Jenna S Hynes1, Anandi N Sheth2, Eva Lathrop3, Jessica M Sales4, Lisa B Haddad3. 1. 1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 2. 2 Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. 3 Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Faculty Office Building, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. 4 Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
Background: Multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs) are being developed to simultaneously protect women from unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) or human immunodeficiency virus. This study aims to determine MPT characteristics desired by young women in the United States (U.S.). Materials and Methods: This is a cross-sectional national survey administered online by MTurk. Eligibility criteria included female sex, age 18-29 years, U.S. residence, and sexual activity with a male partner in the past 3 months. MPT characteristics were rated for importance. Odds ratios were generated to explore associations between demographics, sexual behaviors, and prior contraceptive use and likelihood of using various MPT formulations. Results: Of 835 women, the largest proportion reported being likely to use MPTs in the form of injectables (45.6%), followed by vaginal gels (33.7%), vaginal rings (26.3%) and diaphragms (17.3%). Women with prior experience using a specific method of contraception appeared more likely to try an MPT of the same form. Women concerned about STIs and unwanted pregnancy, or with a history of such undesirable outcomes, expressed higher likelihood of use for a broad range of products. Women indicated that safety and efficacy at preventing pregnancy were the most important product characteristics when choosing an MPT. Conclusions: MPTs in the form of injectables are most highly desired, but many women would use vaginal methods, highlighting the importance of developing different delivery methods. Women desire safety and emphasize contraceptive efficacy over infection prevention. MPT preferences must be considered during product development to promote future acceptance among young women in the U.S.
Background: Multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs) are being developed to simultaneously protect women from unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) or human immunodeficiency virus. This study aims to determine MPT characteristics desired by young women in the United States (U.S.). Materials and Methods: This is a cross-sectional national survey administered online by MTurk. Eligibility criteria included female sex, age 18-29 years, U.S. residence, and sexual activity with a male partner in the past 3 months. MPT characteristics were rated for importance. Odds ratios were generated to explore associations between demographics, sexual behaviors, and prior contraceptive use and likelihood of using various MPT formulations. Results: Of 835 women, the largest proportion reported being likely to use MPTs in the form of injectables (45.6%), followed by vaginal gels (33.7%), vaginal rings (26.3%) and diaphragms (17.3%). Women with prior experience using a specific method of contraception appeared more likely to try an MPT of the same form. Women concerned about STIs and unwanted pregnancy, or with a history of such undesirable outcomes, expressed higher likelihood of use for a broad range of products. Women indicated that safety and efficacy at preventing pregnancy were the most important product characteristics when choosing an MPT. Conclusions: MPTs in the form of injectables are most highly desired, but many women would use vaginal methods, highlighting the importance of developing different delivery methods. Women desire safety and emphasize contraceptive efficacy over infection prevention. MPT preferences must be considered during product development to promote future acceptance among young women in the U.S.
Authors: Jeanne M Marrazzo; Gita Ramjee; Barbra A Richardson; Kailazarid Gomez; Nyaradzo Mgodi; Gonasagrie Nair; Thesla Palanee; Clemensia Nakabiito; Ariane van der Straten; Lisa Noguchi; Craig W Hendrix; James Y Dai; Shayhana Ganesh; Baningi Mkhize; Marthinette Taljaard; Urvi M Parikh; Jeanna Piper; Benoît Mâsse; Cynthia Grossman; James Rooney; Jill L Schwartz; Heather Watts; Mark A Marzinke; Sharon L Hillier; Ian M McGowan; Z Mike Chirenje Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gina M Wingood; Kristin Dunkle; Christina Camp; Shilpa Patel; Julia E Painter; Anna Rubtsova; Ralph J DiClemente Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2013-06-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Lakshmi Goparaju; Laure S Experton; Nathan C Praschan; Lari Warren-Jeanpiere; Mary A Young; Seble Kassaye Journal: J AIDS Clin Res Date: 2015-11
Authors: Karine Dubé; Shadi Eskaf; David Evans; John Sauceda; Parya Saberi; Brandon Brown; Dawn Averitt; Krista Martel; Maria Meija; Danielle Campbell; Liz Barr; John Kanazawa; Kelly Perry; Hursch Patel; Stuart Luter; Tonia Poteat; Judith D Auerbach; David A Wohl Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Kathleen Ridgeway; Elizabeth T Montgomery; Kevin Smith; Kristine Torjesen; Ariane van der Straten; Sharon L Achilles; Jennifer B Griffin Journal: Contraception Date: 2021-10-10 Impact factor: 3.051
Authors: Sarah K Calabrese; Rachel W Galvao; John F Dovidio; Tiara C Willie; Cara B Safon; Clair Kaplan; Abigail Caldwell; Oni Blackstock; Nicole J Phillips; Trace S Kershaw Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 5.078