Wendy R Holmes1, Lisa Maher, Susan L Rosenthal. 1. Centre for International Health, Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health, 23?87 Commercial Road, Melbourne, Vic. 3004, Australia. holmes@burnet.edu.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vaginal microbicides are in development to provide new options for the prevention of sexually transmissible infections. Although promoted as a female-initiated product, men may influence the decision to use a microbicide and the way that it is used, so it is important to explore their views. METHODS: Men (n = 36) enrolled in a 7-day, phase 1 clinical safety trial of SPL7013 Gel were interviewed pre- and post-use of the gel. The trial did not include use of the gel during sex. Interviews were digitally-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: The men (mean age 37 years) were interested in the idea of vaginal microbicides, had little knowledge about them, and varied beliefs about how they work. They tended to assess microbicide use in relation to condoms and lubricants. Many would want a microbicide to be as effective as condoms. Participants did not anticipate difficulties discussing use with their partners. Many thought that a microbicide would be less intrusive than condoms; some anticipated that the lubricating properties might enhance sexual pleasure. Some anticipated using a microbicide with a condom or with a lubricant, and a few raised questions about the timing of use and use during different types of sexual activity. CONCLUSIONS: No major barriers to microbicide use were found in this sample of Australian men, who anticipated being willing to use them if they are shown to be safe and effective. Our findings should help to inform the design of further studies as well as future information materials and anticipatory guidance.
BACKGROUND: Vaginal microbicides are in development to provide new options for the prevention of sexually transmissible infections. Although promoted as a female-initiated product, men may influence the decision to use a microbicide and the way that it is used, so it is important to explore their views. METHODS:Men (n = 36) enrolled in a 7-day, phase 1 clinical safety trial of SPL7013 Gel were interviewed pre- and post-use of the gel. The trial did not include use of the gel during sex. Interviews were digitally-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: The men (mean age 37 years) were interested in the idea of vaginal microbicides, had little knowledge about them, and varied beliefs about how they work. They tended to assess microbicide use in relation to condoms and lubricants. Many would want a microbicide to be as effective as condoms. Participants did not anticipate difficulties discussing use with their partners. Many thought that a microbicide would be less intrusive than condoms; some anticipated that the lubricating properties might enhance sexual pleasure. Some anticipated using a microbicide with a condom or with a lubricant, and a few raised questions about the timing of use and use during different types of sexual activity. CONCLUSIONS: No major barriers to microbicide use were found in this sample of Australian men, who anticipated being willing to use them if they are shown to be safe and effective. Our findings should help to inform the design of further studies as well as future information materials and anticipatory guidance.
Authors: Marcus Y Chen; Iona Y Millwood; Handan Wand; Mary Poynten; Matthew Law; John M Kaldor; Steve Wesselingh; Clare F Price; Laura J Clark; Jeremy R A Paull; Christopher K Fairley Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2009-04-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Juliet Richters; Andrew E Grulich; Richard O de Visser; Anthony M A Smith; Chris E Rissel Journal: Aust N Z J Public Health Date: 2003 Impact factor: 2.939
Authors: Richard O de Visser; Anthony M A Smith; Chris E Rissel; Juliet Richters; Andrew E Grulich Journal: Aust N Z J Public Health Date: 2003 Impact factor: 2.939
Authors: Kathleen Morrow; Rochelle Rosen; Linda Richter; Anne Emans; Anna Forbes; Jennifer Day; Neetha Morar; Lisa Maslankowski; Albert T Profy; Cliff Kelly; Salim S Abdool Karim; Kenneth H Mayer Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: A E Brown; K E Sadler; S E Tomkins; C A McGarrigle; D S LaMontagne; D Goldberg; P A Tookey; B Smyth; D Thomas; G Murphy; J V Parry; B G Evans; O N Gill; F Ncube; K A Fenton Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Melissa Loza; Kathleen Vincent; Thomas Moench; Lawrence R Stanberry; Susan L Rosenthal Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Anne E Burke; Kurt Barnhart; Jeffrey T Jensen; Mitchell D Creinin; Terri L Walsh; Livia S Wan; Carolyn Westhoff; Michael Thomas; David Archer; Hongsheng Wu; James Liu; William Schlaff; Bruce R Carr; Diana Blithe Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Kathleen M Morrow; Kristen Underhill; Jacob J van den Berg; Sara Vargas; Rochelle K Rosen; David F Katz Journal: Arch Sex Behav Date: 2014-01-23
Authors: Marina Catallozzi; Camille Y Williams; Gregory D Zimet; Katharine M Hargreaves; Shari E Gelber; Adam J Ratner; Lawrence R Stanberry; Susan L Rosenthal Journal: Sex Health Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 2.706