Wear and care of the SILCS diaphragm: experience from three countries
Patricia S. Coffey A B and Maggie Kilbourne-Brook AA PATH, Program for Appropriate Technology in Health, 2201 Westlake Avenue, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98121, USA.
B Corresponding author. Email: pcoffey@path.org
Sexual Health 7(2) 159-164 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH09049
Submitted: 1 May 2009 Accepted: 8 February 2010 Published: 14 May 2010
Abstract
Background: Women have been regularly underestimated in their ability to care for and wear cervical barrier devices such as diaphragms appropriately. Methods: Data from two non-randomised, non-blinded, non-significant risk acceptability studies of a novel cervical barrier device, the SILCS diaphragm, conducted in the Dominican Republic (n = 20), South Africa (n = 21) and Thailand (n = 20), are used to provide insights into the fundamental question of how women actually use an intravaginal device within the constraints of low-resource settings. In all sites, couples not at risk of pregnancy and at low risk of sexually transmissible infections used the SILCS diaphragm four times and provided feedback on acceptability, care and use of the device via product use questionnaires and gender-specific debriefing interviews. Results: Data from user acceptability studies in these three countries provide an intimate view of how women care for and store the SILCS diaphragm, and both female and male perceptions about handling and re-using it. Results support the view that women are able to wear and care for diaphragms successfully in a variety of settings. In general, male partners were also supportive of care and reuse of the diaphragm. Conclusions: While the results from these studies indicate that women are able to find ways to cope successfully with the logistics of wearing and caring for an intravaginal device, further supportive evidence from a woman-centred perspective is crucial for reproductive health policymakers and program managers. The authors contend that it is time to reassess perceived constraints to barrier protection.
Additional keywords: acceptability, barrier device, contraception, Dominican Republic, South Africa, Thailand.
Acknowledgements
PATH would like to acknowledge the effort and commitment of our research partners, Mags Beksinska in South Africa, Earmporn Thongkrajai in Thailand, Vivian Brache and Leila Cochón in Dominican Republic, and the women and men who have willingly shared their experience and ideas. Support for this project is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development under the terms of the CONRAD Program, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Cooperative Agreement #HRN-A-00–98–00020–00. Additional funding for this project was provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, the US Government or the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
[1] Ortayli N, Bulut A, Nalbant H, Cottingham J. Is the diaphragm a viable option for women in Turkey? Int Fam Plan Perspect 2000; 26 36–42.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | [accessed December 2009].
[6]
[7] Coffey PS, Kilbourne-Brook M, Vrache V, Cochon L. Comparative acceptability of the SILCS and Ortho ALL-FLEX diaphragms among couples in the Dominican Republic. Contraception 2008; 78 418–23.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[8] Coffey PS, Kilbourne-Brook M, Beksinska M, Thongkrajai E. Short-term acceptability of a single-size diaphragm among couples in South Africa and Thailand. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2008; 34 233–6.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[9]
[10]
[11] Bulut A, Ortayli N, Ringheim K, Cottingham J, Farley TM, Peregoudov A, et al. Assessing the acceptability, service delivery requirements, and use-effectiveness of the diaphragm in Colombia, Philippines, and Turkey. Contraception 2001; 63 267–75.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |
[12] van der Straten A, Kang MS, Posner SF, Kamba M, Chipato T. Predictors of diaphragm use as a potential sexually transmitted disease/HIV prevention method in Zimbabwe. Sex Transm Dis 2005; 32 64–71.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[13] Behets F, Turner AN, Van Damme K, Rabenja NL, Ravelomanana N, Zeller K, et al. Acceptability and feasibility of continuous diaphragm use among sex workers in Madagascar. Sex Transm Infect 2005; 81 472–6.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |
[14] Buck J, Kang M, van der Straten A, Khumalo-Sakutukwa G, Posner S, Padian N. Barrier method preferences and perceptions among Zimbabwean women and their partners. AIDS Behav 2005; 9 415–22.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[15] Okal J, Stadler J, Ombidi W, Jao I, Luchters S, Temmerman M, et al. Secrecy, disclosure and accidental discovery: perspectives of diaphragm users in Mombasa, Kenya. Cult Health Sex 2008; 10 13–26.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[16] Harvey SM, Bird ST, Maher JE, Beckman LJ. Who continues using the diaphragm and who doesn’t: implications for the acceptability of female-controlled HIV prevention methods. Women’s Health Issues 2003; 13 185–93.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[17] Maher JE, Harvey SM, Bird ST, Stevens VJ, Beckman LJ. Acceptability of the vaginal diaphragm among current users. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2004; 36 64–71.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[18] Sharma A, Bukusi E, Posner S, Feldman D, Ngugi E, Cohen CR. Sex preparation and diaphragm acceptability in sex work in Nairobi, Kenya. Sex Health 2006; 3 261–8.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |