealand (n = 1), Canada (n = 1), Brazil (n = 1), and India (n = 1). Most were cross-sectional surveys conducted among university students (n = 5), local community (n = 4), local community and college students (n = 1), Amazon MTurk sample (n = 1) and in sexual health clinic settings (n = 1). Sample sizes varied across the included studies, ranging from 96 to 2,550 participants. Women’s victimisation prevalence ranged from 9.3% to 32%, and MSM victimisation reached 35%. Men’s perpetration prevalence ranged from 1.3% to 19.8%. However, the reasons behind it remain unclear. Common correlates included substance use, minority status (where assessed), relationship or sexual history factors, and prior victimisation. Outcomes were inconsistently measured, but studies that assessed these domains included sexual health and psychological impacts. Conclusions NCCR is reported internationally with substantial prevalence in women and MSM, although estimates vary by setting and measurement. Standardised definitions, validated measures, and consistent reporting of outcomes are needed to strengthen surveillance and inform clinical screening, prevention, and legal responses. Unlike broad scoping syntheses, this review provides an objective-led, quality-appraised synthesis of quantitative prevalence estimates and measured impacts. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-584", "name": "Non-consensual condom removal among adults: prevalence, correlates,..." } } ] } Home Browse Non-consensual condom removal among adults: prevalence, correlates,... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Behera M and Kravvariti DV. Non-consensual condom removal among adults: prevalence, correlates, and outcomes in quantitative studies – A systematic review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :584 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.178745.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Systematic Review Non-consensual condom removal among adults: prevalence, correlates, and outcomes in quantitative studies – A systematic review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved] Mamta Behera https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7701-460X 1 , Dr Vasiliki Kravvariti https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6187-5444 1 Mamta Behera https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7701-460X 1 , Dr Vasiliki Kravvariti https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6187-5444 1 PUBLISHED 19 Apr 2026 Author details Author details 1 Department of Medicine Health and Life Science, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, SA2 8PP, UK Mamta Behera Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Dr Vasiliki Kravvariti Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background Non-consensual condom removal (NCCR), generally referred to as “stealthing,” is an increasing trend among young people yet under-recognised as a form of sexual violence and may increase risk of STI/HIV transmission, unintended pregnancy, and psychological or psychosexual harm. Despite growing attention on social media platforms over the past few years, the epidemiology of NCCR remains unclear, and legal responses are inconsistent. This review asked: What is the prevalence of NCCR among adults (≥18 years), and how does it vary across populations and settings? The objectives were to synthesise quantitative prevalence estimates, describe demographic variation where data permit, and summarise reported outcomes. Methods Following PRISMA 2020, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and APA PsycINFO, supplemented by screening 200 Google Scholar records and backward/forward citation chasing. Eligible studies were English-language, peer-reviewed quantitative studies reporting NCCR prevalence (victimisation and/or perpetration) among adults. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, with disagreements resolved through discussion. EndNote was used for reference management and de-duplication. Study quality was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies. Due to heterogeneity in populations, recall periods, and measurement approaches, findings were synthesised narratively. Results Eleven studies were included from the United States (n = 6), Australia (n = 1), Australia/New Zealand (n = 1), Canada (n = 1), Brazil (n = 1), and India (n = 1). Most were cross-sectional surveys conducted among university students (n = 5), local community (n = 4), local community and college students (n = 1), Amazon MTurk sample (n = 1) and in sexual health clinic settings (n = 1). Sample sizes varied across the included studies, ranging from 96 to 2,550 participants. Women’s victimisation prevalence ranged from 9.3% to 32%, and MSM victimisation reached 35%. Men’s perpetration prevalence ranged from 1.3% to 19.8%. However, the reasons behind it remain unclear. Common correlates included substance use, minority status (where assessed), relationship or sexual history factors, and prior victimisation. Outcomes were inconsistently measured, but studies that assessed these domains included sexual health and psychological impacts. Conclusions NCCR is reported internationally with substantial prevalence in women and MSM, although estimates vary by setting and measurement. Standardised definitions, validated measures, and consistent reporting of outcomes are needed to strengthen surveillance and inform clinical screening, prevention, and legal responses. Unlike broad scoping syntheses, this review provides an objective-led, quality-appraised synthesis of quantitative prevalence estimates and measured impacts. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Stealthing, Non-Consensual Condom Removal, Young Adults, Sexual Coercion, Sexual Violence Corresponding Author(s) Mamta Behera ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Mamta Behera Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2026 Behera M and Kravvariti DV. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Behera M and Kravvariti DV. Non-consensual condom removal among adults: prevalence, correlates, and outcomes in quantitative studies – A systematic review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :584 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.178745.1 ) First published: 19 Apr 2026, 15 :584 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.178745.1 ) Latest published: 19 Apr 2026, 15 :584 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.178745.1 ) 1. Introduction Non-consensual condom removal (NCCR), commonly referred to as stealthing, refers to the deliberate removal of a condom during sexual intercourse 1 without the knowledge or consent of a sexual partner, 2 and is increasingly recognised as an emerging form of sexual violence. NCCR has been described as an unconventional form of rape 3 and a significant violation of sexual and reproductive autonomy, particularly among young people. 4 Evidence from studies across the globe suggests that NCCR is a widespread and gendered phenomenon, with prevalence estimates as high as 43% among women and 19% among men who have sex with men (MSM) reporting victimisation. 5 In contrast, perpetration has been reported by approximately 9.8% of men, with no statistically significant evidence of perpetration by women identified to date. 5 Collectively, these findings highlight NCCR as a globally prevalent yet under-recognised form of sexual violence with serious implications for sexual health, consent, and bodily autonomy. 5 , 6 Although NCCR has gained prominence only in the past decade, largely driven by increased visibility through social media discourse 7 the practice of NCCR has been reported for several decades across diverse sexual contexts and populations. 8 As empirical attention to NCCR has expanded, it has increasingly been conceptualised as a significant yet under-recognised form of sexual violence, located at the intersection of public health, sexual and reproductive rights, and gender inequality. 1 , 3 , 9 This growing body of research moves beyond viewing NCCR as a risky sexual behaviour and instead frames it as a violation rooted in unequal power relations and flawed assumptions about consent. Central to this conceptualisation is the distinction between consent to protected sex and consent to unprotected sex. Consent to sexual activity with a condom does not constitute consent to condomless intercourse. By covertly altering the agreed conditions of a sexual encounter, NCCR fundamentally violates sexual autonomy and undermines informed consent, thereby exposing individuals to preventable health risks such as sexually transmitted infections (STIs), HIV, and unintended pregnancy. 2 , 10 These harms situate NCCR firmly within a public health framework while reinforcing its classification as sexual violence rather than accidental or miscommunicated behaviour. Beyond its physical health consequences, NCCR has also been associated with significant psychological and emotional harms, including distress, diminished sexual agency, and trauma linked to deception and betrayal. 4 , 11 Importantly, the ambiguous social and legal recognition of NCCR can further compound these harms. Victims may delay or avoid post-coital responses such as emergency contraception or STI testing, often due to uncertainty about whether the experience constitutes a violation or reluctance to identify it as sexual violence. 3 This hesitancy underscores how limited awareness and contested definitions of NCCR not only obscure its prevalence but also intensify its adverse health and psychosocial impacts. 1.2 Young adults, gender, and risk context Building on the conceptual framing of NCCR as a violation of consent with significant health and psychosocial consequences, existing research suggests that young adults aged 18 years and above are particularly vulnerable to this form of sexual harm. This life stage is often characterised by increased sexual exploration, a higher likelihood of casual or non-committed sexual relationships, and variable condom use, especially in social contexts where power imbalances, substance use, and peer norms complicate discussions of consent and sexual boundaries. 