Women's Barrier Contraceptive Methods: Poised for Change

Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health

Volumn 51, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 478-485

  Narrigan, Deborah ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

cervical or vaginal barrier contraceptive method; contraceptive acceptability; diaphragm; female condom; FemCap; Lea's Shield; sexually transmitted infection prevention; Today sponge

Indexed keywords

SILICONE;

ARTICLE; BARRIER CONTRACEPTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONDOM; CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE; DIAPHRAGM; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; INFECTION PREVENTION; MIDWIFE; PREGNANCY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVIX; UTERINE CERVIX CAP;

CONTRACEPTION, BARRIER; CONTRACEPTIVE AGENTS, FEMALE; CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICES, FEMALE; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; SAFE SEX; SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES; UNITED STATES; WOMEN'S HEALTH;

EID: 33750286128     PISSN: 15269523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmwh.2006.06.007     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Mosher W.D., Martinez G.M., Chandra A., Abma J.C., and Wilson S.J. Use of contraception and use of family planning services in the United States: 1982-2002. Adv Data 350 (2004) 1-36
2. Re-examining the role of cervical barrier devices. Outlook 20 (2003) 21-28
3. Hatcher R.A., Trussell J., Stewart F., Nelson A.L., Cates W., and Guest F. Contraceptive Technology. 18th ed (2004), Ardent Media, Inc, New York
4. Ortho Women's Health Web site. Diaphragms. Available from: http://www.Ortho-McNeilPharmaceuticals.com [Accessed June 20, 2005].
5. Milex Products Web site. Wide-seal silicone diaphragms. Available from: http://www.milexproducts.com [Accessed June 24, 2005].
6. Mauck C., Lai J.J., Schwartz J., and Weiner D.H. Diaphragms in clinical trials: Is clinician fitting necessary?. Contraception 69 (2004) 263-268
7. Harvey S.M., Bird S.T., Maher J.E., and Beckman L.J. Who continues using the diaphragm and who doesn't: Implications for the acceptability of female-controlled HIV prevention methods. Women's Health Issues 13 (2003) 185-193
8. Summerhayes L. Statement. Available from: http://www.cervicalcap.com [Accessed June 20, 2005].
9. Cervical Barrier Advancement Society. Prentif cap no longer available in the United States. CBAS Newsletter 2:22. Available from: http://www.cervicalbarriers.org [Accessed June 25, 2005].
10. FDA approves Lea's Shield. The Contraception Report 13 (2002) 4-5 11
11. Pretorius E.S., Barnhart K., Timbers K., and Mauck C. Use of MRI to determine in vivo position of a silicone vaginal barrier device. Contraception 65 (2002) 343-346
12. Lea's Shield Web site. How it works. Available from: http://www.leasshield.com [Accessed June 24, 2005].
13. Planned Parenthood Web site. Diaphragms, caps & shields. How to use the Shield. Available from: http:www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/file/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/pubdia. [Accessed June 20, 2005].
14. Mauck C., Glover L.H., Miller E., Allen S., Archer D.F., Blumenthal P., et al. Lea's Shield: A study of the safety and efficacy of a new vaginal barrier contraceptive used with and without spermicide. Contraception 53 (1996) 329-335
15. Summary of safety and effectiveness data FemCap. Food and Drug Administration PreMarket Approval Application Number P020041 (2003) 1-25
16. Shihata A. New FDA approved woman-controlled, latex-free barrier contraceptive device "FemCap." (2004) 303-306 International Congress series 1271 V-VI Research papers in fertility and reproductive medicine proceedings of the 18th World Congress on Fertility and Sterility
17. FemCap Web site. How to use the FemCap. Available from: www.femcap.com [Accessed June 24, 2005].
