OBJECTIVES: Comparison of male condom (MC) vs. female condom (FC) with respect to self-reported mechanical and acceptability problems and semen exposure using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as an objective biological marker and evaluation of the effect of an educational intervention on self-reported problems and semen exposure, by condom type. DESIGN: Randomized crossover trial. METHODS:Four hundred women attending a family planning clinic in Brazil were randomized and either received in-clinic instruction or were encouraged to read the condom package insert; all used two FCs and two MCs. We measured the rates of self-reported user problems with MC and FC use and the rates of semen exposure during use (assessed by testing vaginal fluid for PSA). RESULTS: The educational intervention group reported fewer problems with either condom as compared with the control group (p = .0004, stratified by condom type). In both groups, self-reported problems were more frequent with FC use than with MC use (p < .0001, stratified by intervention). The educational intervention did not significantly reduce semen exposure. Overall, semen exposure occurred more frequently with FC use (postcoital PSA, > 1 ng/mL; 22%) than with MC use (15%); the difference, however, was small and nonsignificant for high PSA levels (> or = 150 ng/mL; 5.1% for FC vs. 3.6% for MC). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the FC was less effective than the MC in preventing semen exposure during use and led more frequently to self-reported user problems. Both devices were highly protective against "high-level" semen exposure, as measured by postcoital PSA levels in vaginal fluid. In-clinic education may reduce user problems and increase acceptability and use of both devices.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Comparison of male condom (MC) vs. female condom (FC) with respect to self-reported mechanical and acceptability problems and semen exposure using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as an objective biological marker and evaluation of the effect of an educational intervention on self-reported problems and semen exposure, by condom type. DESIGN: Randomized crossover trial. METHODS: Four hundred women attending a family planning clinic in Brazil were randomized and either received in-clinic instruction or were encouraged to read the condom package insert; all used two FCs and two MCs. We measured the rates of self-reported user problems with MC and FC use and the rates of semen exposure during use (assessed by testing vaginal fluid for PSA). RESULTS: The educational intervention group reported fewer problems with either condom as compared with the control group (p = .0004, stratified by condom type). In both groups, self-reported problems were more frequent with FC use than with MC use (p < .0001, stratified by intervention). The educational intervention did not significantly reduce semen exposure. Overall, semen exposure occurred more frequently with FC use (postcoital PSA, > 1 ng/mL; 22%) than with MC use (15%); the difference, however, was small and nonsignificant for high PSA levels (> or = 150 ng/mL; 5.1% for FC vs. 3.6% for MC). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the FC was less effective than the MC in preventing semen exposure during use and led more frequently to self-reported user problems. Both devices were highly protective against "high-level" semen exposure, as measured by postcoital PSA levels in vaginal fluid. In-clinic education may reduce user problems and increase acceptability and use of both devices.
Authors: Roxanne Jamshidi; Ana Penman-Aguilar; Jeffrey Wiener; Maria F Gallo; Jonathan M Zenilman; J H Melendez; Margaret Snead; Carolyn M Black; Denise J Jamieson; Maurizio Macaluso Journal: Contraception Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Donald A Calsyn; Mary A Hatch-Maillette; Suzanne R Doyle; Sarah Cousins; TeChieh Chen; Melinda Godinez Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Terri Walsh; Lee Warner; Maurizio Macaluso; Ron Frezieres; Margaret Snead; Brian Wraxall Journal: Contraception Date: 2012-03-02 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Margaret R Weeks; Helena Hilario; Jianghong Li; Emil Coman; Maryann Abbott; Laurie Sylla; Michelle Corbett; Julia Dickson-Gomez Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Clive Anderson; Maria F Gallo; Tina Hylton-Kong; Markus J Steiner; Marcia M Hobbs; Maurizio Macaluso; J Peter Figueroa; Denise J Jamieson; Jennifer Legardy-Williams; Jeffrey Wiener; Lee Warner Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Sten H Vermund; José A Tique; Holly M Cassell; Megan E Pask; Philip J Ciampa; Carolyn M Audet Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2013-06-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Maria F Gallo; Markus J Steiner; Marcia M Hobbs; Lee Warner; Denise J Jamieson; Maurizio Macaluso Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Margaret C Snead; Athena P Kourtis; Carolyn M Black; Christine K Mauck; Teresa M Brown; Ana Penman-Aguilar; Johan H Melendez; Maria F Gallo; Denise J Jamieson; Maurizio Macaluso Journal: Contraception Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 3.375