12 , 13 Although awareness of condom use and sexual health risks is generally high among young people, evidence consistently demonstrates that knowledge alone does not reliably translate into protective sexual behaviour. 14 Within these contexts, gendered patterns of victimisation and perpetration are consistently observed. Women and girls are more frequently reported as victims of NCCR, particularly those with a prior history of sexual victimisation, suggesting cumulative vulnerability over time. 15 In contrast, perpetrators are more likely to exhibit hostile or antisocial traits, sexual entitlement, and broader patterns of coercive or aggressive behaviour. 16 , 17 Importantly, existing evidence indicates that NCCR often co-occurs with other forms of sexual coercion rather than occurring as an isolated behaviour, reinforcing its classification as part of a broader continuum of sexual violence. 1.3 Legal ambiguity and global variation Despite growing recognition of NCCR as a violation of consent, legal responses remain inconsistent across jurisdictions. In the United Kingdom, NCCR is not explicitly defined as a criminal offence, creating uncertainty regarding prosecution under existing sexual offences legislation. 18 , 19 Similar ambiguity exists across much of the United States and Canada, where NCCR is often prosecutable only if it results in demonstrable bodily harm, such as pregnancy or STI transmission. 2 , 3 In contrast, a small number of jurisdictions have taken clearer legal positions. California classifies NCCR as sexual battery, Singapore criminalised the act under its Criminal Law Reform Act, and Australian courts have recognised NCCR as a violation of consent. 6 , 20 These disparities shape public perceptions of seriousness and accountability. Quantitative evidence suggests that even where individuals recognise NCCR as wrong, not all view it as criminal, and support for prosecution often increases only when physical consequences such as pregnancy or STIs occur. 21 1.4 Prevalence and population-level uncertainty Quantitative studies indicate that NCCR is not a rare occurrence, although reported prevalence varies widely across settings and populations. Researchers 5 found that rates of NCCR victimisation ranged from 7.9% to 43.0% for women and 5.0% to 19.0% for MSMs; rates of NCCR perpetration ranged from 5.1% to 9.8% for men and 0% for women. Evidence also suggests an increase in reported prevalence over the past decade, alongside a rise in scholarly publications addressing NCCR. 9 However, the true population burden of NCCR remains difficult to determine. Prevalence estimates are shaped by substantial heterogeneity in study design, sampling strategies, recall periods, and definitions of NCCR. Many studies rely on convenience samples, particularly university students, and few provide sufficiently detailed demographic stratification to allow comparison across age groups, genders, geographic regions, or sexual orientations. This lack of comparability limits the usefulness of existing data for public health surveillance and prevention planning. Existing reviews and remaining gaps A few review papers have contributed important insights into NCCR, but have not addressed key epidemiological questions. A previous study conducted a rapid review aimed at resolving conceptual and definitional inconsistencies, proposing a broader framework of “nonconsensual condom-use deception.” 6 While valuable for theoretical clarity, their review was not designed to synthesise prevalence estimates or examine demographic or regional variation. A scoping review mapped the extent and nature of empirical research on NCCR. 5 As intended in scoping methodology, the review was broad and inclusive, synthesising diverse study designs and populations to identify themes and gaps. However, it did not focus on a systematic comparison of prevalence estimates or on the methodological drivers of variation. A further narrative synthesis examined NCCR primarily in relation to alcohol-involved rape and abortion policy barriers following the Dobbs decision. 22 While highlighting the reproductive consequences of NCCR, this work did not aim to quantify prevalence or assess population-level patterns. Collectively, these reviews establish NCCR as a legitimate concern but leave a critical gap in the literature: the absence of a systematic, prevalence-focused synthesis of quantitative evidence that examines how NCCR varies by age, gender, region, and study design. Aim of the current systematic review Guided by a pre-specified study protocol (Appendix 1- Study Protocol), the present systematic review aims to synthesise quantitative evidence on the prevalence of non-consensual condom removal among adults aged 18 years and above. Specifically, the review seeks to: 1. Identify and summarise quantitative studies reporting prevalence estimates of NCCR; 2. Examine how prevalence varies by age group, gender, geographic region, and quantitative study design, where data permit; and 3. Report additional outcomes related to NCCR, including disclosure patterns and associated sexual, reproductive, and mental health impacts, when available. By consolidating prevalence data and critically examining methodological heterogeneity, this review aims to strengthen the epidemiological evidence base on NCCR and support more informed public health responses, legal discourse, and prevention strategies for this under-recognised form of sexual violence. 2. Method Study design and reporting framework This review was conducted as a systematic review of quantitative studies reporting the prevalence of non-consensual condom removal (NCCR) among adults aged 18 years and above. The review followed established methodological guidance for prevalence reviews and was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A review protocol was developed prior to commencing the review to guide methodology and ensure transparency, in line with updated systematic review guidance. 23 , 24 The PRISMA flow diagram detailing the study selection process is provided in Appendix 3 . Databases Three electronic databases were searched: CINAHL, MEDLINE, and APA PsycINFO. Search strategy A two-step search strategy was employed to identify relevant studies. The first step involved an initial exploratory (wild) search, a broad, unstructured scan of literature using basic keywords related to condom sabotage, NCCR and young people. This phase aimed to familiarise the researchers with commonly used terminology, refine inclusion concepts, and identify alternative spellings or phrasing across different disciplines and databases. Based on this exploratory phase, the second step involved a more systematic, advanced search using Boolean operators (AND, OR), truncation (*), and phrase searching (“”). The final search terms included in the above 3 databases are as follows: 1. ( nonconsensual condom* remov* OR non-consensual condom* remov* OR stealthing OR condom* sabotage* OR condom* remov* without consent OR NCCR ) 2. (Clinical trial* OR statistic* OR questionnaire* OR survey* OR quantitative OR cross-sectional OR cohort OR epidemiology OR observational study OR surveillance OR “Chi-Square” OR regression OR “statistics & numerical data”) Across all databases, searches were limited to peer-reviewed journal articles published in English. The final search yielded 348 records from MEDLINE, 23 from CINAHL, and 62 from APA PsycINFO. One additional study was identified through citation searching, bringing the total to 11 studies. Detailed database-specific search strings are available in Appendix 2. To enhance completeness, backwards and forward citation searching was conducted for all included studies. In addition, Google Scholar was searched systematically, with screening limited to the first 20 pages of results, consistent with best practice recommendations for supplementary searching in systematic reviews. Study selection All records identified through database searches were imported into EndNote reference management software. Duplicate records were identified and removed using EndNote’s automated duplicate detection function, followed by manual verification to ensure that all duplicates were appropriately identified and removed. Study selection was conducted in a staged process in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidance. In the first stage, titles and abstracts were screened to identify potentially relevant studies addressing non-consensual condom removal (NCCR), including studies that did not explicitly use the term stealthing but examined related concepts. Records that did not indicate stealthing or NCCR in the title or abstract were excluded at this stage. Full texts were sought for all records considered potentially eligible. One report could not be retrieved. During initial full-text inspection, a small number of reports were excluded because, despite appearing potentially relevant at the screening stage, they did not address stealthing or NCCR upon closer examination. The remaining full-text articles were then assessed in detail for eligibility against the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full-text assessment was conducted independently by two reviewers, with any disagreements resolved through discussion and consensus. Reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage were documented and are presented in the PRISMA flow diagram (Appendix 3). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported quantitative prevalence estimates of NCCR victimisation and/or perpetration among adults aged 18 years and above, were published in peer-reviewed journals, and were available in full text in English. Studies were excluded if they were qualitative in design, opinion pieces, editorials, commentaries, or conference abstracts without full text. Studies that did not report prevalence data or included participants under the age of 18 were also excluded. Quality appraisal Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Prevalence Studies. This tool evaluates domains, including sampling adequacy, measurement reliability, statistical analysis, and response rates. Quality appraisal was conducted to inform the interpretation of findings rather than to exclude studies based on quality alone. Results of the quality assessment are reported narratively below and summarised in tabular form in Appendix 4 . Critical appraisal of included studies (n = 11) All 11 included studies were appraised using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies (for mixed-methods papers, appraisal focused on the quantitative component only). Overall, the methodological quality was generally strong: eight studies were rated high quality, while three were rated moderate quality. Across studies, inclusion criteria and study settings were usually well described, and most papers provided clear operational definitions of NCCR, supporting consistency in case identification. Several studies also demonstrated stronger internal validity through appropriate inferential analyses, including multivariable regression to account for potential confounding (e.g., clinic-based and some community/online samples). Two reviewers independently appraised study quality, with any disagreements resolved through discussion; full item-level appraisal tables for each included study are provided in Appendix 4 . Common limitations were largely shared across the evidence base. First, sampling approaches were predominantly non-probability (e.g., university students, MTurk participants, clinic attendees, and convenience/community samples), reducing generalisability to broader adult populations. Second, all studies relied on self-reports, introducing potential recall and social desirability bias, especially given the sensitive nature of sexual violence and condom practices. Third, measurement of NCCR was frequently based on single items or study-developed questions, with limited evidence of psychometric validation; this was a key reason for moderate ratings in some studies. Finally, while several studies tested correlates of NCCR, not all employed multivariable adjustment, meaning residual confounding could not be ruled out in bivariate-only analyses. As expected for this literature, all included studies were cross-sectional; therefore, causal inference was not possible across the evidence base. In summary, the included studies provided usable prevalence and correlational evidence, with the strongest studies characterised by clear definitions, robust analytic strategies (including adjustment for confounders), and transparent reporting. However, interpretation should remain cautious due to consistent risks related to selection bias, self-report measurement, heterogeneity in NCCR measurement, and limited representativeness of samples. Data extraction Data were extracted using a standardised and pilot-tested data extraction form to ensure consistency and accuracy. Extracted variables included study characteristics (author, year, country, and setting), methodological details (study design, sampling strategy, recruitment method, and analytical approach), and participant characteristics (sample size, age range or mean age, and gender). Prevalence estimates of NCCR victimisation and/or perpetration were recorded, along with the time frame of measurement (e.g. lifetime or past-year prevalence). Where available, subgroup analyses by age, gender, sexual orientation, or region were extracted. Secondary outcomes, such as disclosure behaviour and reported sexual, reproductive, or mental health impacts, were also captured when reported. The full data extraction tool and extracted variables are provided in Appendix 5 . Data synthesis Study characteristics and prevalence estimates were synthesised using descriptive and narrative synthesis. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to substantial heterogeneity across studies, including differences in populations, definitions of NCCR, study designs, and outcome measures. As a result, a narrative synthesis approach was adopted to describe patterns and variability in reported prevalence estimates. 3. Results Study selection Database searches identified records from MEDLINE, CINAHL, and APA PsycINFO, supplemented by Google Scholar screening and citation chasing. After de-duplication and screening, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the synthesis. Study characteristics Eleven quantitative studies (n = 11) were included, with most using cross-sectional survey designs. 2 , 10 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 25 – 30 Of the 11 studies, two were mixed-methods papers from which quantitative findings were extracted. 2 , 25 Sample sizes varied considerably across studies, with the smallest study including 96 participants and the largest including 2,550 participants. The detailed data extraction table is in Appendix-5 . Studies were conducted across multiple regions, including the United States (n = 6), 12 , 16 , 25 , 26 , 29 , 31 Australia/New Zealand, (n = 1), 15 Australia,(n = 1), 10 Canada, (n = 1), 2 Brazil, (n = 1),, 27 and India (n = 1). 30 Sampling frames included university student populations (n = 5),, 2 , 15 , 25 , 27 , 30 local community samples (n = 5), 12 , 15 , 16 , 26 , 31 local community and college students sample (n = 1), 15 and (n = 1) from Amazon Mechanical Turk 29 and a sexual health clinic sample (n = 1). 10 Recall periods differed substantially (e.g., lifetime/ever vs “since age 14/16” vs not specified), contributing to heterogeneity in prevalence estimates. Four studies (n = 4) reported NCCR prevalence since age fourteen. 12 , 16 , 25 , 31 Five studies (n = 5) reported lifetime or ever experienced NCCR. 2 , 10 , 15 , 27 , 30 One study (n = 1) reported the prevalence since age sixteen. 26 and one study (n = 1) did not specify the recall period. 29 Participant populations varied across studies. Two studies (n = 2) reported recruiting the MSM population alongside women., 10 , 29 while one study (n = 1) included men, women and MSM within the sample. 29 Four studies (n = 4) recruited both men and women. 2 , 25 – 27 Two studies (n = 2) included only male participants. 12 , 16 And three studies (n = 3) recruited women participants. 15 , 30 , 31 Five studies (n = 5) assessed alcohol use and/or other substance use as potential correlates of NCCR victimisation and/or perpetration, using a range of analytic approaches, including descriptive, event-level, and multivariable analyses. 10 , 12 , 25 , 26 , 30 Objective 1: Prevalence of non-consensual condom removal Prevalence of NCCR victimisation varied by population group, setting, and recall period. Among women, victimisation prevalence ranged from 9.3% in a young women sample in Australia/New Zealand. 15 to 32% in an Australian sexual health clinic sample. 10 In U.S. samples, women’s victimisation prevalence included 12.2% in a community sample aged 21–30 28 and 24% in an MTurk adult sample. 29 In Canada, a university sample reported 18.7% victimisation. 2 11.44% among young women in Brazil 27 And in India, female university students reported 14.4% victimization. 30 Among MSMs, victimisation prevalence was 19% in the Australian sexual health clinic sample 10 and 35% in the MTurk sample. 29 Where men’s victimisation was reported, estimates were lower; e.g., 2.4% in a U.S. university sample, 25 and 5% among emerging adults in a U.S. community/online sample. 26 Perpetration prevalence was reported less consistently. Where measured among men, perpetration ranged from 1.33% in a Brazilian university student sample 27 to approximately 19–19.8% in U.S. samples of men, 12 , 29 with an additional estimate of 6.1% among U.S. emerging adults 26 and 9.8% in a U.S. sample of men aged 21–30. 32 Two studies also reported repeated victimisation/perpetration events rather than single episodes. 16 , 26 The prevalence estimates reported across the included studies are summarised in Appendix 6 . The findings from the included studies indicate that NCCR is a prevalent phenomenon across diverse populations and settings, with substantial variation by gender, sexual orientation, and recruitment context. Overall, victimisation prevalence was consistently higher among women than men, with estimates among women ranging from 9.3% to 32% . The highest prevalence was observed among women attending sexual health clinics, suggesting that clinical populations may capture individuals at heightened sexual risk or with greater exposure to coercive sexual practices. In contrast, lower but still notable prevalence was reported among women in university and community-based samples, with victimisation estimates ranging from 9.3% to 24% , indicating that NCCR is not confined to high-risk or clinical contexts. Victimisation prevalence among men was reported less frequently and, where available, tended to be lower than among women in mixed-gender samples. However, studies focusing on MSM revealed comparatively high levels of victimisation, with prevalence ranging from 19% to 35% . These findings suggest that MSM may experience distinct vulnerabilities related to sexual negotiation, power dynamics, or contextual factors within same-sex partnerships that are not adequately captured in heteronormative research frameworks. Data on NCCR perpetration were comparatively sparse but revealed important patterns. Male perpetration prevalence varied widely, ranging from 1.33% to 19.8% , depending on population characteristics and study design. Higher perpetration prevalence was reported in studies focusing exclusively on men, particularly among younger, single heterosexual men, whereas substantially lower prevalence was observed in mixed-gender university samples. This variability may reflect differences in disclosure willingness, social desirability bias, or how perpetration was operationalised across studies. The absence of quantitative estimates of female perpetration across the included studies highlights a significant gap in the literature and limits understanding of gendered patterns of perpetration. Taken together, the findings suggest that NCCR is neither rare nor limited to a specific demographic group, but rather represents a widespread sexual health and consent issue. The wide range of prevalence estimates underscores the influence of study population, setting, and measurement approaches, and highlights the need for more consistent definitions and standardised outcome measures. Improved methodological. Objective 2: Variation in prevalence by demographics and correlates 3.2.1 Alcohol and substance use as correlates of NCCR victimisation and perpetration Across studies, correlates of NCCR victimisation and perpetration were heterogeneous, but several consistent quantitative patterns emerged. Substance use, particularly alcohol, was the most repeatedly supported correlate of victimisation. Victimisation among men was associated with binge drinking (OR = 1.49, p < .05) and use of other illegal drugs (OR = 1.79, p < .05), while among women victimisation increased with older age (OR = 1.13, p < .05) and was also associated with binge drinking (OR = 1.28, p < .05), cannabis use (OR = 1.29, p < .05) and other drug use (OR = 1.22, p < .05). 