Sex preparation and diaphragm acceptability in sex work in Nairobi, Kenya
Anjali Sharma A B H I , Elizabeth Bukusi A B C , Samuel Posner D , Douglas Feldman E , Elizabeth Ngugi F and Craig R. Cohen GA Centre for Microbiology Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Kenyatta National Hospital, PO Box 19464-00202, Nairobi, Kenya.
B Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 356460, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
C Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Nairobi, Kenyatta National Hospital, PO Box 19676, Nairobi, Kenya.
D Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.
E Department of Anthropology, State University of New York College, 350 New Campus Drive, Brockport, NY 14420, USA.
F Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Nairobi, Kenyatta National Hospital, PO Box 19676, Nairobi, Kenya.
G Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, Reproductive Sciences, University of California, 50 Beale St, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA.
H Present address: Suite 311, 3rd Floor, Theodak Plaza, National Hospital Road, Off Constitution Ave, Central Business District, P.M.B. 69, Garki, Abuja, Nigeria.
I Corresponding author. Email: asharma@csrtkenya.org or anjali_sharma@hotmail.com
Sexual Health 3(4) 261-268 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH06021
Submitted: 23 March 2006 Accepted: 6 August 2006 Published: 17 November 2006
Abstract
Background: Women in sex work stand to benefit if the contraceptive diaphragm alone or combined with a microbicide proves to be an effective barrier method against HIV and sexually transmissible infection (STI). Currently, contraceptive diaphragm users are advised to leave the diaphragm in situ without concomitant use of other intravaginal substances for at least 6 h after intercourse. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews on sexual behaviour including post-coital intravaginal practices with 36 women in sex work and 26 of their clients and held two focus-group discussions, each with 10 women. Results: The women described adapting several potentially harmful substances, such as cloth and soapy water, for post-coital vaginal use to ensure personal hygiene, disease prevention and client pleasure. Some wanted to clean themselves and remove the diaphragm early, fearing exposure to HIV infection for themselves and their subsequent clients. Clients indicated their desire for ‘dry sex’, vaginal cleanliness and reduced risk of infection through vaginal cleaning. Conclusions: The diaphragm as a female-controlled barrier method for HIV/STI prevention may have limited acceptability among women in sex work if its effectiveness depends on a 6-h post-coital wait before removal, along with avoidance of concomitant use of intravaginal substances. In keeping with the beliefs of the the female sex workers and their needs and practices, alternative intravaginal substances and modes of insertion that will not disrupt vaginal flora, injure vaginal epithelium, damage the diaphragm or counteract potentially beneficial effects of microbicides are needed. The possibility of removing the diaphragm sooner than the recommended 6 h for contraception should be further studied.
Acknowledgements
Funding was provided by CONRAD/CDC under contract number CSA-02-316. The findings and conclusions in this report have not been formally disseminated by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy. We acknowledge the support of the Nairobi City Council clinic staff. Special thanks are due to the leadership among the participants for their support and insights and to the participants who trusted us with their information.
[1] Elmore-Meegan M, Conroy RM, Agala CB. Sex workers in Kenya, numbers of clients, and associated risks: an exploratory survey. Reprod Health Matters 2004; 12(23): 50–7.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | [accessed 7 July 2006].
[10]
[11] 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(6): 472–6.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[12] Elias C, Coggins C. Acceptability research on female-controlled barrier methods to prevent heterosexual transmission of HIV: where have we been? Where are we going? J Womens Health Gend Based Med 2001; 10(2): 163–73.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[13] van der Straten A, Kang MS, Posner SF, Kamba M, Chipato T, Padian NS. Predictors of diaphragm use as a potential sexually transmitted disease/HIV prevention method in Zimbabwe. Sex Transm Dis 2005; 32(1): 64–71.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[14] Cook L, Nanda K, Grimes D.. Diaphragm versus diaphragm with spermicides for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;.
| PubMed |
[15] Craig S, Hepburn S. The effectiveness of barrier methods of contraception with and without spermicide. Contraception 1982; 26(4): 347–59.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[16] Bounds W, Guillebaud J, Dominik R, Dalberth BT. The diaphragm with and without spermicide. J Reprod Med 1995; 40(11): 764–74.
| PubMed |
[17] Ferreira AE, Araujo MJ, Regina CH, Diniz SG, Faundes A. Effectiveness of the diaphragm, used continuously, without spermicide. Contraception 1993; 48(1): 29–35.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[18] Gilliam ML, Derman RJ. Barrier methods of contraception. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2000; 27(4): 841–58.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[19] Minnis AM, Shiboski SC, Padian NS. Barrier contraceptive method acceptability and choice are not reliable indicators of use. Sex Transm Dis 2003; 30(7): 556–61.
| PubMed |
[20] 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(5): 267–75.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[21] Bird ST, Harvey SM, Maher JE, Beckman LJ. Acceptability of an existing, female-controlled contraceptive method that could potentially protect against HIV: a comparison of diaphragm users and other method users. Womens Health Issues 2004; 14(3): 85–93.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[22] Di Giacomo do Lago T, Barbosa RM, Kalckmann S, Villela WV, Gohiman S. Acceptability of the diaphragm among low-income women in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Int Fam Plan Perspect 1995; 21(3): 114–8.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[23] Vandebosch A, Goetghebeur E, Ramjee G, Alary M, Ettiegne-Traore V, Chandeying V, et al. Acceptability of COL-1492, a vaginal gel, among sex workers in one Asian and three African cities. Sex Transm Infect 2004; 80(3): 241–3.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[24] Mantell JE, Morar NS, Myer L, Ramjee G. “We have our protector”: misperceptions of protection against HIV among participants in a microbicide efficacy trial. Am J Public Health 2006; 96(6): 1073–7.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[25] Reese M, Hatcher RA. Diaphragm users should follow 13 tips for best effectiveness. Contracept Technol Update 1984; 5(11): 144–5.
| PubMed |
[26] Ortayli N, Bulut A, Nalbant H, Cottingham J. Is the diaphragm a viable option for women in Turkey? Int Fam Plan Perspect 2000; 26(1): 36–42.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[27] Koblin BA, Mayer K, Mwatha A, Brown-Peterside P, Holt R, Marmor M, et al. Douching practices among women at high risk of HIV infection in the United States: implications for microbicide testing and use. Sex Transm Dis 2002; 29(7): 406–10.
| PubMed |
[28] Brown JE, Brown RC. Traditional intravaginal practices and the heterosexual transmission of disease: a review. Sex Transm Dis 2000; 27(4): 183–7.
| PubMed |
[29] Fonck K, Kaul R, Keli F, Bwayo JJ, Ngugi EN, Moses S, et al. Sexually transmitted infections and vaginal douching in a population of female sex workers in Nairobi, Kenya. Sex Transm Infect 2001; 77(4): 271–5.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[30] Kaul R, Kimani J, Nagelkerke NJ, Fonck K, Ngugi EN, Keli F, et al. Monthly antibiotic chemoprophylaxis and incidence of sexually transmitted infections and HIV-1 infection in Kenyan sex workers: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004; 291(21): 2555–62.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[31] Hooton TM, Scholes D, Hughes JP, Winter C, Roberts PL, Stapleton AE, et al. A prospective study of risk factors for symptomatic urinary tract infections in young women. N Engl J Med 1996; 335(7): 468–74.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[32]
[33] McClelland RS, Lavreys L, Hassan WM, Mandaliya K, Ndinya-Achola JO, Baeten JM. Vaginal washing and increased risk of HIV-1 acquisition among African women: a 10-year prospective study. AIDS 2006; 20 269–73.
| PubMed |
