4.6 Article

The Promise of Intravaginal Rings for Prevention: User Perceptions of Biomechanical Properties and Implications for Prevention Product Development

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145642

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIH/NIAID)
  2. NIH
  3. ImQuest BioSciences, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intravaginal rings (IVRs) are currently under investigation as devices for the delivery of agents to protect against the sexual transmission of HIV and STIs, as well as pregnancy. To assist product developers in creating highly acceptable rings, we sought to identify characteristics that intravaginal ring users consider when making decisions about ring use or nonuse. We conducted four semi-structured focus groups with 21 women (aged 18-45) who reported using an IVR in the past 12 months. Participants manipulated four prototype rings in their hands, discussed ring materials, dimensionality, and behavior, and shared perceptions and appraisals. Five salient ring characteristics were identified: 1) appearance of the rings' surfaces, 2) tactile sensations of the cylinder material, 3) materials properties, 4) diameter of the cylinder, and 5) ring circumference. Pliability (or flexibility) was generally considered the most important mechanical property. Several ring properties (e.g., porousness, dimensionality) were associated with perceptions of efficacy. Women also revealed user behaviors that may impact the effectiveness of certain drugs, such as removing, rinsing and re-inserting the ring while bathing, and removing the ring during sexual encounters. As product developers explore IVRs as prevention delivery systems, it is critical to balance product materials and dimensions with use parameters to optimize drug delivery and the user experience. It is also critical to consider how user behaviors (e.g., removing the ring) might impact drug delivery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据