26 A further study reported large differences by substance exposure: NCCR prevalence was 28.4% among binge drinkers vs 3.2% among non-binge drinkers, and 38.7% among substance users vs 3.3% among non-users (both p < .01, as reported). 30 Incident-level evidence from a sexual health clinic sample reported that alcohol and other drug use commonly co-occurred with NCCR events. At the time of the NCCR incident, 57% of women and 41% of MSM reported having consumed alcohol, while 12% of women and 13% of MSM reported use of other drugs (either with or without alcohol). Participants also frequently reported partner substance use during the incident: among women, 68% reported the partner had consumed alcohol, and 19% reported partner use of other drugs. Among MSM, 40% reported partner alcohol use and 12% reported partner use of other drugs. 10 Event-level and multivariable evidence linking NCCR perpetration to alcohol-related factors among men. 12 NCCR perpetration was positively correlated with the number of drinks consumed during the sexual event (rpb = 0.26, p = .01) and with men’s perceptions of their partners’ intoxication (rpb = 0.34, p < .01). NCCR was also significantly more likely to occur when a partner had consumed alcohol. Of the perpetrators, 72.2% were with a partner who had consumed alcohol as compared to 27.8% reported having a sober partner r (χ 2 = 6.13, p = .02). In multivariable analyses, alcohol-related expectancies specific to condom use and coercive sexual behaviour remained strong predictors of NCCR perpetration. Men who reported drinking to enhance sex had more than three times higher odds of engaging in NCCR (OR = 3.12, 95% CI 1.49–6.56), while stronger sexual coercion-related alcohol expectancies were associated with nearly a fivefold increase in odds of NCCR (OR = 4.74, 95% CI 1.60–21.64). Alcohol use was independently associated with increased risk of NCCR victimisation. 25 In the multivariable logistic regression model, alcohol use was associated with a 23% increase in the odds of NCCR victimisation (OR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.02–1.49). A detailed overview of studies assessing alcohol and substance use variables and their associations with NCCR victimisation and perpetration is presented in Appendix 7 . Across the above studies, alcohol and substance use were the most consistently identified correlates of NCCR. Regression-based analyses showed that alcohol use, binge drinking, and other drug use were independently associated with increased odds of NCCR victimisation among both men and women, with markedly higher prevalence among substance users compared with non-users. Incident-level findings further indicated that NCCR events frequently occurred in alcohol-involved sexual encounters, including contexts in which both victims and partners had consumed alcohol. Event-level and multivariable analyses among men also demonstrated that NCCR perpetration was more likely during alcohol-involved encounters and was strongly associated with alcohol-related expectancies specific to condom use and coercive sexual behaviour. Overall, the evidence indicates that alcohol-related behaviours and intoxication contexts are closely linked to both NCCR victimisation and perpetration. 3.2.2 Variation in NCCR by sexual orientation and gender identity Across the included studies, sexual orientation and gender identity were consistently associated with variation in non-consensual condom removal (NCCR) victimisation. Sexual orientation emerged as a significant correlate where examined. Heterosexual orientation was associated with significantly lower odds of NCCR victimisation among men (OR = 0.24, p < .05), indicating elevated risk among non-heterosexual men. 26 Women identifying as non-heterosexual were significantly more likely to experience NCCR than expected based on sample distribution (z = 2.35), corresponding to more than twice the odds of victimisation compared with heterosexual women. 15 Together, these findings indicate that sexual minority status was associated with increased likelihood of NCCR victimisation across different populations and study designs. Gender identity and sex also showed strong associations with NCCR victimisation. Identifying as a woman was associated with substantially higher odds of NCCR victimisation compared with cisgender men (OR = 13.41, 95% CI 1.05–172.10), while identifying as a gender minority was associated with even greater odds (OR = 30.95, 95% CI 1.54–622.78) in adjusted analyses. 25 Significant associations have also been reported between NCCR victimisation and both female biological sex and identifying as a woman ( p = 0.000 for both). 27 These findings indicate that gender identity and sex function as independent correlates of NCCR victimisation, contributing to observed variation beyond other demographic and behavioural factors. Beyond sexual orientation and gender identity, several studies identified additional correlates related to relational and behavioural context. Women who had experienced NCCR were significantly more likely to be current sex workers (AOR = 2.87, 95% CI 2.01–4.11, p < .001), highlighting the role of occupational and relationship context in shaping NCCR risk. 10 NCCR perpetration among men was associated with attitudinal and behavioural factors, with higher odds observed among men reporting greater hostility toward women (OR = 1.47) and more severe histories of sexual aggression (OR = 1.06) in adjusted analyses. 16 Objective 3: Reported outcomes and impacts associated with NCCR 3.3.1. Psychological and mental health impacts Across studies, NCCR was consistently associated with adverse psychological and mental health outcomes. Victims of NCCR were significantly more likely to report elevated post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms compared with non-victims, even after accounting for other forms of sexual violence. 30 The authors explicitly noted that a causal relationship could not be established, but that NCCR and PTSD were significantly and independently associated, underscoring the psychological burden linked to the experience. High levels of emotional distress were also reported across multiple studies. The majority of participants who experienced NCCR reported significant psychological distress, with 67.2% stating they were “bothered a lot” by the incident., 2 Similarly, emotional stress was identified as the most common outcome following NCCR, reported by 56% of women and 52% of MSM attending sexual health clinics. 10 Evidence further indicated that NCCR was associated with diminished sexual self-efficacy and perceived sexual agency. Women who experienced NCCR reported significantly lower perceived control over sexual situations than non-victims ( p = .05, r = .11), as well as a reduced ability to refuse unwanted sex, reflected in lower sexual self-efficacy scores ( p = .04, r = .11), 15 Similarly, adverse impacts on sexual wellbeing, including reduced confidence, assertiveness, and increased shame-related feelings, have also been reported. 31 Together, these findings suggest that NCCR may undermine sexual agency and confidence beyond the immediate incident. Mental health impacts were also evident in specific populations. MSMs who had experienced NCCR were significantly more likely to report symptoms of anxiety or depression (AOR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.25–3.60, p = .005). 10 Male victims of NCCR reported higher levels of depression and anxiety than any other victim or non-victim group, indicating that psychological distress may vary by gender and victimisation context. 29 Notably, substantial heterogeneity in perceived impact has been observed. Approximately 25% of women and over one-third of MSM reported no consequences following NCCR, suggesting variation in interpretation, coping, or the contextual meaning of the experience. 10 3.3.2. Physical and reproductive health consequences Several studies documented physical and reproductive health outcomes associated with NCCR. Participants reported concrete health consequences following NCCR, including sexually transmitted infections (STIs; n = 4), pregnancy (n = 2), and both STI and pregnancy (n = 1). 2 Although absolute numbers were small, these findings highlight the tangible sexual and reproductive risks associated with non-consensual condom removal. Chi-square analyses demonstrated that men with a history of NCCR perpetration were significantly more likely to report having been diagnosed with an STI (29.5% vs 15.1%) and to report that a partner had experienced an unplanned pregnancy (46.7% vs 25.8%) compared with men without such a history. 16 In a related analysis, 28 further, it was reported that STI diagnoses were positively associated with receipt of condom use resistance (CUR), but not with engagement in CUR, suggesting differential health risks for victims versus perpetrators. STIs were reported by 8% of women and 5% of MSM, while HIV infection was reported by 1% of women and 2% of MSM following experiences of NCCR among clinic based populations. 10 Collectively, these findings indicate that NCCR is associated with increased exposure to sexually transmitted infections and unplanned pregnancy across diverse populations. 3.3.3 Experiential, relational, and perceptual impacts Beyond individual health outcomes, NCCR was associated with relational and interpersonal harms. Participants reported relationship strain following NCCR, including interpersonal conflict or fights (14% of women; 9% of MSM) and relationship breakdowns (9% of women; 4% of MSM), indicating that NCCR may disrupt trust and relationship stability. 10 NCCR often occurred within broader contexts of relationship dysfunction. 29 Male perpetrators reported higher levels of partner violence and control, insecure attachment styles (avoidant and anxious), and elevated antisocial and borderline personality traits. Victims, particularly male victims, reported greater levels of violence and control within romantic relationships and endorsed more symptoms of depression and anxiety than other groups. These findings suggest that NCCR may be embedded within wider patterns of interpersonal harm and psychological vulnerability. Experiential impacts were also evident in how participants perceived and conceptualised NCCR. Most individuals who experienced NCCR described it as negative and emphasised themes of violation, lack of consent, and betrayal of trust. 2 However, individuals who had experienced NCCR were significantly less likely to label the experience as sexual assault compared with those who had not experienced it (women: OR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.22–0.40; men: OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.21–0.45), 10 highlighting a disconnect between lived harm and formal recognition of NCCR as sexual violence. Summary of findings Eleven studies were included. Reported prevalence of non-consensual condom removal (NCCR) victimisation ranged from 9.3% to 32% among women, 19% to 35% among men who have sex with men (MSM), and 2.4% to 5% among men in general population samples. Reported perpetration ranged from 1.33% to 19.8% among men. Variation in NCCR victimisation was associated with sexual orientation and gender identity. Non-heterosexual men had lower odds of protection from victimisation compared with heterosexual men (OR = 0.24, p < .05), whereas non-heterosexual women had a higher likelihood of victimisation (z = 2.35, p < .05). Identifying as a woman (OR = 13.41, 95% CI 1.05–172.10) or as a gender minority (OR = 30.95, 95% CI 1.54–622.78) was associated with higher odds of NCCR victimisation compared with cisgender men. Relationship and contextual correlates included current sex work among women (AOR = 2.87, 95% CI 2.01–4.11), perpetrator hostility toward women (OR = 1.47), and sexual aggression history (OR = 1.06). Alcohol and substance use were commonly reported behavioural correlates. Victimisation prevalence was higher among binge drinkers (28.4% vs 3.2%) and substance users (38.7% vs 3.3%) compared with non-users, while perpetration was associated with alcohol-related expectancies (OR range = 3.12–4.74). Across studies, NCCR was associated with adverse impacts including elevated post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, anxiety or depression (AOR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.25–3.60), emotional distress (52–67%), reduced sexual self-efficacy (p = .04–.05), sexually transmitted infections (5–8%), unplanned pregnancy (25–47%), and relationship conflict or breakdown (4–14%). Although causal relationships could not be established, studies reported consistent associations between NCCR and negative psychological, physical, and relational outcomes. 4. Rationale for narrative synthesis Meta-analysis was not undertaken due to substantial heterogeneity across study populations (students, clinic attendees, community/online samples), outcome measures (victimisation versus perpetration; single-item versus multi-item), and recall periods (lifetime/ever versus since age 14/16 or unspecified). Findings were therefore synthesised narratively, reporting prevalence ranges and summarising correlates and outcomes aligned with the review objectives. 5. Discussion This systematic review synthesised quantitative evidence on the prevalence, demographic patterning, correlates, and outcomes of NCCR. Across the 11 included studies, NCCR was reported across multiple regions and populations, with victimisation prevalence varying widely. Higher prevalence estimates were observed in some samples of women recruited in clinical settings, as well as in samples of men who have sex with men (MSM). Overall, these findings align with existing evidence suggesting that reported prevalence varies substantially according to sampling frame (e.g. clinic versus student or community samples), population subgroup, and measurement timeframe (e.g. lifetime versus since a specific age). Comparison with the broader literature on prevalence and measurement The wide variation in prevalence observed in this review is consistent with prior syntheses of the NCCR literature. A recent scoping review concluded that most empirical studies on stealthing are cross-sectional and report highly variable victimisation prevalence across populations, with higher estimates commonly observed among women and sexual minority samples, and perpetration estimates reported less consistently. 5 These findings mirror the pattern observed in the present review and reinforce the challenges associated with estimating population-level prevalence. Furthermore, prevalence estimates observed in this review align with the wider literature on NCCR and condom use resistance, which indicates that NCCR is reported by a substantial minority of sexually active individuals, particularly young adults and clinic-attending populations. 33 variability in prevalence across studies has been attributed to differences in study populations, recall periods, and behavioural definitions, a pattern that has also been documented more broadly in research on sexual violence and coercive sexual behaviours. 34 , 35 Additionally, NCCR has been situated within the wider literature on coercive condom use resistance (CUR), which conceptualises NCCR as one tactic within a broader range of behaviours aimed at undermining condom use. 33 , 36 This framing helps explain why prevalence estimates are sensitive to measurement choices. Studies using narrow, single-item measures capture explicit condom removal without consent, whereas broader CUR measures may capture multiple forms of condom-related coercion, including sabotage or deception, which may share overlapping but non-identical correlates and prevalence profiles. 6 Given these definitional and methodological differences, the use of narrative synthesis in the present review was appropriate. Comparison with external evidence on correlates of NCCR This review identified recurring correlates of NCCR related to alcohol or substance use, sexual minority status (where measured), relationship and sexual history factors, and prior experiences of sexual victimisation. These findings are consistent with broader evidence indicating that coercive condom-related practices often cluster with prior sexual victimisation and occur within sexual risk contexts characterised by impaired consent negotiation. 33 , 36 Research on coercive condom use resistance (which includes condom sabotage and other condom-related coercion) has linked perpetration to sexual aggression history, hostility toward women, and related coercive dynamics, particularly in male samples. 37 – 39 The review also found that victimisation prevalence among MSM was elevated in certain samples. External evidence supports this observation and highlights that condom-related coercion and deception occur in both same-sex and opposite-sex encounters, reinforcing the need for inclusive measurement approaches that do not assume exclusively heterosexual contexts. 5 , 40 Comparison with external evidence on outcomes and consequences Outcomes associated with NCCR were inconsistently reported across the included studies but included sexual and reproductive health concerns, such as risk of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy, as well as psychological impacts. The wider literature supports these concerns, indicating that coerced condomless sex practices are associated with adverse physical, emotional, and mental health outcomes. 33 , 36 However, systematic assessment of outcomes remains limited, with few studies examining longer-term consequences or integrating validated mental health measures. Relationship context and reproductive coercion Findings linking NCCR to relationship dynamics, sex work, and controlling behaviours are consistent with the reproductive coercion and intimate partner violence literature, which documents associations between birth control sabotage, unintended pregnancy, and sexual health harms. 41 Conceptualising NCCR within this broader continuum of sexual and reproductive control may help clarify mechanisms and inform prevention strategies. Alcohol, substance use, and sexual violence The strong and consistent associations between alcohol use and NCCR identified in this review align with extensive evidence linking intoxication to sexual aggression, impaired consent processes, and increased sexual risk-taking. 