Advertisement

AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 443–451 | Cite as

The Importance of Discreet Use of the Diaphragm to Zimbabwean Women and their Partners

  • Mi-Suk Kang
  • Jessica Buck
  • Nancy Padian
  • Sam F. Posner
  • Gertrude Khumalo-Sakutukwa
  • Ariane van der Straten
Original Paper

Abstract

We conducted a 6-month acceptability study of diaphragms as a potential HIV/STI prevention method among Zimbabwean women. We examined partner involvement in diaphragm use, and importance of discreet use (use without partner awareness). Of the 181 women who completed the study, 45% said discreet use was “very or extremely important” and in multivariate logistic regression, women were more likely to value discretion if their partners: had other partners; drank alcohol; or were believed to prefer condoms to diaphragms. Qualitative data confirmed these findings. Both women and their partners reported that diaphragms can be used discreetly and saw this as advantageous, for both sexual pleasure and female control. However, many were concerned that use without partner approval could lead to marital problems. Discreet use should be considered in development of barrier methods and in diaphragm promotion, if proven effective against HIV/STI.

Keywords

Diaphragms Acceptability Zimbabwe Female-controlled methods HIV/STD prevention 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Contraceptive Research and Development (CONRAD) Program (contract # CSA-99-269). We would like to gratefully acknowledge the participants without whom this study would not have been possible.

References

  1. Allen, R. E. (2004). Diaphragm fitting. American Family Physician, 69(1), 97–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bentley, M. E., Fullem, A. M., Tolley, E. E., Kelly, C. W., Jogelkar, N., Srirak, N., Mwafulirwa, L., Khumalo-Sakutukwa, G., & Celentano, D. D. (2004). Acceptability of a microbicide among women and their partners in a 4-country phase I trial. American Journal of Public Health, 94(7), 1159–1164.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bounds, W., Guillebaud, J., Dominik, R., & Dalberth, B. T. (1995). The diaphragm with and without spermicide. A randomized, comparative efficacy trial. Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 40(11), 764–774.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Buck, J., Kang, M., van der Straten, A., Khumalo-Sakutukwa, G., Posner, S., & Padian, N. (2005). Barrier method preferences and perceptions among Zimbabwean women and their partners. AIDS and Behavior, 9(4) 415–422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bulut, A., Ortayli, N., Ringheim, K., Cottingham, J., Farley, T. M., Peregoudov, A., Joanis, C., Palmore, S., Brady, M., Diaz, J., Ojeda, G., & Ramos, R. (2001). Assessing the acceptability, service delivery requirements, and use-effectiveness of the diaphragm in Colombia, Philippines, and Turkey. Contraception, 63(5), 267–275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. El-Sadr, W. M., Mayer, K. H., Maslankowski, L., Hoesley, C., Justman, J., Gai, F., Mauck, C., Absalon, J., Morrow, K., Masse, B., Soto-Torres, L., & Kwiecien, A. (2006). Safety and acceptability of cellulose sulfate as a vaginal microbicide in HIV-infected women. AIDS, 20(8), 1109–1116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elias, C., & Coggins, C. (2001). Acceptability research on female-controlled barrier methods to prevent heterosexual transmission of HIV: Where have we been? Where are we going? Journal of Women’s Health and Gender Based Medicine, 10(2), 163–173.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferreira, A. E., Araujo, M. J., Regina, C. H., Diniz, S. G., & Faundes, A. (1993). Effectiveness of the diaphragm, used continuously, without spermicide. Contraception, V48(N1), 29–35.Google Scholar
  9. Gollub, E. L. (2000). The female condom: Tool for women’s empowerment. American Journal of Public Health, 90(9), 1377–1381.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Green, G., Pool, R., Harrison, S., Hart, G. J., Wilkinson, J., Nyanzi, S., & Whitworth, J. A. (2001). Female control of sexuality: Illusion or reality? Use of vaginal products in south west Uganda. Social Science and Medicine, 52(4), 585–598.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hart, G. J., Pool, R., Green, G., Harrison, S., Nyanzi, S., & Whitworth, J. A. (1999). Women’s attitudes to condoms and female-controlled means of protection against HIV and STDs in south-western Uganda. AIDS Care, 11(6), 687–698.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hatcher, R. A., Trussell, J., Stewart, F., Stewart, G. K., Kowal, D., Guest, F., Cates, W., & Policar, M. S. (1994). The diaphragm, contraceptive sponge, cervical cap and female condom. In Contraceptive technology (16th revised edition ed., pp. 191–222). New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Heise, L. L. (1997). Beyond acceptability: Reorienting research on contraceptive choice. In Beyond acceptability: users’ perspectives on contraception, [compiled by] World Health Organization [WHO], Reproductive Health Matters (pp. 6–14). London, England, Reproductive Health Matters.Google Scholar
  14. Mantell, J. E., Dworkin, S. L., Exner, T. M., Hoffman, S., Smit, J. A., & Susser, I. (2006). The promises and limitations of female-initiated methods of HIV/STI protection. Social Science and Medicine, 63(8), 1998–2009.Google Scholar
  15. Mason, T. H., Foster, S. E., Finlinson, H. A., Morrow, K. M., Rosen, R., Vining, S., Joanis, C. L., Hammett, T. M., & Seage, G. R. 3rd. (2003). Perspectives related to the potential use of vaginal microbicides among drug-involved women: focus groups in three cities in the United States and Puerto Rico. AIDS and Behavior, 7(4), 339–351.Google Scholar
  16. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA/London/New Delhi: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Minnis, A. M., & Padian, N. S. (2005). Effectiveness of female controlled barrier methods in preventing sexually transmitted infections and HIV: current evidence and future research directions. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 81(3), 193–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moench, T., Chipato, T., & Padian, N. (2001). Preventing disease by protecting the cervix: The unexplored promise of internal vaginal barrier devices. AIDS, 15(13), 1595–1602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morrow, K., Rosen, R., Richter, L., Emans, A., Forbes, A., Day, J., Morar, N., Maslankowski, L., Profy, A. T., Kelly, C., Abdool Karim, S. S., & Mayer, K. H. (2003). The acceptability of an investigational vaginal microbicide, PRO 2000 Gel, among women in a phase I clinical trial. Journal of Women’s Health, 12(7), 655–666.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pool, R., Hart, G., Green, G., Harrison, S., Nyanzi, S., & Whitworth, J. (2000a). Men’s attitudes to condoms and female controlled means of protection against HIV and STDs in south-western Uganda. Culture Health and Sexuality, 2(2), 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pool, R., Whitworth, J. A., Green, G., Mbonye, A. K., Harrison, S., Wilkinson, J., & Hart, G. J. (2000b). An acceptability study of female-controlled methods of protection against HIV and STDs in south-western Uganda. International Journal of STD and AIDS, 11(3), 162–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ray, S., van de Wijgert, J., Mason, P., Ndowa, F., & Maposhere, C. (2001). Constraints faced by sex workers in use of female and male condoms for safer sex in urban Zimbabwe. Journal of Urban Health, 78(4), 581–592.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Severy, L. J., & Spieler, J. (2000). New methods of family planning: Implications for intimate Behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 37(3), 258–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stein, Z. A. (1995). More on women and the prevention of HIV infection [Editorial]. American Journal of Public Health, 85(11), 1485–1488.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stewart, F. (1998). Chapter 18: Vaginal barriers: The diaphragm, contraceptive sponge, cervical cap and female condom. In R. A. Hatcher, J. Trussell, F. Stewart, J. C. Willard, G. K. Stewart, F. Guest & D. Kowal (Eds.), Contraceptive technology (pp. Chapter 18): Arcent Media Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Trussell, J., Strickler, J., & Vaughan, B. (1993). Contraceptive efficacy of the diaphragm, the sponge and the cervical cap. Family Planning Perspectives, 25(3), 100–105, 135.Google Scholar
  27. UNAIDS (2000). Table of country-specific HIV/AIDS estimates and data.Google Scholar
  28. UNAIDS (2005). Evidence for HIV Decline in Zimbabwe.Google Scholar
  29. van der Straten, A., Kang, M. S., Posner, S. F., Kamba, M., Chipato, T., & Padian, N. S. (2005). Predictors of diaphragm use as a potential sexually transmitted disease/HIV prevention method in Zimbabwe. Sexually Transmitted Disease, 32(1), 64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. WHO/CONRAD (2001). Technical consultation on nonoxynol-9 (summary report). Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  31. Woodsong, C. (2004). Covert use of topical microbicides: Implications for acceptability and use. International Family Planning Perspectives, 30(2), 94–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mi-Suk Kang
    • 1
    • 4
  • Jessica Buck
    • 2
  • Nancy Padian
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sam F. Posner
    • 3
  • Gertrude Khumalo-Sakutukwa
    • 1
  • Ariane van der Straten
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme in Women’s HealthHarareZimbabwe
  2. 2.Department of OBGYNUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Centers for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA
  4. 4.Women’s Global Health ImperativeSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations