Current HIV/AIDS Reports

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 59–64 | Cite as

State of Condom Use in HIV Prevention Science and Practice

The Science of Prevention (S Kalichman, Section Editor)

Abstract

Condom use remains as the frontline defense against the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Fortunately, an ever-expanding body of empirical literature is currently guiding improvements in use of this prevention strategy. Recent advances include improved measurement of condom use behaviors, advances in condom effectiveness research, innovations in the design of condoms, and greater intervention efficiency for high-risk populations. After reviewing each of these four areas of research, this article will offer speculation about the future of condom use for HIV prevention.

Keywords

Condom usage Condom design Sexual behavior Human Immunodeficiency Virus HIV/AIDS Evidence-based interventions Global High-risk populations Sexually transmitted infections Science of prevention 

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Jay JS, Gostin LO. Ethical challenges of preexposure prophylaxis for HIV. JAMA. 2012;308:867–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Padian NS, McCoy SI, Karim SSA, et al. HIV prevention transformed: the new prevention research agenda. Lancet. 2011;378:269–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen MS, Baden LR. Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV – where do we go from here? N Engl J Med. 2012;367:459–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, et al. Pre-exposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2587–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baeten JM, Donnell D, Ndase P, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med. 2012;267:399–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thigpen MC, Kebaabetswe PM, Paxton LA, et al. Antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in Botswana. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:423–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crosby RA, Cates W. Condom use: still a sexual health staple. Sex Health. 2012;9:1–3. doi:10.1071/SH11111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weller SC, Davis-Beaty K. Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;Issue 1. Art. No.:CD003255.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Curran JW, Crosby RA. Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP): who will benefit and what are the challenges? Am J Prev Med. (in press).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reducing Misclassification Bias in Sex Research Through the use of Personal Digital Assistants. Third Youth Annual Conference on Youth and Technology & Sexual Health. San Francisco, CA, 26–27 February 2010.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Graham CA, Crosby RA, Sanders SA, Yarber WL. Assessment of condom use in men and women. Annu Rev Sex Res. 2006;16:2–52.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crosby RA, DiClemente RJ, Holtgrave DR, Wingood GM. Design, measurement, and analytic considerations for testing hypotheses relative to condom effectiveness against non-viral STIs. Sex Transm Infect. 2002;78:228–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Warner L, Newman DR, Fishbein M, et al. Problems with condom use among patients attending sexually transmitted disease clinics: prevalence, predictors, and relation to incident gonorrhea and chlamydia. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167:341–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crosby RA, Salazar LF, DiClemente RJ, et al. Accounting for failures may improve precision: evidence supporting improved validity of self-reported condom use. Sex Transm Dis. 2005;32:513–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Crosby RA, DiClemente RJ, Yarber WL, et al. An event-specific analysis of condom breakage among African American men at risk of HIV acquisition. Sex Transm Dis. 2008;35:174–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    United States Department of Health and Human Services. Workshop Summary: Scientific evidence on condom effectiveness for sexually transmitted disease (STI) prevention. Available on-line at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/STIs/condomreport.pdf. Accessed July 5, 2001.
  17. 17.
    •• Crosby RA, Bounse S. Condom effectiveness: where are we now? Sex Health. 2012;9:10–7. This is a review of methodological issues and selected studies that pertain to the evaluation of condom effectiveness against sexually transmitted diseases. Practical guidance is provided for future research efforts aimed at determining condom effectiveness. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Crosby RA, Yarber WL, Sanders SA, Graham CA. Condom use as a dependent variable: a brief commentary about classification of inconsistent users. AIDS Behav. 2004;8:99–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    •• Crosby RA, Charnigo R, Weathers C, et al. Condom effectiveness against non-viral sexually transmitted infections: a prospective study using electronic daily diaries. Sex Transm Infect. 2012;88:484–8. doi:10.1136/sextrans-2012-050618. This is the first NIH-funded study designed specifically to test condom effectiveness against non-viral sexually transmitted infections. The findings clearly illustrate that condom effectiveness is dependent on correct use.
  20. 20.