42 Event-level and expectancy-based findings observed in NCCR-specific studies extend established models of alcohol-related sexual risk to this specific form of sexual boundary violation. Psychological, physical, and relational impacts Associations between NCCR and PTSD symptoms, anxiety, depression, and emotional distress observed in this review mirror well-established links between sexual victimisation and adverse mental health outcomes reported in population-level studies. 34 Importantly, while cross-sectional designs preclude causal inference, the persistence of these associations after accounting for other forms of sexual violence suggests that NCCR may independently contribute to psychological harm, consistent with broader sexual violence research. 33 Physical and reproductive health consequences identified in this review, including sexually transmitted infections and unplanned pregnancy, align with findings from studies on reproductive coercion and sexual risk behaviours. 41 , 42 Together, these findings support framing NCCR as a public health concern with implications beyond consent alone. Implications for practice, policy, and research Clinically, these findings support routine, trauma-informed sexual health screening that explicitly includes questions about condom removal and related coercive condom use resistance, particularly in sexual health services and populations with elevated risk. Prevention efforts may benefit from integrating NCCR content into sexual consent education and alcohol-harm reduction strategies, given the repeated association between alcohol/substance use and both victimisation and perpetration. At the policy level, the evidence strengthens calls to treat NCCR as a form of sexual violence in legal and institutional responses, consistent with existing scholarship on consent and “rape-adjacent” practices. 3 Future research priorities include: (1) standardised, validated measures of NCCR and consistent recall periods to improve comparability; (2) more probability-based and culturally diverse sampling to address generalisability gaps; and (3) longitudinal or event-level designs (e.g., EMA) to reduce recall bias and clarify temporal pathways linking alcohol, coercion, and harm. Strengths and limitations of the evidence base This review provides a structured synthesis focused on quantitative prevalence, demographic patterning, and outcomes. However, interpretation is constrained by consistent limitations in the primary studies: cross-sectional designs precluding causal inference, heavy reliance on self-report for sensitive experiences, heterogeneous measurement (single-item vs multi-item proxies), and frequent use of convenience samples (students, MTurk, clinic attendees). These issues likely contribute to variability in prevalence estimates and underscore the appropriateness of narrative synthesis rather than meta-analysis. This review adds new knowledge beyond existing reviews Firstly, existing evidence syntheses on NCCR/“stealthing” have primarily taken a scoping or conceptual approach, mapping how the phenomenon has been defined, measured, and discussed across diverse study types and disciplines (e.g., qualitative studies, commentaries, legal scholarship), rather than producing a focused synthesis of quantitative prevalence estimates and objective-led outcomes. However, this review contributes to new and more policy-actionable knowledge in four ways. A) it is a systematic review of quantitative studies that explicitly report NCCR prevalence in adults, allowing a clearer description of prevalence ranges by population group (women, MSM, men perpetration) and setting, rather than a general mapping of the topic. B) it applies an objective-led synthesis (prevalence → demographic variation/correlates → outcomes), which strengthens transparency about what the available evidence can and cannot support for public health and prevention decision-making. C) it incorporates and synthesises recent international prevalence studies (including non-US settings) and explicitly identifies where evidence remains geographically concentrated, an issue repeatedly noted as a gap in prior reviews. Finally, by emphasising the consequences that are actually measured (e.g., sexual/reproductive outcomes, mental health impacts, disclosure/reporting where available), this review directly addresses the outcomes gap highlighted in the wider conceptual literature on NCCR measurement and consent, including calls for clearer operationalisation and consistent measurement of harms. This strengthens the review’s contribution to both research priorities (standardised measures, consistent recall periods, subgroup reporting) and policy/clinical practice (screening in sexual health settings, consent education, and targeted prevention for higher-risk groups). Data availability The PRISMA 2020 checklist and PRISMA flow diagram supporting this systematic review are available on Zenodo: PRISMA 2020 checklist and flow diagram for non-consensual condom removal among adults: prevalence, correlates, and outcomes in quantitative studies – a systematic review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18842046 . 43 Extended data (Appendices including study protocol, search strategies and search results, PRISMA, data extraction table, and quality appraisal table) are available on Zenodo: Extended data for: Non-consensual condom removal among adults: prevalence, correlates, and outcomes in quantitative studies – a systematic review. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18842429 . 44 Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0) . References 1. Nguyen KK, Weeks C, Stenstrom D: Investigating the Effects of Stealthing Justifications on Rape Perceptions. Violence Against Women. 2021; 27 (6–7): 790–805. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Czechowski K, Courtice EL, Samosh J, et al. : "That's not what was originally agreed to": Perceptions, outcomes, and legal contextualization of non-consensual condom removal in a Canadian sample. PloS one. 2019; 14 (7): e0219297. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 3. Brodsky A: “Rape-Adjacent”: Imagining Legal Responses to Nonconsensual Condom Removal. 32 Colum. J Gender & L. 2017; 183 : 195. 4. Lévesque S, Rousseau C, Dumerchat M: Influence of the Relational Context on Reproductive Coercion and the Associated Consequences. Violence Against Women. 2021; 27 (6–7): 828–850. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 5. Davis KC, Hammett JF, Chen W, et al. : A Scoping Review of Nonconsensual Condom Removal ("Stealthing") Research. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2024; 25 (1): 215–30. Language: English. Entry Date: 20231127. Revision Date: 20231129. Publication Type: Journal Article. PubMed Abstract 6. Gómez-Durán EL, Martin-Fumadó C: Nonconsensual Condom-Use Deception: An Empirically Based Conceptualization of Stealthing. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2024; 25 (1): 87–101. PubMed PMID: 173780632. Language: English. Entry Date: 20231127. Revision Date: 20231129. Publication Type: Journal Article. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. Ahmad M, Becerra B, Hernandez D, et al. : "You Do It without Their Knowledge." Assessing Knowledge and Perception of Stealthing among College Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020; 17 (10). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 8. Ebrahim S: I’m not sure this is rape, but: An exposition of the stealthing trend. SAGE Open. 2019; 9 (2): 2158244019842201. Publisher Full Text 9. Alam N, Alldred P: Condoms, Trust and Stealthing: The Meanings Attributed to Unprotected Hetero-Sex. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18 (8). PubMed Abstract 10. Latimer RL, Vodstrcil LA, Fairley CK, et al. : Non-consensual condom removal, reported by patients at a sexual health clinic in Melbourne, Australia. PLoS One. 2018; 13 (12): e0209779. 11. Lévesque S, Rousseau C: Young Women's Acknowledgment of Reproductive Coercion: A Qualitative Analysis. J. Interpers. Violence. 2021; 36 : NP8200–NP8223. PubMed PMID: 151380469. Language: English. Entry Date: 20210719. Revision Date: 20210719. Publication Type: Journal Article. Publisher Full Text 12. Chen W, Hammett JF, Eldridge N, et al. : Associations Among Alcohol-Related Factors and Men's Nonconsensual Condom Removal Perpetration. J. Interpers. Violence. 2023; 38 (21/22): 11383–99. Language: English. Entry Date: 20230929. Revision Date: 20231004. Publication Type: Journal Article. PubMed Abstract 13. Chi X, Yu L, Winter S: Prevalence and correlates of sexual behaviors among university students: a study in Hefei, China. BMC Public Health. 2012; 12 : 1–10. 14. Ajayi AI, Ismail KO, Akpan W: Factors associated with consistent condom use: a cross-sectional survey of two Nigerian universities. BMC Public Health. 2019; 19 (1): 1207. Publisher Full Text 15. Boadle A, Gierer C, Buzwell S: Young Women Subjected to Nonconsensual Condom Removal: Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Sexual Self-Perceptions. Violence Against Women. 2021; 27 (10): 1696–1715. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 16. Davis KC: "Stealthing": Factors Associated With Young Men's Nonconsensual Condom Removal. Health Psychol. 2019; 38 (11): 997–1000. PubMed PMID: 139079084. Language: English. Entry Date: 20191015. Revision Date: 20191015. Publication Type: Journal Article. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 17. Tarzia L, Srinivasan S, Marino J, et al. : Exploring the gray areas between "stealthing" and reproductive coercion and abuse. Women Health. 2020; 60 (10): 1174–1184. PubMed PMID: 146243459. Language: English. Entry Date: 20201022. Revision Date: 20220125. Publication Type: Journal Article. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 18. Clough A: Conditional consent and purposeful deception. The Journal of Criminal Law. 2018; 82 (2): 178–190. Publisher Full Text 19. Chesser B, Clough-Ricci A: Criminalising Stealthing: Lessons From the UK and Australia. The Journal of Criminal Law. 2024; 00220183241274917. 20. Dyer A: Sexual Assault Law Reform in New South Wales: Why the Lazarus Litigation Demonstrates No Need for s 61HE of the Crimes Act to be Changed (Except in One Minor Respect). A Dyer," Sexual Assault Law Reform in New South Wales: Why the Lazarus Litigation Demonstrates No Need for s 61HE of the Crimes Act to be Changed (Except in One Minor Respect)". Crim Law J. 2019; 43 (2019): 78–100. 21. Ezzat F, Hart G, Barrett G: A UK survey of young people's views on condom removal during sex. PloS one. 2024; 19 (10): e0298561. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 22. Davis KC, Neilson EC, Stappenbeck CA: Alcohol-involved rape: Limitations of the “rape exception” for abortion access. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 2024; 38 (2): 167–172. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 23. Page MJ, JE MK, Bossuyt PM, et al. : The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372 . 24. Papaioannou D, Sutton A, Carroll C, et al. : Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: consideration of a range of search techniques. Health Inf. Libr. J. 2010; 27 (2): 114–122. Publisher Full Text 25. Bonagura AG, Steedman LA, Jeglic EL: Risk factors for stealthing victimisation: gender, alcohol use, and past victimisation. J. Sex. Aggress. 2025; 1–15. Publisher Full Text 26. Bonar EE, Ngo QM, Philyaw-Kotov ML, et al. : Stealthing Perpetration and Victimization: Prevalence and Correlates Among Emerging Adults. J. Interpers. Violence. 2021; 36 (21/22): NP11577–NP11592. PubMed PMID: 153532591. Language: English. Entry Date: 20211125. Revision Date: 20211225. Publication Type: Journal Article. Publisher Full Text 27. Costa GKF, Silva MN, Arciprete APR, et al. : Stealthing among university students: associated factors. Rev. Esc. Enferm. U.S.P. 2022; 56 : e20210573. PubMed Abstract 28. Davis KC, Stappenbeck CA, Masters NT, et al. : Young Women's Experiences with Coercive and Noncoercive Condom Use Resistance: Examination of an Understudied Sexual Risk Behavior. Womens Health Issues. 2019; 29 (3): 231–237. PubMed PMID: 136563452. Language: English. Entry Date: 20190524. Revision Date: 20190524. Publication Type: Journal Article. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 29. Drouin M, Ross JM, DiClementi JD, et al. : Stealthing: Nonconsensual condom removal in same-sex and opposite-sex intimate relationships. Psychol. Violence. 2024; 14 (2): 117–126. Publisher Full Text 30. Verma S: Stealthing Among Female University Students in India: Prevalence and Association With Other Forms of Sexual Violence and PTSD. J. Interpers. Violence. 2025; 08862605251399677. Publisher Full Text 31. Davis KC, Stappenbeck CA, Masters NT, et al. : Young Women's Experiences with Coercive and Noncoercive Condom Use Resistance: Examination of an Understudied Sexual Risk Behavior. Women's health issues: official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. 2019; 29 (3): 231–237. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 32. Davis KC: "Stealthing": Factors associated with young men's nonconsensual condom removal. Health psychology: official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association. 2019; 38 (11): 997–1000. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 33. Davis KC, Stewart R, Kirwan M, et al. : Coercive condom use resistance: A scoping review. Psychol. Violence. 2023; 13 (5): 361–373. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 34. Smith SG, Zhang X, Basile KC, et al. : National intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2015 data brief–updated release.2018. 35. Koss MP, Abbey A, Campbell R, et al. : Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychol. Women Q. 2007; 31 (4): 357–370. Publisher Full Text 36. Chen W, Hammett JF, Stewart RJ, et al. : Receipt of coercive condom use resistance: A scoping review. J. Sex Res. 2024; 61 (3): 399–413. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 37. Abbey A, Parkhill MR, Jacques-Tiura AJ, et al. : Alcohol's role in men's use of coercion to obtain unprotected sex. Subst. Use Misuse. 2009; 44 (9–10): 1329–1348. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 38. Stappenbeck CA, Gulati NK, Davis KC: A prospective examination of men’s condom use resistance: Event-level associations with sexual aggression, alcohol consumption, and trait anger. J. Sex Res. 2019; 56 : 947–956. Publisher Full Text 39. Wegner R, Davis KC, Stappenbeck CA, et al. : The effects of men’s hostility toward women, acute alcohol intoxication, and women’s condom request style on men’s condom use resistance tactics. Psychol. Violence. 2017; 7 (4): 593–601. Publisher Full Text 40. Ferrari W, Costa PA, Couto MT, et al. : Invisible victims: Addressing the sexual and health consequences of stealth breeding for Brazilian Gay Men. J. Homosex. 2026; 73 (3): 497–518. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 41. Miller E, Decker MR, McCauley HL, et al. : Pregnancy coercion, intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy. Contraception. 2010; 81 (4): 316–22. 42. Davis KC, Hendershot CS, George WH, et al. : Alcohol's effects on sexual decision making: An integration of alcohol myopia and individual differences. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs. 2007; 68 (6): 843–851. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 43. Behera M, Kravvariti DV: PRISMA 2020 checklist and flow diagram for non-consensual condom removal among adults: prevalence, correlates, and outcomes in quantitative studies – a systematic review. Zenodo. 2026. Publisher Full Text 44. Behera M, Kravvariti DV: Extended data for: Non-consensual condom removal among adults: prevalence, correlates, and outcomes in quantitative studies – a systematic review. Zenodo. 2026. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 19 Apr 2026 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Department of Medicine Health and Life Science, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, SA2 8PP, UK Mamta Behera Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Dr Vasiliki Kravvariti Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (1) version 1 Published: 19 Apr 2026, 15:584 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.178745.1 Copyright © 2026 Behera M and Kravvariti DV. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Behera M and Kravvariti DV. Non-consensual condom removal among adults: prevalence, correlates, and outcomes in quantitative studies – A systematic review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :584 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.178745.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 19 Apr 2026 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Becerra MB. Reviewer Report For: Non-consensual condom removal among adults: prevalence, correlates, and outcomes in quantitative studies – A systematic review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :584 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197169.r477563 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-584/v1#referee-response-477563 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 09 May 2026 Monideepa B Becerra , Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, USA Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197169.r477563 Review Summary: The article provides a robust and timely synthesis of quantitative research on nonconsensual condom removal (NCCR), commonly known as stealthing. By identifying and analyzing eleven international studies, the authors address a critical gap in public health literature ... Continue reading READ ALL Review Summary: The article provides a robust and timely synthesis of quantitative research on nonconsensual condom removal (NCCR), commonly known as stealthing. By identifying and analyzing eleven international studies, the authors address a critical gap in public health literature regarding the epidemiology and consequences of this form of sexual violence. The review successfully highlights the disproportionate impact of NCCR on women and men who have sex with men (MSM), the consistent association with alcohol use, and the varied psychological and physical health outcomes. Detailed Evaluation Rationale and Objectives The authors clearly articulate the necessity of this review. They distinguish their work from previous scoping reviews by focusing specifically on quantitative prevalence and quality-appraised outcomes. The objectives are well-defined and follow a logical progression from summarizing data to analyzing demographic variations and associated health impacts. Methods and Replicability The methodological rigor of the review is high. The use of the PRISMA 2020 framework and the specific search strategies across CINAHL, MEDLINE, and APA PsycINFO allow for full replication by other researchers. The inclusion of a formal quality appraisal using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist adds substantial scientific value and transparency to the findings. Statistical Analysis and Interpretation The decision to utilize a narrative synthesis rather than a meta-analysis is scientifically sound. Given the heterogeneity in study designs, such as the use of various recall periods (e.g., lifetime vs. since age 14) and different participant populations (e.g., clinic vs. university samples), a meta-analysis would have likely resulted in misleading pooled estimates. The authors correctly interpret the data by acknowledging these differences and refraining from making causal claims due to the cross-sectional nature of the primary sources. Conclusions and Results The conclusions are well-supported by the evidence presented. The authors effectively summarize that while NCCR is a global issue, prevalence estimates are highly sensitive to the measurement tools and populations studied. Their emphasis on the need for standardized definitions and clinical screening is a direct and logical outcome of the data synthesis. Feedback and Recommendations While the review is scientifically sound and the previous questions were answered with a "Yes," the following points could further strengthen the manuscript for final publication: While the authors call for standardized measures, providing a specific recommendation for a “gold standard” set of survey questions (based on the highest-quality studies reviewed) would be highly beneficial for future researchers. However, it is understandable that this recommendation may not be within the scope of the article. The introduction touches upon global legal variations; however, the discussion could more explicitly link how these legal frameworks might influence reporting rates and, consequently, the prevalence data captured in quantitative studies. Final Recommendation The article is scientifically sound in its current form. The methodology is transparent, the analysis is appropriate for the data types gathered, and the conclusions do not overreach the findings. No points are currently identified that are in critical need to be addressed to reach scientific soundness, as the authors have already addressed the primary methodological risks (such as heterogeneity) through their narrative approach and quality appraisal. