Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 735–747 | Cite as

Young Women’s Use of a Microbicide Surrogate: The Complex Influence of Relationship Characteristics and Perceived Male Partners’ Evaluations

  • Amanda E. TannerEmail author
  • J. Dennis Fortenberry
  • Gregory D. Zimet
  • Michael Reece
  • Cynthia A. Graham
  • Maresa Murray
Original Paper

Abstract

Currently in clinical trials, vaginal microbicides are proposed as a female-initiated method of sexually transmitted infection prevention. Much of microbicide acceptability research has been conducted outside of the United States and frequently without consideration of the social interaction between sex partners, ignoring the complex gender and power structures often inherent in young women’s (heterosexual) relationships. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to build on existing microbicide research by exploring the role of male partners and relationship characteristics on young women’s use of a microbicide surrogate, an inert vaginal moisturizer (VM), in a large city in the United States. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 40 young women (18–23 years old; 85% African American; 47.5% mothers) following use of the VM during coital events for a 4 week period. Overall, the results indicated that relationship dynamics and perceptions of male partners influenced VM evaluation. These two factors suggest that relationship context will need to be considered in the promotion of vaginal microbicides. The findings offer insights into how future acceptability and use of microbicides will be influenced by gendered power dynamics. The results also underscore the importance of incorporating men into microbicide promotion efforts while encouraging a dialogue that focuses attention on power inequities that can exist in heterosexual relationships. Detailed understanding of these issues is essential for successful microbicide acceptability, social marketing, education, and use.

Keywords

Microbicides Women Relationships Gender HIV STI Qualitative research 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Megan Patterson, Mallory Metzger, and Erin Triplett for their invaluable assistance to the project. This study was funded by a grant from National Institutes of Health (NIH U19 AI 31494) as well as research awards to the first author: Friends of the Kinsey Institute Research Grant Award, Indiana University’s School of HPER Graduate Student Grant-in-Aid of Research Award, William L. Yarber Sexual Health Fellowship, and the Indiana University Graduate and Professional Student Organization Research Grant.

References

  1. Amaro, H., & Raj, A. (2000). On the margin: Power and women’s HIV risk reduction strategies. Sex Roles, 42, 723–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beckman, L. J., & Harvey, S. M. (2006). Women’s acceptance of the diaphragm: The role of relationship factors. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 297–306.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentley, M., Fullem, A., Tolley, E., Kelly, C., Jogelkar, N., Srirak, N., et al. (2004). Acceptability of a microbicide among women and their partners in a four country phase I trial. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 1159–1165.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bird, S. T., Harvey, S. M., Beckman, L. J., Johnson, C. H., & The Partner’s Project. (2001). Getting your partner to use condoms: Interviews with men and women at risk of HIV/STDs. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowleg, L., Lucas, K. J., & Tschann, J. M. (2004). “The ball was always in his court”: An exploratory analysis of relationship scripts, sexual scripts, and condom use among African American women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 70–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braunstein, S., & Van de Wijgert, J. (2005). Preferences and practices related to vaginal lubrication: Implications for microbicide acceptability and clinical testing. Journal of Women’s Health, 14, 424–433.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter, L. M. (2002). Gender and the meaning and experience of virginity loss in the contemporary United States. Gender & Society, 16, 345–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpenter, L. M. (2005). Virginity lost: An intimate portrait of first sexual experience. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. (2005). STD surveillance (complete report). Retrieved on March 4, 2007 from http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/05pdf/2005-tables.pdf.
  10. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). HIV/AIDS among African Americans. Retrieved on February 14, 2008 from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/pdf/aa.pdf.
  11. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). 2008 National STD Prevention Conference. Retrieved on April 3, 2008 from http://www.cdc.gov/stdconference/2008/media/summaries-11march2008.pdf.
  12. Coleman, J. C., & Hendry, L. B. (1999). The nature of adolescents. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Conaglen, H. M., & Conaglen, J. V. (2008). Investigating women’s preference for Sildenafil or Tadalafil use by their partners with erectile dysfunction: The partners’ preference study. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5, 1198–1207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dworkin, S. L., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (2007). Going beyond “ABC” to include “GEM”: Critical reflections on progress in the HIV/AIDS epidemic [Commentary]. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 13–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fortenberry, J. D., Temkit, M., Tu, W., Graham, C. A., & Katz, B. P. (2005). Daily mood, partner support, sexual interest, and sexual activity among adolescent women. Health Psychology, 24, 252–257.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gagnon, J. H. (1990). The explicit and implicit use of the scripting perspective in sex research. Annual Review of Sex Research, 1, 1–43.Google Scholar
  18. Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social origins of human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  19. Gamble, V. N. (1997). Under shadow of Tuskegee: African Americans and health care. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1773–1778.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gollub, E. (2000). The female condom: Tool for women’s empowerment. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1377.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Green, G., Pool, R., Harrison, S., Hart, G. J., Wilkinson, J., Nyanzi, S., et al. (2001). Female control of sexuality: Illusion or reality use of vaginal products in southwest Uganda. Social Science and Medicine, 52, 585–598.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Harvey, S. M., Bird, S. T., Galavotti, C., Duncan, E. A., & Greenberg, D. (2002). Relationship power, sexual decision making and condom use among women at risk for HIV/STDS. Women’s Health, 36(4), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herek, G. M. (1999). AIDS and stigma. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 1106–1116.Google Scholar
  24. Higgins, J., & Hirsch, J. (2008). Pleasure and power: Incorporating sexuality, agency, and inequality into research on contraceptive use. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 1803–1813.Google Scholar
  25. Huygens, P., Kajura, E., Seely, J., & Barton, T. (1996). Rethinking methods for the study of sexual behavior. Social Science and Medicine, 42, 221–231.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Indiana HIV Resources & Statistics. (2004). Retrieved January 28, 2007 from http://aids.about.com/od/statebystateresources/qt/indiana.htm.
  27. Kaestle, C. E., & Halpern, C. T. (2005). Sexual activity among adolescents in romantic relationships with friends, acquaintances, or strangers. Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 159, 849–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaler, A. (2004). The female condom in North America: Selling the technology of ‘empowerment’. Journal of Gender Studies, 13, 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koo, H., Woodsong, C., Dalberth, B., Viswanathan, M., & Simons-Rudolph, A. (2005). Context of acceptability of topical microbicides: Sexual relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mantell, J., Myer, L., Carballo-Dieguez, A., Stein, Z., Ramjee, G., Morar, N., et al. (2005). Microbicide acceptability research: Current approaches and future directions. Social Science and Medicine, 60, 319–330.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Mantell, J. E., Dworkin, S. L., Exner, T. M., Hoffman, S., Smit, J. A., & Sussar, I. (2006). The promises and limitations of female-initiated methods of STI/HIV protection. Social Science and Medicine, 63, 1998–2009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Mason, T. H., Foster, S. E., Finlinson, H. A., Morrow, K. M., Rosen, R., Vinings, S., et al. (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, 339–351.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 477–507.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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, 193–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Misovich, S. J., Fisher, J. D., & Fisher, W. A. (1997). Close relationships and elevated HIV risk behavior: Evidence and possible underlying psychological processes. Review of General Psychology, 1, 72–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Morrow, K. M., & Ruiz, M. S. (2008). Assessing microbicide acceptability: A comprehensive and integrated approach. AIDS and Behavior, 12, 272–283.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Muhr, R. (2004). Atlas.ti (Version 5.0) [Computer software]. Berlin, Germany: Scientific Software Development GmbH.Google Scholar
  38. Nicolson, P., & Burr, J. (2003). What is ‘normal’ about women’s (hetero)sexual desire and orgasm?: A report of an-depth interview study. Social Science and Medicine, 57, 1735–1745.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Ortiz-Torres, B., Williams, S. P., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (2003). Urban women’s gender scripts: Implications for HIV prevention. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 5, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Philpott, A., Knerr, W., & Maher, D. (2006). Promoting protection and pleasure: Amplifying the effectiveness of barriers against sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy. Lancet, 368, 2028–2031.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Pulerwitz, J., Amaro, H., De Jong, W., Gortmaker, S. L., & Rudd, R. (2002). Relationship power, condom use and HIV risk among women in the USA. AIDS Care, 14, 789–800.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Reece, M., Tanner, A. E., Karpiak, S., & Coffey, K. (2007). The impact of HIV-related stigma on social service providers. Journal of HIV/AIDS & Social Services, 6(3), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Short, M. B., Ramos, S., Oakes, J. K., & Rosenthal, S. L. (2007). Adolescent girls’ communication with partners about microbicide use. Sexual Health, 4, 243–248.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Stein, Z. (1990). HIV prevention: The need for methods women can use. American Journal of Public Health, 80, 460–462.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (1995). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Tanner, A. E., Zimet, G. D., Fortenberry, J. D., Reece, M., Graham, C. A., & Murray, M. (2009). Young women’s use of a microbicide surrogate: The role of individual and contextual factors in acceptability and sexual pleasure. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 15–23.Google Scholar
  47. Ventura, S. J., Matthews, T. J., & Hamilton, B. E. (2002). Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. National Vital Statistics Reports, Teenage births in the United States: State trends, 1991–2000, an update. Retrieved on March 4, 2007 from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_09.pdf.
  48. Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  49. Wingood, G. M., & DiClemente, R. J. (1998). Partner influences and gender-related factors associated with noncondom use among young adult African American women. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 29–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Wingood, G. M., & DiClemente, R. J. (2000). Application of the theory of gender and power to examine HIV-related exposures, risk factors, and effective interventions for women. Health Education & Behavior, 27, 539–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wingood, G. M., & DiClemente, R. J. (2002). The theory of gender and power: A social structural theory for guiding public health interventions. In R. J. DiClemente, R. A. Crosby, & B. C. Kegler (Eds.), Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research (pp. 316–346). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  52. Woodsong, C. (2004). Covert use of topical microbicides: Implications for acceptability and use. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 36, 127–131.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Zubowicz, E. A., Oakes, J. K., Short, M. B., Perfect, M. M., Succop, P. S., & Rosenthal, S. L. (2006). Adolescents’ descriptions of the physical characteristics of microbicide surrogates and experiences of use. Journal of Women’s Health, 15, 952–961.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amanda E. Tanner
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. Dennis Fortenberry
    • 2
  • Gregory D. Zimet
    • 2
  • Michael Reece
    • 3
  • Cynthia A. Graham
    • 4
  • Maresa Murray
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Bloomberg School of Public HealthJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Section of Adolescent MedicineIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Applied Health ScienceIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  4. 4.Oxford Doctoral Course in Clinical PsychologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations