Short-term acceptability of a single-size diaphragm among couples in South Africa and Thailand

Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 233-236

  Coffey, Patricia S ^a   Kilbourne Brook, Maggie ^a   Beksinska, Mags ^b   Thongkrajai, Earmporn ^c  

^a PATH   (United States)

^b Reproductive Health and HIV Research Unit   (South Africa)

^c KHON KAEN UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

Author keywords

Acceptability; Diaphragm; Pilot study; South Africa; Thailand

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CONTROLLED STUDY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MALE; PILOT STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH; SEXUAL SATISFACTION; SOUTH AFRICA; THAILAND; UTERINE CERVIX CAP;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICES, FEMALE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PILOT PROJECTS; SOUTH AFRICA; THAILAND;

EID: 53249145935     PISSN: 14711893     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1783/147118908786000569     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Maher JE, Harvey MS, Thorburn Bird S, Stevens VJ, Beckman LJ. Acceptability of the vaginal diaphragm among current users. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2004; 36: 64-71.
2. Behets F, Norris Turner A, Van Damme K, Rabenja NL, Ravelomanana N, Zeller K, Rasolofomanana JR. Acceptability and feasibility of continuous diaphragm use among sex workers in Madagascar. Sex Transm Infect 2005; 81: 472-476.
3. Bulut A, Ortayli N, Ringheim K, Cottingham J, Farley TM, Peregoudov A, et al. Assessing the acceptability, service delivery requirements, and use-effectiveness of the diaphragm in Colombia, Philippines, and Turkey. Contraception 2001; 63: 267-275.
4. Ortayli N, Bulut A, Nalbant H, Cottingham J. Is the diaphragm a viable option for women in Turkey? Int Fam Plann Perspect 2000; 26: 36-42.
5. Sundari Ravindran TK, Rao SS. Is the diaphragm a suitable method of contraception for low-income women: a users' perspectives study, Madras, India. In: Beyond Acceptability: Users' Perceptions on Contraception. London, UK: Reproductive Health Matters for the World Health Organization, 1997.
6. Di Giacomo Lago T, Barbosa RM, Kalckmann S, Vieira Villela W, Gohiman S. Acceptability of the diaphragm among low-income women in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Int Fam Plann Perspect 1995; 21: 114-118.
7. van der Straten A, Kang 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.
8. Ellertson E, Burns M. Reexamining the role of cervical barrier devices. Outlook 2003; 20: 1-8.
9. Luchters S, Chersich MF, Irene J, Schroth A, Chidagaya S, Mandaliya K, et al. Acceptability of the diaphragm in Mombasa Kenya; a 6-month prospective study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2007; 12: 345-353.
10. Sundari Ravindran TK, Berer M, Cottingham J (eds). Beyond Acceptability: Users' Perspectives on Contraception. London, UK: Reproductive Health Matters for the World Health Organization, 1997.
11. World Health Organization Department of Reproductive Health and Research (WHO/RHR) and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health/Center for Communication Programs (CCP), INFO Project. Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers. Baltimore, MD and Geneva, Switzerland: CCP and WHO, 2007.
12. Moench TR, Chipato T, Padian NS. Preventing disease by protecting the cervix: the unexplored promise of internal vaginal barrier devices. AIDS 2001; 15: 1595-1602.
13. Mauck CK, Weiner DH, Creinin MD, Archer DF, Schwartz JL, Pymar HC, et al. FemCap with removal strap: ease of removal, safety, and acceptability. Contraception 2006; 73: 59-64.
14. Mauck CK, Creinin MD, Rountree W, Callahan NM, Hillier SL. Lea's Shield: colposcopic and microbiological testing during 8 weeks of use. Contraception 2005; 72: 53-59.
15. Padian NS, van der Straten A, Ramjee G, Chipato T, de Bruyn G, Blanchard K, et al.; MIRA Team. Diaphragm and lubricant gel for prevention of HIV acquisition in southern African women: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007; 370: 251-261.
16. Schwartz J, Mauck C, Rountree RW, Ballagh S, Creinin M, Kilbourne-Brook M. SILCS diaphragm: postcoital testing of a new, single size contraceptive diaphragm. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107(4 Suppl.): 12S.
17. Ballagh SA, Brache V, Mauck C, Callahan NM, Cochon L, Wheeless A, et al. A Phase I study of the functional performance, safety, and acceptability of the BufferGel® Duet™. Contraception 2008; 77: 130-137.
18. Roizen J, Richardson S, Tripp J, Hardwicke H, Lam TQ. Oves contraceptive cap: short-term acceptability, aspects of use and user satisfaction. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2002; 28: 188-192.
19. Bounds W, Guillebaud J. Lea's Shield contraceptive device: pilot study of its short-term patient acceptability and aspects of use. Br J Fam Plann 1999; 24: 117-120.
20. Posner S, van der Straten A, Kang M, Padian N, Chipato T. Introducing diaphragms into the mix: what happens to male condom use patterns? AIDS Behav 2005; 9: 443-449.