PURPOSE: This multisite, randomized, crossover trial comparing the acceptability of the Reality(R) female condom (FC1), with a new synthetic latex prototype (FC2) of similar design and appearance to FC1, was conducted in Durban, South Africa. METHODS: In total, 276 women were enrolled and 1910 FC1 condoms and 1881 FC2 condoms were used by 218 and 216 women, respectively. RESULTS: Overall experience of use was reported as good for over half the participants with both condom types (FC1=50.9%, FC2=55.1%). Similar acceptability issues were reported in like proportions for FC1 and FC2, with features such as the lubricant (FC1=36.7%, FC2=37.0%) and the material (FC1=36.2%, FC2=29.2%) most commonly viewed positively for both condom types. Negative aspects commonly reported for both female condoms were the lubricant (FC1=30.3%, FC2=31.5%) and the appearance (FC1=29.8%, FC2=34.0%). Preference for FC1 was 29.5% and was slightly higher for FC2 (36.6%). Some women felt that there was no real difference between the two devices (33.8%). CONCLUSION: The acceptability of FC1 and FC2 was comparable, and women who find FC1 acceptable to use should also find FC2 acceptable.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This multisite, randomized, crossover trial comparing the acceptability of the Reality(R) female condom (FC1), with a new synthetic latex prototype (FC2) of similar design and appearance to FC1, was conducted in Durban, South Africa. METHODS: In total, 276 women were enrolled and 1910 FC1 condoms and 1881 FC2 condoms were used by 218 and 216 women, respectively. RESULTS: Overall experience of use was reported as good for over half the participants with both condom types (FC1=50.9%, FC2=55.1%). Similar acceptability issues were reported in like proportions for FC1 and FC2, with features such as the lubricant (FC1=36.7%, FC2=37.0%) and the material (FC1=36.2%, FC2=29.2%) most commonly viewed positively for both condom types. Negative aspects commonly reported for both female condoms were the lubricant (FC1=30.3%, FC2=31.5%) and the appearance (FC1=29.8%, FC2=34.0%). Preference for FC1 was 29.5% and was slightly higher for FC2 (36.6%). Some women felt that there was no real difference between the two devices (33.8%). CONCLUSION: The acceptability of FC1 and FC2 was comparable, and women who find FC1 acceptable to use should also find FC2 acceptable.
Authors: R John Aitken; Mark A Baker; Gustavo F Doncel; Martin M Matzuk; Christine K Mauck; Michael J K Harper Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Tsitsi B Masvawure; Joanne E Mantell; Zonke Mabude; Claudia Ngoloyi; Cecilia Milford; Mags Beksinska; Jennifer A Smit Journal: J Sex Res Date: 2013-09-20
Authors: Beatrice A Chen; Diana L Blithe; Gitonga R Muraguri; Audrey A Lance; Bruce R Carr; Jeffrey T Jensen; Thomas D Kimble; Amitasrigowri S Murthy; Courtney A Schreiber; Michael A Thomas; Terri L Walsh; Carolyn Westhoff; Anne E Burke Journal: Contraception Date: 2019-03-06 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Sarah E Fenwick; Jessica R Botfield; Prudence Kidman; Kevin McGeechan; Deborah Bateson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 3.240