Student Health helps Pitt’s sex ranking

Pitt’s national prestige has risen, and even a condom company thinks so.

Trojan Brand… Pitt’s national prestige has risen, and even a condom company thinks so.

Trojan Brand Condoms released its 2010 Sexual Health Report Card last week. The study ranked Pitt the 21st most sexually healthy school out of 141 universities tested in the country. Penn State and WVU ranked 14th and 15th in the study, respectively.

Pitt skyrocketed up the ranks from last year’s study, in which Trojan ranked Pitt the 75th most sexually healthy school nationwide.

Trojan has released the study each year for the past five years.

“We want to inspire action, get people to realize that sexual health on campus is critical and that there are things everyone can do to help improve their sexual health,” Bruce Tetreault, group product manager at Trojan, said in a press release.

The research firm Sperling’s BestPlaces conducted the study, which analyzed data from student health centers to rank schools.

Factors like the number of students with an STD, HIV or unplanned pregnancies were not included in this study.

Bert Sperling, president of Sperling’s BestPlaces, explained the methodology of the study.

“The study did not evaluate schools for their level of sexual activity or sexual health in regards to STDs,” Sperling said. “The study evaluated the campuses that are doing the best job of communicating with students so that they can make their own decisions regarding sexual health.”

Student Health could not provide statistics about on-campus STD rates or unplanned pregnancy rates but was able to provide national statistics.

According to the Center for Disease Control, there are about 19 million new STD infections each year — almost half of them among young people 15 to 24 years of age — Dr. Elizabeth Wettick, director of Pitt’s Student Health Service, said.

The key reason behind Pitt’s jump in the rankings might be improvements made by the University’s Student Health Service. Sperling said this is because many of the 12 criteria reflect resources and testing made available by the Student Health Service.

In nine out of 12 categories, Pitt received A or B grades, with C being the lowest grade possible.

Pitt scored a 10 out of 10 on HIV testing and availability of sexual-assault programs. It received A grades in those categories, Sperling said.

Wettick described the most popular resources available for Pitt students through Student Health that may have helped in the rankings.

PantherWELL is a relatively new program on campus, Wettick said.

Its most popular program is a “broad overview of STDs and STD prevention,” which includes discussion of types of STDs, abstinence, correct condom use and STD testing.

In addition, she said Student Health’s health educator provides many services, including a program called “Girl Talk,” a candid discussion about birth control methods.

The health educator is also available for individual appointments with students who seek more information about birth control options or STD prevention, or for a rapid oral HIV test.

The study only included schools from various athletic conferences and many of the universities evaluated were large state schools. However, Sperling assured that the study is reflective of the nation’s student base.

“Although there are over 2,000 institutions and universities in the country, schools in our study covered over 30 percent of all undergraduates in the country,” Sperling said. “Schools were chosen based on their ‘maximum’ impact.”

Columbia ranked first, and Brigham Young and University of Idaho were last to finish in the rankings this year.

To give perspective of the Trojan rankings, both WVU and PSU are higher up on the Princeton Review’s party rankings than Pitt.

Sperling said even the smallest changes can go a long way and differences between 14 and 21 in the rankings are trivial.

“Don’t worry,” Sperling said. “21st is really, really good. You’re doing a lot of things right.”

Here are the 12 criteria used in the study:

1. Health center hours of operation

2. Availability of patient drop-in vs. appointment only

3. Availability of separate sexual awareness programs

4. Contraceptive availability and cost

5. Condom availability and cost

6. HIV testing, cost and locality (on vs. off campus)

7. Other STI testing, cost and locality (on vs. off campus)

8. Availability of anonymous advice via e-mail/newspaper column

9. Existence of lecture/outreach programs

10. Existence of student peer groups

11. Availability of sexual-assault programs

12. Website usability and functionality