    •• Sanders SA, Yarber WL, Kaufman EL, Crosby RA, Graham CA, Milhausen RM. Condom use errors and problems: a global view. Sex Health. 2012;9:81–5. This review paper reports findings on condom use errors and problems in fourteen countries. The findings make a very clear case that condom use errors and condom use problems are ubiquitous globally. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reece M, Herbenick D, Dodge B. Penile dimensions and men’s perceptions of condom fit and feel. Sex Transm Infect. 2009;85:127–31. doi:10.1136/sti.2008.033050.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    • Crosby RA, Yarber WL, Graham CA, Sanders SA. Does it fit okay? Problems with condom use as a function of self-reported poor fit. Sex Transm Infect. 2010;86:36–8. doi:10.1136/sti.2009.036665. This study provides novel evidence suggesting that ill-fitting condoms are highly problematic for men and imying that public health programs should make condoms available in a full range of sizes. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crosby RA, Milhausen R, Yarber WL, Sanders SA, Graham CA. Condom “Turn Offs” among adults: an exploratory study. Int J STD AIDS. 2008;19:590–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reece M, Dodge B, Herbenick D, et al. Experiences of condom fit and feel among African American men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;83:454–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reece M, Herbenick D, Sanders SA, et al. Breakage, slippage and acceptability outcomes of a condom fitted to penile dimensions. Sex Transm Infect. 2008;84:143–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Crosby RA, Graham CA, Yarber WL, Sanders SA. If the condom fits, wear it: a qualitative study of young African American men. Sex Transm Infect. 2004;80:306–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cecil M, Nelson AL, Trussell J, Hatcher R. If the condom does not fit, you must resize it. Contraception. 2010;82:489–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    • Graham CA, Crosby RA, Milhausen RR, Sanders SA, Yarber WL. Incomplete use of condoms: the importance of sexual arousal. AIDS Behav. 2011;15:1328–31. This study provides sound evidence suggesting that delayed application of condoms and early removal are each related to condom associated erection problems. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Crosby RA, Graham CA, Yarber WL, Sanders SA. Problems with condoms may be reduced for men taking ample time to apply them. Sex Health. 2010;7:66–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sanders SA, Milhausen RM, Crosby RA, Graham CG, Yarber WL. Do phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors protect against condom-associated erection loss and condom slippage? J Sex Med. 2009;6:1451–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    •• Crosby RA, DiClemente RJ, Charnigo R, et al. A brief, clinic-based, safer sex intervention for African American men at-risk of HIV acquisition: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Public Health. 2009;99:S96–S103. The randomized controlled trial established the efficacy of a brief, clinic-based, condom use promotion program for young Black men attending STD clinics. The effect size of this one hour, face-to-face, intervention program was significant and substantial. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jones KT, Gray P, Whiteside YO, et al. Evaluation of an HIV prevention intervention adapted for Black men who have sex with men. Am J Public Health. 2008;98:1043–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Beksinska M, Smit JA, Mantell JE. Progress and challenges to male and female condom use in South Africa. Sex Health. 2012;9:51–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shisana O, Rehle T, Simbayi LC, Zuma K, Josste S, Pillay-van-Wyk V, et al. South African national HIV prevalence, incidence, behaviour and communication survey 2008: a turning tide among teenagers? Cape Town: HSRC; 2009.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC). South African National HIV Prevalence, HIV Incidence, Behaviour Change and Communications Survey, 2002. Cape Town: HSRC; 2002.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shisana O, Rehle T, Simbayi L, Parker W, Bhana A, Zuma K, et al. South African national HIV Prevalence, Incidence, Behaviour and Communications Survey, 2005. Cape Town: HSRC; 2005.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Okie S. Fighting HIV, – Lessons learned from Brazil. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1977–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Matika-Tyndale E. Condoms in Sub-Sahara Africa. Sex Health. 2012;9:59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gallo MF, Kilbourne-Brook M, Coffey PS. A review of the effectiveness and acceptability of the female condom for dual protection. Sex Health. 2012;9:18–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kelvin E, Mantell JE, Candelario N, Hoffman S, Exner TM, Stackhouse W, et al. Off-label use of the female condom for anal intercourse among men in New York City. Am J Public Health. 2011;101:2241–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Crosby RA, Warner L. Pending issues in male condom use promotion. Sex Health. 2008;5:317–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Crosby RA, Ricks J, Young A. Condom migration resulting from circumcision, microbicides, and vaccines: brief review and methodological considerations. Sex Health. 2012;9:96–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Allman D, Xu K, Aguinaldo J, et al. Delayed application of condoms with safe and unsafe sex: factors associated with HIV risk in a community sample of gay and bisexual men. AIDS Care. 2009;21:775–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Warner L, Gallo MF, Macaluso M. Condom use around the globe: how can we fulfill the prevention potential of male condoms? Sex Health. 2012;9:4–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sanders SA, Reece M, Herbenick D, et al. Condom use during most recent vaginal sexual intercourse event among a probability sample of adults in the United States. J Sex Med. 2010;7:362–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Public Health at the University of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations