4.1 Article

Acceptability of the dapivirine vaginal ring for HIV-1 prevention among women reporting engagement in transactional sex

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09540121.2023.2198187

关键词

HIV prevention; acceptability; vaginal ring; sub-saharan Africa; transactional sex; women

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed the acceptability of the dapivirine vaginal ring for HIV prevention among women who engaged in transactional sex. The results showed that women who exchanged sex found the ring comfortable, easy to use, and were likely to use it in the future. However, they reported feeling the ring during sex and menses, indicating the need for enhanced support during these periods for optimal use.
We assessed if acceptability of the dapivirine vaginal ring for HIV prevention differed among the subgroup of women who reported engaging in transactional sex prior to enrollment in MTN-020/ASPIRE (phase III trial in Malawi, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe, 2012-2015; n = 2629). Transactional sex was defined as receipt of money, goods, gifts, drugs, or shelter in exchange for sex in the past year. Dimensions of acceptability included: ease of use and physical sensation in situ, impacts on sex, partner's opinion, and likelihood of future use. We used Poisson regression models with robust standard errors to compare risk of acceptability challenges by baseline history of transactional sex. At product discontinuation, women exchanging sex found the ring comfortable (90%), easy to insert (92%) and nearly all (96%) were likely to use the ring in the future. Women who had exchanged sex were more likely to report feeling the ring during sex (ARR 1.43, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.89; p = 0.01) and slightly more likely to mind wearing the ring during menses (ARR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.01, 1,46; p = 0.04) and during sex (ARR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.45; p = 0.03). Messaging and counseling should include enhanced support for use during sex and menses to support optimal use.

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

4.1
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