18. Mauck C., Callahan M., Weiner D., Dominik R., and FemCap Investigator Group. A comparative study of the safety and efficacy of FemCap a new vaginal barrier contraceptive, and the Ortho All-Flex Diaphragm. Contraception 60 (1999) 71-80
19. Gallo M.F., Grimes D.A., and Schulz K.F. Cervical cap versus diaphragm for contraception. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2002) 4 Art No CD003551.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD003551
20. Mauck C.K., Weiner D.H., Creinin M.D., Archer D.F., Schwartz J.L., Pymar H.C., et al. FemCap with removal strap: Ease of removal, safety and acceptability. Contraception 73 (2006) 59-64
21. Hoffman S., Mantell J., Exner T., and Stein Z. The future of the female condom. Perspect Sexual Reprod Health 36 (2004) 120-128
22. Female Health Web site. FC Female Condom. Available from: http://www.femalehealth.com [Accessed June 24, 2005].
23. Kulczycki A., Kim D.J., Duerr A., Jamieson D.J., and Macaluso M. The acceptability of the female and male condom: A randomized crossover trial. Perspect Sexual Reprod Health 36 (2004) 14-19
24. Kaler A. "It's some kind of women's empowerment": The ambiguity of the female condom as a marker of female empowerment. Soc Sci Med 52 (2001) 783-796
25. WHO/UNAIDS. Information update: consultation on re-use of the female condom (2000), World Health Organization, Geneva
26. Potter B., Gerofi J., Pope M., and Farley T. Structural integrity of the polyurethane female condom after multiple cycles of disinfection, washing, drying and lubrication. Contraception 67 (2003) 65-72
27. Today Sponge Web site. FDA approves the return of the Today Sponge. Press release April 22, 2005. Available from: http://www.todaysponge.com [Accessed June 24, 2005].
28. Cervical Barrier Advancement Society. FDA Re-approves Today Sponge for sale in the U.S. CBAS Newsletter 2:2: 2. Available from: http://www.cervicalbarriers.org. [Accessed June 24, 2005].
29. Kuyoh M.A., Toroititch-Ruto C., Grimes D.A., Schulz K.F., and Gallo M.F. Sponge versus diaphragm: A Cochrane review. Contraception (2003) 15-18
30. Edelman D.A., McIntyre S.L., and Harper J. A comparative trial of the Today contraceptive sponge and diaphragm. Am J Obstet Gynecol 150 (1984) 869-876
31. Faisch G., Pearson K., Fleming D., Sobel S., and Anello C. Toxic Shock syndrome and the vaginal contraceptive sponge. JAMA 255 (1986) 216-218
32. Schwartz S.G., Broome C.V., Hightower A.W., Wolf P.H., and Toxic Shock Syndrome Study Group. Nonmenstrual toxic shock syndrome associated with barrier contraceptives: Report of a case-control study. Rev Infec Disease 11 suppl 1 (1989) S43-S49
33. Today Sponge Web site. Safety record of the sponge. Available from: www.todaysponge.com/safetyrecord.htm [Accessed July 8, 2005].
34. Beckman L.J., and Harvey S.M. Factors affecting the consistent use of barrier methods of contraception. Obstet Gynecol 88 (1996) 65S-71S
35. Grady W.R., Klepinger D.H., and Nelson-Wally A. Contraceptive characteristics: The perceptions and priorities of men and women. Fam Plan Perspect 31 (1999) 168-175
36. Upadhyay U.D. New Contraceptive Choices. Population Reports Series M (2005) 1-6. http://www.populationreports.org/m19/ Number 19: April. Available from: http://www.populationreports.org/m19/ [Accessed June 27, 2005]
37. Moench T.R., Chipato T., and Padian N.S. Preventing disease by protecting the cervix: The unexplored promise of internal vaginal barrier devices. AIDS 15 (2001) 1595-1602
38. Levine W.C., Pope V., Bhoomkar A., Tambe P., Lewis J.S., Zaidi A.A., et al. Increase in endocervical CD4 lymphocytes among women with non-ulcerative sexually transmitted disease. J Infect Dis 177 (1998) 167-174
39. Zhang L., He T., Tala A., Wang G., Frankel S.S., and Ho D.D. In vivo distribution of the human immunodeficiency virus/simian immunodeficiency virus co-receptors: CXCR4, CCR3, and CCRS. J Virol 72 (1998) 5035-5045
40. Cervical barriers protecting the cervix for pregnancy and disease prevention. Reproductive Health Technologies Project. Available from: www.rhtp.org. [Accessed June 24, 2005].