| Literature DB >> 31490964 |
Noah Taruberekera1, Kumbirai Chatora2, Staci Leuschner1, Malvern Munjoma2, Hardwin Sithole2, Sumathi Balasubramanian3, Faith Jiyeong Park1, Ryan Rego1, Andrea Rowan4, Kim Longfield5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Zimbabwe faces an uncertain future for condom funding and potential condom insecurity as international donors prioritize creating more self-sustaining markets and the government identifies how to best ensure access and uptake. We tested the impact of an intensive intervention on demand and supply after a price increase to the social marketed condom, Protector Plus. The study occurred during a deteriorating economy and pressure to reach sustainability quickly. We highlight where strategic donor investments can impact condom programming and markets.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31490964 PMCID: PMC6730989 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221581
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Market share for public, social marketed, and commercial condoms; prices to consumers’ pre-intervention.
Fig 2Theory of change.
Fig 3Results of audience segmentation research on Zimbabwe condom consumers.
Consumer characteristics at baseline and follow up surveys.
| Variable | Baseline | Follow-Up | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Experimental | p-value | Control | Experimental | p- | |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 677 (40%) | 694 (40%) | 0.924 | 550 (33%) | 754 (44%) | <0.001 |
| Female | 1,000 (60%) | 1,032 (60%) | 1,130 (67%) | 961 (56%) | ||
| Age | ||||||
| 18–24 | 532 (32%) | 494 (29%) | 0.143 | 465 (28%) | 435 (25%) | 0.263 |
| 25–29 | 425 (25%) | 442 (26%) | 423 (25%) | 409 (24%) | ||
| 30–34 | 293 (18%) | 307 (18%) | 319 (19%) | 350 (20%) | ||
| 35–39 | 238 (14%) | 250 (15%) | 252 (15%) | 265 (16%) | ||
| 40–44 | 108 (6%) | 149 (9%) | 144 (9%) | 154 (9%) | ||
| 45–49 | 81 (5%) | 84 (5%) | 77 (5%) | 102 (6%) | ||
| Wealth Quintile | ||||||
| Poorest | 281 (17%) | 434 (25%) | <0.001 | 269 (16%) | 376 (22%) | <0.001 |
| Poor | 252 (15%) | 360 (21%) | 385 (23%) | 363 (21%) | ||
| Medium | 317 (19%) | 333 (19%) | 390 (23%) | 341 (20%) | ||
| Wealthy | 406 (24%) | 278 (16%) | 382 (23%) | 280 (16%) | ||
| Wealthiest | 421 (25%) | 321 (19%) | 254 (15%) | 355 (21%) | ||
| Residence | ||||||
| Rural | 149 (9%) | 190 (11%) | 0.039 | 155 (9%) | 186 (11%) | 0.117 |
| Urban | 1,528 (91%) | 1,536 (89%) | 1,525 (91%) | 1,529 (89%) | ||
| Marital Status | ||||||
| Married/cohabitating | 978 (58%) | 1,101 (64%) | <0.001 | 1,032 (61%) | 1,093 (64%) | 0.592 |
| Never married | 538 (32%) | 426 (25%) | 456 (27%) | 447 (26%) | ||
| Widowed | 40 (2%) | 46 (3%) | 40 (2%) | 32 (2%) | ||
| Divorced | 60 (4%) | 65 (4%) | 64 (4%) | 57 (3%) | ||
| Separated | 61 (4%) | 88 (5%) | 88 (5%) | 86 (5%) | ||
Trader characteristics in baseline and follow up surveys.
| Variable | Baseline | Follow Up | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Experimental | p- | Control | Experimental | p- | |
| Outlet type | ||||||
| Wholesaler | 10 (5%) | 23 (6%) | 0.027 | 9 (4%) | 11 (3%) | <0.001 |
| Stockist | 0 (0%) | 7 (2%) | 2 (1%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| Supermarket | 42 (20%) | 110 (28%) | 23 (9%) | 76 (20%) | ||
| Bottle store | 45 (22%) | 81 (21%) | 57 (23%) | 77 (20%) | ||
| Night club | 9 (4%) | 17 (4%) | 11 (4%) | 21 (5%) | ||
| Service station | 7 (3%) | 3 (1%) | 7 (3%) | 25 (7%) | ||
| General dealer | 53 (25%) | 63 (16%) | 64 (26%) | 30 (8%) | ||
| Pharmacy | 12 (6%) | 29 (7%) | 29 (12%) | 92 (24%) | ||
| Beerhall | 14 (7%) | 26 (7%) | 11 (5%) | 9 (2%) | ||
| Sports bar | 14 (7%) | 32 (8%) | 14 (6%) | 30 (8%) | ||
| Other | 3 (1%) | 4 (1%) | 18 (7%) | 12 (3%) | ||
| Location | ||||||
| Rural | 38 (18%) | 7 (2%) | <0.001 | 34 (14%) | 15 (4%) | <0.001 |
| Urban | 171 (82%) | 388 (98%) | 211 (86%) | 368 (96%) | ||
Fig 4PP sales volumes and Panther distribution by month (standardized volumes by 100,000 population).
Differences in self-reported consumer outcomes for PP condoms.
| Variable | Control | Experimental | Diff-in-diff | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Follow Up | Baseline | Follow Up | |||
| Emotional attachment to the PP Original brand | 3.01 | 2.95 | 2.95 | 3.04 | 0.147 | |
| Emotional attachment to the PP Scented brand | 3.01 | 2.96 | 2.95 | 3.01 | 0.117 | |
| Intention to purchase PP condoms in the next month | 0.34 | 0.30 | 0.36 | 0.31 | -0.002 | 0.996 |
| Self-efficacy to negotiate condoms with partners | 3.06 | 2.95 | 3.01 | 2.99 | 0.084 | 0.389 |
| Positive attitudes toward condoms | 2.67 | 2.73 | 2.61 | 2.75 | 0.073 | 0.174 |
| Improved beliefs about PP Original condom efficacy | 3.00 | 2.96 | 2.95 | 3.08 | 0.173 | |
| Improved beliefs about PP Scented condom efficacy | 2.98 | 2.98 | 2.93 | 3.07 | 0.142 | |
| Increased perceived availability of PP Original among consumers | 2.84 | 2.74 | 2.83 | 2.77 | 0.036 | 0.584 |
| Increased perceived availability of PP Scented among consumers | 2.80 | 2.77 | 2.75 | 2.74 | 0.015 | 0.813 |
Differences in self-reported trader outcomes for PP condoms.
| Variable | Control | Experimental | Diff-in-diff | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Follow Up | Baseline | Follow Up | |||
| PP currently stocked | 0.91 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.98 | -0.059 | 0.386 |
| Perception of brand quality among traders to PP | 3.29 | 3.10 | 3.22 | 3.11 | 0.086 | 0.524 |
| Feelings of brand loyalty among traders to PP | 3.28 | 3.10 | 3.20 | 3.10 | 0.085 | 0.482 |
| Perception of brand leadership among trader to PP | 3.28 | 3.18 | 3.28 | 3.19 | 0.015 | 0.909 |
| Perception of brand value of PP among traders | 3.09 | 2.99 | 3.10 | 2.94 | -0.055 | 0.592 |
| Satisfied with profit from PP Original | 0.75 | 0.69 | 0.80 | 0.82 | 0.077 | 0.338 |
| Satisfied with profit from PP Scented | 0.78 | 0.88 | 0.72 | 0.91 | 0.100 | 0.223 |
| Satisfied with PP Original sales volume | 0.81 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.78 | 0.130 | 0.296 |
| Satisfied with PP Scented sales volume | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.71 | 0.89 | 0.168 | 0.125 |
| Willing to purchase PP from a wholesaler | 0.52 | 0.60 | 0.50 | 0.64 | 0.064 | 0.410 |
| Purchases PP from stockist/wholesaler | 0.47 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.53 | 0.123 | 0.102 |
Fig 5Alignment between actual and expected profit margins for PP condoms.