AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 20, Issue 12, pp 2845–2849 | Cite as

Assessing and Mapping the Availability of the Female Condom in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area

Brief Report

Abstract

This study assessed and mapped the availability of the female condom in relation to the male condom and HIV prevalence in the Philadelphia metropolitan area, which has a high density of HIV. One percent of the 1228 service providers contacted sold/provided the female condom and 77 % sold/provided the male condom. The lack of availability of the female condom suggests this product will have no public health impact on reducing HIV and that interventions that promote use of the female condom are not sustainable in this high-risk area. Our findings may help policy makers increase female condom availability in this area.

Keywords

Condom Mapping Geographic information systems HIV Availability 

Resumen

Este estudio midió y elaboró mapas sobre la disponsibilidad del condón femenino en relación al condón masculino y el predomínio del VIH en el área metropolitana de Philadelphia, la cual tiene una densidad alta de VIH. De los 1228 proveedores de servicios contactados en este estudio, solo el 1 % vendió/proveyó el condón femenino y 77 % vendió/proveyó el condón masculino. La falta de disponsibilidad del condón femenino sugiere que este producto no va a tener un impacto en términos de salud pública en la reducción del VIH, y las intervenciones que promueven el uso del condón femenino no son sostenibles en esta área de alto riesgo. Nuestras conclusiones pueden ayudar a los legisladores a aumentar la disponsibilidad del condón femenino en esta área.

References

  1. 1.
    Glasgow RE, Eckstein ET, Elzarrad MK. Implementation science perspectives and opportunities for HIV/AIDS research: integrating science, practice, and policy. J Acquir Immune Defic Symdr. 2013;63(Suppl 1):S26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Whelan J, Love P, Pettman T, et al. Predicting sustainability of intervention effects in public health evidence: identifying key elements to provide guidance. J Public Health. 2014;36(2):347–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schell SF, Luke DA, Schooley MW, et al. Public health program capacity for sustainability: a new framework. Implement Sci. 2013;8:15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maksut JL, Eaton LA. Female condoms = missed opportunities: lessons learned from promotion-centered interventions. Womens Health Issues. 2015;25(4):366–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weeks MR, Li J, Coman E, et al. Multilevel social influences on female condom use and adoption among women in the urban United States. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2010;24(5):297–309.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weeks MR, Coman E, Hilario H, Li J, Abbott M. Initial and sustained female condom use among low-income urban U.S. women. J Women’s Health. 2013;22(1):26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reece M, Mark K, Schick V, Herbenick D, Dodge B. Patterns of condom acquisition by condom-using men in the United States. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2010;24(7):429–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    UNAIDS. Location location: connecting people faster to HIV services. Geneva: UNAIDS; 2013.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kandwal R, Garg PK, Garg RD. Health GIS and HIV/AIDS studies: perspective and retrospective. J Biomed Informatics. 2009;42(4):748–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bassett IV, Regan S, Mbonambi H, et al. Finding HIV in hard to reach populations: mobile HIV testing and geospatial mapping in Umlazi Township, Durban, South Africa. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(10):1888–95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shacham E, Thornton R, Godlonton S, Murphy R, Gilliland J. Geospatial analysis of condom availability and accessibility in urban Malawi. Int J STD AIDS. 2016;27(1):44–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weeks MR, Zhan W, Li J, Hilario H, Abbott M, Medina Z. Female condom use and adoption among men and women in a general low-income urban U.S. population. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(9):1642–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyRutgers UniversityCamdenUSA
  2. 2.Department of Landscape ArchitectureRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations