Advertisement

AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 127–132 | Cite as

A Randomized Crossover Study Evaluating the Use and Acceptability of the SILCS Diaphragm Compared to Vaginal Applicators for Vaginal Gel Delivery

  • Mags Beksinska
  • Ross Greener
  • Jenni Smit
  • Busi Maphumulo
  • Nonhlanhla Mphili
  • Maggie Kilbourne-Brook
  • Patricia S. Coffey
Brief Report

Abstract

Introduction

This study aimed to assess acceptability and preferences for the SILCS diaphragm for vaginal gel delivery compared to a prefilled applicator.

Methods

A randomized crossover study among 115 women in South Africa, using both methods during five sex acts.

Results

We found no significant differences in acceptability between the two products. Experience of gel leakage after sex was greater when inserted via applicator. More women were interested in SILCS/gel for multipurpose protection (68%) than in either SILCS alone (17%) or microbicide gel alone (14%).

Conclusions

A SILCS gel delivery system for multipurpose prevention seems feasible and acceptable.

Keywords

Diaphragm Barrier methods Gel Multipurpose technology MPT Vaginal applicator 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the women and men from Commercial City Clinic who generously shared their time and views to make this research possible, and Commercial City Clinic staff for providing support for the research activities. The authors would like to thank Jennifer Foster, Clinical Coordinator at PATH, for assistance in developing and coordinating this study. This project was made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of HealthTech Cooperative Agreement #AID-OAA-A-11-00051. The contents are the responsibility of PATH and the MatCH Research Unit and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the US government.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Coffey PS, Kilbourne-Brook M, Beksinska M, Thongkrajai E. Short-term acceptability of a single-size diaphragm among couples in South Africa and Thailand. J Fam Plan Reprod Health Care. 2008;34:233–6. doi: 10.1783/147118908786000569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schwartz J, Weiner D, Lai JJ, Frezieres RG, Creinin MD, Archer DF, et al. Contraceptive efficacy, safety and acceptability of SILCS, a novel single-sized diaphragm used with contraceptive gel. Contraception. 2012;85:327. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2011.11.060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Straten A, Sahin-Hodoglugil N, Clouse K, Mtetwa S, Chirenje MZ. Feasibility and potential acceptability of three cervical barriers among vulnerable young women in Zimbabwe. J Fam Plan Reprod Health Care. 2010;36:13–9. doi: 10.1783/147118910790290966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Karim SA, Baxter C, Frohlich J, Karim QA. The need for multipurpose prevention technologies in sub-Saharan Africa. BJOG. 2014;121:27–34. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12842.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Behets FM, Turner AN, Van Damme K, Rabenja NL, Ravelomanana N, Swezey TA, et al. Vaginal microbicide and diaphragm use for sexually transmitted infection prevention: a randomized acceptability and feasibility study among high-risk women in Madagascar. Sex Transm Dis. 2008;35:818–26. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e318175d8ab.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van der Straten A, Kana MS, Posner SF, Kamba M, Chipato T, Padian NS. Predictors of diaphragm use as a potential sexually transmitted disease/HIV prevention method in Zimbabwe. Sex Transm Dis. 2005;32:64–71. doi: 10.1097/01.olq.0000148301.90343.3a.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sahin-Hodoglugil NN, Montgomery E, Kacanek D, Morar N, Mtetwa S, Nkala B, et al. User experiences and acceptability attributes of the diaphragm and lubricant gel in an HIV prevention trial in southern Africa. AIDS Care. 2011;23:1026–34. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2010.543879.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frezieres RG, Walsh T, Kilbourne-Brook M, Coffey PS. Couples’ acceptability of the SILCS diaphragm for microbicide delivery. Contraception. 2012;85:99–107. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2011.04.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pentlicky S, Rosen M, Coffey PS, Kilbourne-Brook M, Shaunik A, Schreiber CA, et al. An exploratory, randomized, crossover MRI study of microbicide delivery with the SILCS diaphragm compared to a vaginal applicator. Contraception. 2013;87:187–92. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.06.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Press release: HIV prevention study does not confirm tenofovir gel effectiveness [Internet]. New York: AVAC: Global Advocacy for HIV Prevention; 2015 [cited 2016 Mar 7]. http://www.avac.org/sites/default/files/u3/FACTSfeb24.pdf.
  11. 11.
    Quaife M, Cabrera M, Eakle R, Vickerman P, Delany-Moretlwe S, Terris-Prestholt F. One size will not fit all: divergent stated preferences for new antiretroviral-based HIV prevention products across adults, adolescents and female sex workers in South Africa. EUHEA Conference: Hamburg, Germany; July 13–16, 2016. Session ESA Ost 221.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Straten A, Stadler J, Montgomery E, Hartmann M, Magazi B, Mathebula F, et al. Women’s experiences with oral and vaginal pre-exposure prophylaxis: the VOICE-C qualitative study in Johannesburg, South Africa. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e89118. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089118.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MatCH Research Unit [Maternal, Adolescent and Child Health Research Unit], Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of the WitwatersrandDurbanSouth Africa
  2. 2.PATHSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations