Measuring self-efficacy to use vaginal microbicides: the Microbicide Use Self-Efficacy instrument
Joseph L. Fava A G , Jacob J. van den Berg B C , Rochelle K. Rosen A D , Liz Salomon E , Sara Vargas A , Anna L. Christensen A , Megan Pinkston B F and Kathleen M. Morrow A F
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Centers for Behavioral and Preventive Medicine, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI 02906, USA.
B Division of Infectious Diseases, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI 02906, USA.
C Department of Medicine, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA.
D Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Public Health Program, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA.
E The Fenway Institute, Fenway Health, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
F Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA.
G Corresponding author. Email: jfava@lifespan.org
Sexual Health 10(4) 339-347 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH13013
Submitted: 26 January 2013 Accepted: 1 May 2013 Published: 28 June 2013
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Microbicide Use Self-Efficacy (MUSE) instrument and to examine correlates of self-efficacy to use vaginal microbicides among a sample of racially and ethnically diverse women living in the north-eastern United States. Methods: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic methods were used to explore and determine the dimensionality and psychometric properties of the MUSE instrument. Construct validity was assessed by examining the relationships of the MUSE instrument to key sexual behaviour, partner communication, relationship and psychosocial variables. Results: Two dimensions of self-efficacy to use microbicides were psychometrically validated and identified as ‘Adherence and Access’ and ‘Situational Challenges.’ The two four-item subscales measuring Adherence and Access and Situational Challenges had reliability coefficients of 0.78 and 0.85, respectively. Correlates of the two measures were tested at a Bonferroni-adjusted α level of P = 0.001, and 19 of 43 variables analysed were found to significantly relate to Adherence and Access, whereas 16 of 43 variables were significantly related to Situational Challenges. Of the 35 significant relationships, 32 were in the domains of partner communication, partner relationships, and behavioural and psychosocial variables. Conclusions: The MUSE instrument demonstrated strong internal validity, reliability and initial construct validity. The MUSE instrument can be a useful tool in capturing the multidimensional nature of self-efficacy to use microbicides among diverse populations of women.
Additional keywords: HIV prevention, instrument development, STI prevention, women.
References
[1] Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS and World Health Organization (UNAIDS). Global report: UNAIDS report on the global AIDS epidemic 2010 . Geneva: UNAIDS; 2010.[2] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). HIV among women. Atlanta: CDC; 2011.
[3] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). HIV surveillance report. Atlanta : CDC; 2010.
[4] Elias CJ, Coggins C. Female-controlled methods to prevent sexual transmission of HIV. AIDS 1996; 10 S43–51.
| 8970711PubMed |
[5] Feldblum PJ, Weir SS, Cates W. The protective effect of condoms and nonoxynol-9 against HIV infection: a response to Wittkowski and colleagues. Am J Public Health 1999; 89 108–10.
| The protective effect of condoms and nonoxynol-9 against HIV infection: a response to Wittkowski and colleagues.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1M7ktF2msQ%3D%3D&md5=12120b8e0f6e800200e6a4e17c2135e6CAS | 9987480PubMed |
[6] Alliance for Microbicide Development (AMD). Alliance for Microbicide Development website. Silver Spring: AMD. Available online at: http://www.microbicide.org [verified 16 May 2013].
[7] Global Campaign for Microbicides (GCM). About microbicides. Seattle: GMC. Available online at: http://www.global-campaign.org/about_microbicides.htm [verified 16 May 2013].
[8] International Partnership for Microbicides (IPM). What Are Microbicides? Silver Spring: IPM. Available online at: http://www.ipmglobal.org/why-microbicides/arv-based-microbicides-and-how-they-work/what-are-microbicides. [verified 16 May 2013].
[9] Watts C, Vickerman P. The impact of microbicides on HIV and STD transmission: model projections. AIDS 2001; 15 S43–4.
| The impact of microbicides on HIV and STD transmission: model projections.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Abdool Karim SS, Richardson BA, Ramjee G, Hoffman IF, Chirenje ZM, Taha T, et al Safety and effectiveness of BufferGel and 0.5% PRO2000 gel for the prevention of HIV infection in women. AIDS 2011; 25 957–66.
| Safety and effectiveness of BufferGel and 0.5% PRO2000 gel for the prevention of HIV infection in women.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3MXksFGnsbc%3D&md5=75b1a8b2329d6aa5ee6ec0ab45128feaCAS | 21330907PubMed |
[11] Chimienti SN. Top stories of 2008. No good news yet on anti-HIV microbicides. AIDS Clin Care 2009; 21 4
| 19222153PubMed |
[12] Van Damme L, Govinden R, Mirembe FM, Guedou F, Solomon S, Becker ML, et al Lack of effectiveness of cellulose sulfate gel for the prevention of vaginal HIV transmission. N Engl J Med 2008; 359 463–72.
| Lack of effectiveness of cellulose sulfate gel for the prevention of vaginal HIV transmission.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXpt1Shu7c%3D&md5=9c89ad80b1413a78e998d3aad81c641dCAS | 18669425PubMed |
[13] Abdool Karim Q, Abdool Karim SS, Frohlich JA, Grobler AC, Baxter C, Mansoor LE, et al Effectiveness and safety of tenofovir gel, an antiretroviral microbicide, for the prevention of HIV infection in women. Science 2010; 329 1168–74.
| Effectiveness and safety of tenofovir gel, an antiretroviral microbicide, for the prevention of HIV infection in women.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXhtV2hsr%2FI&md5=edf775f75d124742a563d00fadc0976bCAS | 20643915PubMed |
[14] Foss AM, Vickerman PT, Alary M, Watts CH. How much could a microbicide’s sexually transmitted infection efficacy contribute to reducing HIV risk and the level of condom use needed to lower risk? Model estimates. Sex Transm Infect 2009; 85 276–82.
| How much could a microbicide’s sexually transmitted infection efficacy contribute to reducing HIV risk and the level of condom use needed to lower risk? Model estimates.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1MrgtVCntg%3D%3D&md5=f5caa355e5e650c06b53ad7b0a3f5352CAS | 19208696PubMed |
[15] Marrazzo J, Ramjee G, Nair G, Palanee T, Mkhize B, Nakabiito C, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV in women: daily oral tenofovir, oral tenofovir-emtricitabine, or vaginal tenofovir gel in the VOICE Study (MTN 003). In VOICE – what are the implications for rectal microbicide research? International Rectal Microbicide Advocates (IRMA) Teleconference; April 8, 2013.
[16] Morrow KM, Fava JL, Rosen RK, Christensen AL, Vargas S, Barroso C. Willingness to use microbicides varies by race/ethnicity, experience with prevention products, and partner type. Health Psychol 2007; 26 777–86.
| Willingness to use microbicides varies by race/ethnicity, experience with prevention products, and partner type.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18020851PubMed |
[17] Morrow KM, Fava JL, Rosen RK, Vargas S, Barroso C, Christensen AL, et al Willingness to use microbicides is affected by the importance of product characteristics, use parameters, and protective properties. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2007; 45 93–101.
| Willingness to use microbicides is affected by the importance of product characteristics, use parameters, and protective properties.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17325607PubMed |
[18] Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman; 1997.
[19] Forsyth AD, Carey MP. Measuring self-efficacy in the context of HIV risk reduction: research challenges and recommendations. Health Psychol 1998; 17 559–68.
| Measuring self-efficacy in the context of HIV risk reduction: research challenges and recommendations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1M%2FmtlGmsQ%3D%3D&md5=56b50004d25588b0dc8feea94e1051c0CAS | 9848807PubMed |
[20] Baele J, Dusseldorp E, Maes S. Condom use self-efficacy: effect on intended and actual condom use in adolescents. J Adolesc Health 2001; 28 421–31.
| Condom use self-efficacy: effect on intended and actual condom use in adolescents.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MzlsFyrtA%3D%3D&md5=62c8dedfdf9f81a9f041e5a8f6ec6aadCAS | 11336873PubMed |
[21] Basen-Engquist K, Masse LC, Coyle K, Kirby D, Parcel GS, Banspach S, et al Validity of scales measuring the psychosocial determinants of HIV/STD-related risk behavior in adolescents. Health Educ Res 1999; 14 25–38.
| Validity of scales measuring the psychosocial determinants of HIV/STD-related risk behavior in adolescents.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1Mzgsl2mtQ%3D%3D&md5=29817890132a2be8c219dc224d6775e6CAS | 10537945PubMed |
[22] Svenson GR, Ostergren PO, Merlo J, Rastam L. Action control and situational risks in the prevention of HIV and STIs: individual, dyadic, and social influences on consistent condom use in a university population. AIDS Educ Prev 2002; 14 515–31.
| Action control and situational risks in the prevention of HIV and STIs: individual, dyadic, and social influences on consistent condom use in a university population.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12512852PubMed |
[23] Crosby R, DiClemente RJ, Wingood GM, Sionean C, Cobb BK, Harrington K, et al Correct condom application among African-American adolescent females: the relationship to perceived self-efficacy and the association to confirmed STDs. J Adolesc Health 2001; 29 194–9.
| Correct condom application among African-American adolescent females: the relationship to perceived self-efficacy and the association to confirmed STDs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MvotFSgsg%3D%3D&md5=e0e71eb4b2d473decc68b272c9dca89bCAS | 11524218PubMed |
[24] O’Leary A, Maibach E, Ambrose TK, Jemmott J, Celentano DD. Social cognitive predictors of sexual risk behavior change among STD clinic patients. AIDS Behav 2000; 4 309–16.
| Social cognitive predictors of sexual risk behavior change among STD clinic patients.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[25] Heinrich LB. Contraceptive self-efficacy in college women. J Adolesc Health 1993; 14 269–76.
| Contraceptive self-efficacy in college women.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK3szkvF2gtw%3D%3D&md5=9c64c4ca703b58ba37d0df33dcd4ae0eCAS | 8347637PubMed |
[26] Lauby JL, Semaan S, O’Connell A, Person B, Vogel A. Factors related to self-efficacy for use of condoms and birth control among women at risk for HIV infection. Women Health 2001; 34 71–91.
| Factors related to self-efficacy for use of condoms and birth control among women at risk for HIV infection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MnmtlWjug%3D%3D&md5=c9ab60afa48ee2d503fae3c2ac89c175CAS | 11708688PubMed |
[27] Salina D, Razzano L, Lesondak L. Influence of health beliefs, attitudes, and concern about HIV/AIDS on condom use in college women. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community 2000; 19 41–53.
[28] Gómez CA, Marin BVO. Gender, culture, and power: Barriers to HIV-prevention strategies for women. J Sex Res 1996; 33 355–62.
| Gender, culture, and power: Barriers to HIV-prevention strategies for women.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[29] Soet JE, DiIorio C, Dudley WN. Women’s self-reported condom use: intra and interpersonal factors. Women Health 1998; 27 19–32.
| Women’s self-reported condom use: intra and interpersonal factors.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1M%2Fht1Wktg%3D%3D&md5=de12547f39f715b45294bdf47ee1c95aCAS | 9796082PubMed |
[30] Sterk CE, Klein H, Elifson KW. Perceived condom use self-efficacy among at-risk women. AIDS Behav 2003; 7 175–82.
| Perceived condom use self-efficacy among at-risk women.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 14586202PubMed |
[31] Morrow KM, Vargas S, Rosen RK, Christensen AL, Salomon L, Shulman L, et al The utility of non-proportional quota sampling for recruiting at-risk women for microbicide research. AIDS Behav 2007; 11 586–95.
| The utility of non-proportional quota sampling for recruiting at-risk women for microbicide research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17333312PubMed |
[32] Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behav Res 1966; 1 245–76.
| The scree test for the number of factors.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[33] Velicer WF. Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika 1976; 41 321–7.
| Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[34] Horn JL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 1965; 30 179–85.
| A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaF2M7htFSisw%3D%3D&md5=c4be4afe23630722e69db98dafbdaf16CAS | 14306381PubMed |
[35] O’Connor BP. SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 2000; 32 396–402.
| SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3cvnvV2ksw%3D%3D&md5=371ced740c98df4c76e617e3793c32fdCAS | 11029811PubMed |
[36] Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16 297–334.
| Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[37] Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural equation models. Psychol Bull 1990; 107 238–46.
| Comparative fit indexes in structural equation models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK3c3gslGlsg%3D%3D&md5=fb3746c1a3603847a126ba4f17f62707CAS | 2320703PubMed |
[38] Tucker LR, Lewis C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 1973; 38 1–10.
| A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[39] Bentler PM. EQS: a structural equations program. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software; 1989.
[40] Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999; 6 1–55.
| Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[41] Coalition Advancing Multipurpose Innovations for Reproductive Health (CAMI). Initiative for multipurpose prevention technologies (IMPT). Folsom: CAMI; 2012. Available online at: http://www.cami-health.org/ [verified April 2013].
