A review of the effectiveness and acceptability of the female condom for dual protection

References

[1]  UNAIDS. (2008) Report on the global AIDS epidemic. Geneva: UNAIDS; 2008.

[2]  Boily MC, Baggaley RF, Wang L, Masse B, White RG, Hayes RJ, et al Heterosexual risk of HIV-1 infection per sexual act: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Lancet Infect Dis 2009; 9 118–29.
| Heterosexual risk of HIV-1 infection per sexual act: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[3]  Ashford L. Unmet need for family planning: recent trends and their implications for programs. Washington: Population Reference Bureau Policy Brief; 2003.

[4]  United Nations Population Fund (UNPF). State of world population 2005. The promise of equality, gender equity, reproductive health and the millennium development goals. New York: UNPF; 2005.

[5]  World Health Organization (WHO), Department of Reproductive Health and Research. Female condom technical review committee. Geneva: WHO; 2007.

[6]  Beksinska M, Smith J, Joanis C, Usher-Patel M, Potter W. Female condom technology: new products and regulatory issues. Contraception 2011; 83 316–21.
| Female condom technology: new products and regulatory issues.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[7]  Schwartz JL, Barnhart K, Creinin MD, Poindexter A, Wheeless A, Kilbourne-Brook M, et al Comparative crossover study of the PATH Woman’s Condom and the FC female condom. Contraception 2008; 78 465–73.
| Comparative crossover study of the PATH Woman’s Condom and the FC female condom.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[8]  Coffey PS, Kilbourne-Brook M, Austin G, Seamans Y, Cohen J. Short-term acceptability of the PATH Woman’s Condom among couples at three sites. Contraception 2006; 73 588–93.
| Short-term acceptability of the PATH Woman’s Condom among couples at three sites.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[9]  Hou LY, Qiu HY, Zhao YZ, Zeng XS, Cheng YM. A crossover comparison of two types of female condom. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2010; 108 214–8.
| A crossover comparison of two types of female condom.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[10]  Drew WL, Blair M, Miner RC, Conant M. Evaluation of the virus permeability of a new condom for women. Sex Transm Dis 1990; 17 110–2.
| Evaluation of the virus permeability of a new condom for women.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[11]  Leeper MA, Conrardy M. Preliminary evaluation of Reality, a condom for women to wear. Adv Contracept 1989; 5 229–35.
| Preliminary evaluation of Reality, a condom for women to wear.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[12]  Bounds W, Guillebaud J, Newman GB. Female condom (Femidom): a clinical study of its use-effectiveness and patient acceptability. Br J Fam Plann 1992; 18 36–41.

[13]  Farr G, Gabelnick H, Sturgen K, Dorflinger L. Contraceptive efficacy and acceptability of the female condom. Am J Public Health 1994; 84 1960–4.
| Contraceptive efficacy and acceptability of the female condom.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[14]  Trussell J. Contraceptive efficacy of the Reality female condom. Contraception 1998; 58 147–8.
| Contraceptive efficacy of the Reality female condom.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[15]  Trussell J. Contraceptive efficacy. In Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Nelson A, Cates W Jr, Kowal D, editors. Contraceptive Technology. 20th edition. New York: Ardent Media, Inc., in press.

[16]  Soper DE, Shoupe D, Shangold GA, Shangold MM, Gutmann J, Mercer L. Prevention of vaginal trichomoniasis by compliant use of the female condom. Sex Transm Dis 1993; 20 137–9.
| Prevention of vaginal trichomoniasis by compliant use of the female condom.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[17]  French PP, Latka M, Gollub EL, Rogers C, Hoover DR, Stein ZA. Use-effectiveness of the female versus male condom in preventing sexually transmitted disease in women. Sex Transm Dis 2003; 30 433–9.
| Use-effectiveness of the female versus male condom in preventing sexually transmitted disease in women.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[18]  Fontanet AL , Saba J, Chandelying V, Sakondhavat C, Bhiraleus P, Rugpao S, et al Protection against sexually transmitted diseases by granting sex workers in Thailand the choice of using the male or female condom: results from a randomized controlled trial. AIDS 1998; 12 1851–9.
| Protection against sexually transmitted diseases by granting sex workers in Thailand the choice of using the male or female condom: results from a randomized controlled trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[19]  Feldblum PJ, Kuyoh MA, Bwayo JJ, Omari M, Wong EL, Tweedy KG, et al Female condom introduction and sexually transmitted infection prevalence: results of a community intervention trial in Kenya. AIDS 2001; 15 1037–44.
| Female condom introduction and sexually transmitted infection prevalence: results of a community intervention trial in Kenya.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[20]  Welsh MJ, Feldblum PJ, Kuyoh MA, Mwarogo P, Kungu D. Condom use during a community intervention trial in Kenya. Int J STD AIDS 2001; 12 469–74.
| Condom use during a community intervention trial in Kenya.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[21]  Macaluso M, Artz L, Kelaghan J, Austin H, Fleenor M, Hook EW. Prospective study of barrier contraception for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases: study design and general characteristics of the study group. Sex Transm Dis 1999; 26 127–36.
| Prospective study of barrier contraception for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases: study design and general characteristics of the study group.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[22]  Macaluso M, Artz L, Austin H, Fleenor M, Robey L, Kelaghan J, et al. His condom or her condom? A comparative efficacy study among women at high STD risk. Final Report for NIH Contract N01HD3135. Birmingham: UAB Department of Epidemiology; 1996.

[23]  Beksinska M, Joanis C, Manning J, Smit J, Callahan M, Deperthes B, et al Standardized definitions of failure modes for female condoms. Contraception 2007; 75 251–5.
| Standardized definitions of failure modes for female condoms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[24]  Ruminjo JK, Steiner M, Joanis C, Mwathe EG, Thagana N. Preliminary comparison of the polyurethane female condom with the latex male condom in Kenya. East Afr Med J 1996; 73 101–6.

[25]  Macaluso M, Lawson ML, Hortin G, Duerr A, Hammond KR, Blackwell R, et al Efficacy of the female condom as a barrier to semen during intercourse. Am J Epidemiol 2003; 157 289–97.
| Efficacy of the female condom as a barrier to semen during intercourse.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[26]  Galvão LW, Oliveira LC, Díaz J, Kim DJ, Marchi N, van Dam J, et al Effectiveness of female and male condoms in preventing exposure to semen during vaginal intercourse: a randomized trial. Contraception 2005; 71 130–6.
| Effectiveness of female and male condoms in preventing exposure to semen during vaginal intercourse: a randomized trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[27]  Valappil T, Kelaghan J, Macaluso M, Artz L, Austin H, Fleenor ME, et al Female condom and male condom failure among women at high risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Sex Transm Dis 2005; 32 35–43.
| Female condom and male condom failure among women at high risk of sexually transmitted diseases.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[28]  Beksinska M, Smit J, Mabude Z, Vijayakumar G, Joanis C. Performance of the Reality polyurethane female condom and a synthetic latex prototype: a randomized crossover trial among South African women. Contraception 2006; 73 386–93.
| Performance of the Reality polyurethane female condom and a synthetic latex prototype: a randomized crossover trial among South African women.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[29]  Macaluso M, Blackwell R, Jamieson DJ, Kulczycki A, Chen MP, Akers R, et al Efficacy of the male latex condom and of the female polyurethane condom as barriers to semen during intercourse: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Epidemiol 2007; 166 88–96.
| Efficacy of the male latex condom and of the female polyurethane condom as barriers to semen during intercourse: a randomized clinical trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[30]  Joanis C, Beksinska M, Hart C, Tweedy K, Linda J, Smit J. Three new female condoms: which do South-African women prefer? Contraception 2011; 83 248–54.
| Three new female condoms: which do South-African women prefer?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[31]  Chen MP, Macaluso M, Blackwell R, Galvao L, Kulczycki A, Diaz J, et al Self-reported mechanical problems during condom use and semen exposure. Comparison of two randomized trials in the United States of America and Brazil. Sex Transm Dis 2007; 34 557–62.

[32]  Mauck CK, Weaver MA, Schwartz JL, Walsh T, Joanis C. Critical next steps for female condom research – report from a workshop. Contraception 2009; 79 339–44.
| Critical next steps for female condom research – report from a workshop.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[33]  UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction. The female condom: a review. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1997.

[34]  Hoffman S, Mantell J, Exner T, Stein Z. The future of the female condom. Int Fam Plan Perspect 2004; 30 139–45.
| The future of the female condom.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[35]  Mosher WD, Martinez GM, Chandra A, Abma JC, Willson SJ. Use of contraception and use of family planning services in the United States: 1982–2002. Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics CDC No 2004; 350 ­1–36.

[36]  Lader D. Contraception and sexual health 2008/2009. A report on research using the National Statistics. Opinions Survey produced on behalf of the NHS Information Centre for health and social care. Surrey: Office for National Statistics; 2009. Available online at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/contra2008-9.pdf [verified November 2010].

[37]  Barbosa RM, Kalckmann S, Berquó E, Stein Z. Notes on the female condom: experiences in Brazil. Int J STD AIDS 2007; 18 261–6.
| Notes on the female condom: experiences in Brazil.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[38]  Warren M, Philpott A. Expanding safer sex options: introducing the female condom into national programmes. Reprod Health Matters 2003; 11 130–9.
| Expanding safer sex options: introducing the female condom into national programmes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[39]  United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Donor support for contraceptives and condoms for STI/HIV prevention. New York: UNFPA; 2008.

[40]  United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Deliver Project. Public Health Procurement Guide and Product Catalog 2010. Washington: USAID; 2010. Available online at: http://deliver.jsi.com/dlvr_content/resources/allpubs/guidelines/CPTGuideCata2010.pdf [verified December 2010].

[41]  World Health Organization Considerations regarding re-use of the female condom: information update, 10 July 2002. Reprod Health Matters 2002; 10 182–6.

[42]  Dowdy DW, Sweat MD, Holtgrave DR. Country-wide distribution of the nitrile female condom (FC2) in Brazil and South Africa: a cost-effectiveness analysis. AIDS 2006; 20 2091–8.
| Country-wide distribution of the nitrile female condom (FC2) in Brazil and South Africa: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[43]  Peters A, Jansen W, van Driel F. The female condom: the international denial of a strong potential. Reprod Health Matters 2010; 18 119–28.
| The female condom: the international denial of a strong potential.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[44]  The female condom: still an underused prevention tool [editorial]. Lancet Infect Dis 2008; 8 343
| The female condom: still an underused prevention tool [editorial].Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[45]  Latka M. Female-initiated barrier methods for the prevention of STI/HIV: where are we now? Where should we go? J Urban Health 2001; 78 571–80.
| Female-initiated barrier methods for the prevention of STI/HIV: where are we now? Where should we go?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[46]  Spaar A, Graber C, Dabis F, Coutsoudis A, Bachmann L, McIntyre J, et al Prioritising prevention strategies for patients in antiretroviral treatment programmes in resource-limited settings. AIDS Care 2010; 22 775–83.
| Prioritising prevention strategies for patients in antiretroviral treatment programmes in resource-limited settings.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[47]  Artz L, Demand M, Pulley L, Posner SF, Macaluso M. Predictors of difficulty inserting the female condom. Contraception 2002; 65 151–7.
| Predictors of difficulty inserting the female condom.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[48]  Green G, Pool R, Harrison S, Hart GJ, Wilkinson J, Nyanzi S, et al Female control of sexuality: illusion or reality? Use of vaginal products in south west Uganda. Soc Sci Med 2001; 52 585–98.
| Female control of sexuality: illusion or reality? Use of vaginal products in south west Uganda.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[49]  Kaler A. “It’s some kind of women’s empowerment”: the ambiguity of the female condom as a marker of female empowerment. Soc Sci Med 2001; 52 783–96.
| “It’s some kind of women’s empowerment”: the ambiguity of the female condom as a marker of female empowerment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[50]  Gollub EL. The female condom: tool for women’s empowerment. Am J Public Health 2000; 90 1377–81.
| The female condom: tool for women’s empowerment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[51]  Mantell JE, Stein ZA, Susser I. Women in the time of AIDS: barriers, bargains, and benefits. AIDS Educ Prev 2008; 20 91–106.
| Women in the time of AIDS: barriers, bargains, and benefits.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[52]  Telles Dias PR, Souto K, Page-Shafer K. Long-term female condom use among vulnerable populations in Brazil. AIDS Behav 2006; 10 S67–75.
| Long-term female condom use among vulnerable populations in Brazil.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[53]  Smita J, Neelam J, Rochelle DY, Kumar BK, Callahan M, Suniti S, et al Comparative acceptability study of the Reality female condom and the version 4 of modified Reddy female condom in India. Contraception 2005; 72 366–71.
| Comparative acceptability study of the Reality female condom and the version 4 of modified Reddy female condom in India.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[54]  Ray S, Bassett M, Maposhere C, Manangazira P, Nicolette JD, Machekano R, et al Acceptability of the female condom in Zimbabwe: positive but male-centred responses. Reprod Health Matters 1995; 3 68–79.
| Acceptability of the female condom in Zimbabwe: positive but male-centred responses.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[55]  Choi K-H, Gregorich S, Anderson K, Grinstead O, Gomez C. Patterns and predictors of female condom use among ethnically diverse women attending family planning clinics. Sex Transm Dis 2003; 30 91–8.
| Patterns and predictors of female condom use among ethnically diverse women attending family planning clinics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[56]  Philpott A, Knerr W, Maher D. Promoting protection and pleasure: amplifying the effectiveness of barriers against sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy. Lancet 2006; 368 2028–31.
| Promoting protection and pleasure: amplifying the effectiveness of barriers against sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[57]  Pool R, Hart G, Green G, Harrison S, Nyanzi S, Whitworth JAG. Men’s attitudes to condoms and female controlled means of protection against HIV and STDs in south-western Uganda. Cult Health Sex 2000; 2 197–211.
| Men’s attitudes to condoms and female controlled means of protection against HIV and STDs in south-western Uganda.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[58]  Wolitski RJ, Halkitis PN, Parsons JT, Gomez CA. Awareness and use of untested barrier methods by HIV-seropositive gay and bisexual men. AIDS Educ Prev 2001; 13 291–301.
| Awareness and use of untested barrier methods by HIV-seropositive gay and bisexual men.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[59]  Gibson S, McFarland W, Wohlfeiler D, Scheer K, Katz MH. Experiences of 100 men who have sex with men using the Reality condom for anal sex. AIDS Educ Prev 1999; 11 65–71.

[60]  Gross M, Buchbinder SP, Holte S, Celum CL, Koblin BA, Douglas JM. Use of Reality “female condoms” for anal sex by US men who have sex with men. Am J Public Health 1999; 89 1739–41.
| Use of Reality “female condoms” for anal sex by US men who have sex with men.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[61]  Mantell JE, Kelvin EA, Exner TM, Hoffman S, Needham S, Stein ZA. Anal use of the female condom: does uncertainty justify provider inaction? AIDS Care 2009; 21 1185–94.
| Anal use of the female condom: does uncertainty justify provider inaction?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[62]  Renzi C, Tabet SR, Stucky JA, Eaton N, Coletti AS, Surawicz CM, et al Safety and acceptability of the Reality condom for anal sex among men who have sex with men. AIDS 2003; 17 727–31.
| Safety and acceptability of the Reality condom for anal sex among men who have sex with men.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[63]  Kelvin EA, Smith RA, Mantell JE, Stein ZA. Adding the female condom to the public health agenda on prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections among men and women during anal intercourse. Am J Public Health 2009; 99 985–7.
| Adding the female condom to the public health agenda on prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections among men and women during anal intercourse.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |