Family Connectedness and Its Association With Sexual Risk-Taking Among Undergraduate Students at the University of Nairobi

Abstract

Background: Universities have a student population in the age range of 17 to 25 years, 75 % of whom are sexually active, with the median age of sexual debut at age 18 years. About half of all students are involved in risky sexual behaviour. Many interventions have decreased sexual risk behaviour in the short-term, but there is need for multilevel prevention, including targeting improvements in family relationships for sustained change. Perceived positive family connectedness has been found to be related to reduced sexual risk-taking among adolescents and young adults. Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated the family connectedness and sexual behaviour of students aged 18 to 24 years at the University of Nairobi. There were 904 participants, both male and female, who were registered students of the University of Nairobi. After institutional and individual consent were granted, participants completed a self-administered questionnaire within their classes. The family subscale of the Hemingway Measure of Adolescent Connectedness was used to evaluate connectedness, and a sexual behaviour questionnaire was used to evaluate sexual risk-taking behaviour. Results: Six hundred forty (70.8%) of the respondents were sexually active -372 males and 268 females. High-risk sex was reported by 203 male respondents (54.6%) and 117 females (43.7%). Reportedly abstinent participants had higher family connectedness scores than those who were sexually active (P<.001), and participants who reported less sexual risk-taking had higher mean family connectedness scores than those with higher sexual risk-taking (P<.001). Conclusion:Family connectedness had a significant influence on sexual risk-taking, and investment in family relationships could reduce risky sexual behaviour and potentially other risky behaviours among young adult university students.

Enhancing Family Connectedness and Resilience through Emotionally Focused Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…The enhanced family connectedness found in this study supports findings by Duggins et al (2016), who reported that family connectedness mitigates the negative effects of bullying on adolescent aggression (Duggins et al, 2016). Similarly, Wachira et al (2019) found that higher family connectedness was associated with reduced sexual risktaking behaviors among university students (Wachira et al, 2019). These studies underscore the protective role of family connectedness in various contexts, suggesting that the improvements observed in this study could have broader implications for reducing risk behaviors and enhancing psychological well-being.…”

“…The FCS has demonstrated strong reliability, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the subscales and total scale exceeding 0.80 in various studies. Its validity has been confirmed through correlations with related constructs such as family functioning and emotional well-being, making it a robust tool for evaluating family connectedness in research settings (Gervais & Jose, 2019;Wachira et al, 2019;Willems et al, 2020).…”

“…Family connectedness also influences risk-taking behaviors. Wachira et al (2019) observed that higher family connectedness was associated with lower sexual risk-taking among university students (Wachira et al, 2019). This protective effect is likely due to the supportive and communicative environment that connected families provide, which fosters better decision-making and coping strategies (Gervais & Jose, 2019).…”

HIV vulnerability among adolescent girls and young women: a multi-country latent class analysis approach

“…In our analysis, parental supervision was also a contributing factor for vulnerability in urban/peri-urban Kenya and urban Zambia. Recent research in Kenya and the region has shown that family connectedness and parental monitoring were associated with less sexual risk taking (Cluver et al 2016;Wachira et al 2019). In both Kenya and Malawi, coming from a household that did not have the poorest or the richest SES relative to the community was also a key factor in vulnerability.…”