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Becerra MB. Reviewer Report For: Non-consensual condom removal among adults: prevalence, correlates, and outcomes in quantitative studies – A systematic review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :584 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197169.r477563 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-584/v1#referee-response-477563 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 18 May 2026 Mamta Behera , Department of Medicine Health and Life Science, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK 18 May 2026 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive review of my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate your positive evaluation of the scientific rigour, methodological transparency, and public health ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive review of my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate your positive evaluation of the scientific rigour, methodological transparency, and public health relevance of this review, as well as your valuable feedback and recommendations. Kind regards, Mamta Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive review of my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate your positive evaluation of the scientific rigour, methodological transparency, and public health relevance of this review, as well as your valuable feedback and recommendations. Kind regards, Mamta Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 18 May 2026 Mamta Behera , Department of Medicine Health and Life Science, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK 18 May 2026 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive review of my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate your positive evaluation of the scientific rigour, methodological transparency, and public health ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive review of my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate your positive evaluation of the scientific rigour, methodological transparency, and public health relevance of this review, as well as your valuable feedback and recommendations. Kind regards, Mamta Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive review of my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate your positive evaluation of the scientific rigour, methodological transparency, and public health relevance of this review, as well as your valuable feedback and recommendations. Kind regards, Mamta Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 19 Apr 2026 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 Version 1 19 Apr 26 read Monideepa B Becerra , Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, USA Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Becerra M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 09 May 2026 | for Version 1 Monideepa B Becerra , Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, USA 0 Views copyright © 2026 Becerra M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Review Summary: The article provides a robust and timely synthesis of quantitative research on nonconsensual condom removal (NCCR), commonly known as stealthing. By identifying and analyzing eleven international studies, the authors address a critical gap in public health literature regarding the epidemiology and consequences of this form of sexual violence. The review successfully highlights the disproportionate impact of NCCR on women and men who have sex with men (MSM), the consistent association with alcohol use, and the varied psychological and physical health outcomes. Detailed Evaluation Rationale and Objectives The authors clearly articulate the necessity of this review. They distinguish their work from previous scoping reviews by focusing specifically on quantitative prevalence and quality-appraised outcomes. The objectives are well-defined and follow a logical progression from summarizing data to analyzing demographic variations and associated health impacts. Methods and Replicability The methodological rigor of the review is high. The use of the PRISMA 2020 framework and the specific search strategies across CINAHL, MEDLINE, and APA PsycINFO allow for full replication by other researchers. The inclusion of a formal quality appraisal using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist adds substantial scientific value and transparency to the findings. Statistical Analysis and Interpretation The decision to utilize a narrative synthesis rather than a meta-analysis is scientifically sound. Given the heterogeneity in study designs, such as the use of various recall periods (e.g., lifetime vs. since age 14) and different participant populations (e.g., clinic vs. university samples), a meta-analysis would have likely resulted in misleading pooled estimates. The authors correctly interpret the data by acknowledging these differences and refraining from making causal claims due to the cross-sectional nature of the primary sources. Conclusions and Results The conclusions are well-supported by the evidence presented. The authors effectively summarize that while NCCR is a global issue, prevalence estimates are highly sensitive to the measurement tools and populations studied. Their emphasis on the need for standardized definitions and clinical screening is a direct and logical outcome of the data synthesis. Feedback and Recommendations While the review is scientifically sound and the previous questions were answered with a "Yes," the following points could further strengthen the manuscript for final publication: While the authors call for standardized measures, providing a specific recommendation for a “gold standard” set of survey questions (based on the highest-quality studies reviewed) would be highly beneficial for future researchers. However, it is understandable that this recommendation may not be within the scope of the article. The introduction touches upon global legal variations; however, the discussion could more explicitly link how these legal frameworks might influence reporting rates and, consequently, the prevalence data captured in quantitative studies. Final Recommendation The article is scientifically sound in its current form. The methodology is transparent, the analysis is appropriate for the data types gathered, and the conclusions do not overreach the findings. No points are currently identified that are in critical need to be addressed to reach scientific soundness, as the authors have already addressed the primary methodological risks (such as heterogeneity) through their narrative approach and quality appraisal. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 18 May 2026 Mamta Behera, Department of Medicine Health and Life Science, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive review of my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate your positive evaluation of the scientific rigour, methodological transparency, and public health relevance of this review, as well as your valuable feedback and recommendations. Kind regards, Mamta View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed reply Respond Report a concern Becerra MB. Peer Review Report For: Non-consensual condom removal among adults: prevalence, correlates, and outcomes in quantitative studies – A systematic review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :584 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197169.r477563) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-584/v1#referee-response-477563 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Non-consensual condom removal among adults:...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-584/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-584/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-584/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Behera M and Kravvariti DV'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-584/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-584", templates : { twitter : "Non-consensual condom removal among adults: prevalence, correlates,.... Behera M and Kravvariti DV, published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/15-584/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/178745/197169") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "197169"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "477559": 0, "477558": 0, "477557": 0, "477566": 0, "477565": 0, "477564": 0, "477563": 9, "477562": 0, "477561": 0, "477560": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "d9e16573-e7de-44ea-982d-fedead5abda2"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });