Acceptability of the dapivirine vaginal ring for HIV-1 prevention among women reporting engagement in transactional sex
Rattachement africain : us, Ouganda, Afrique du Sud, Zimbabwe, Malawi. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
We assessed if acceptability of the dapivirine vaginal ring for HIV prevention differed among the subgroup of women who reported engaging in transactional sex prior to enrollment in MTN-020/ASPIRE (phase III trial in Malawi, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe, 2012-2015; n = 2629). Transactional sex was defined as receipt of money, goods, gifts, drugs, or shelter in exchange for sex in the past year. Dimensions of acceptability included: ease of use and physical sensation in situ, impacts on sex, partner’s opinion, and likelihood of future use. We used Poisson regression models with robust standard errors to compare risk of acceptability challenges by baseline history of transactional sex. At product discontinuation, women exchanging sex found the ring comfortable (90%), easy to insert (92%) and nearly all (96%) were likely to use the ring in the future. Women who had exchanged sex were more likely to report feeling the ring during sex (ARR 1.43, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.89; p = 0.01) and slightly more likely to mind wearing the ring during menses (ARR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.01, 1,46; p = 0.04) and during sex (ARR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.45; p = 0.03). Messaging and counseling should include enhanced support for use during sex and menses to support optimal use.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Acceptability of the dapivirine vaginal ring for HIV-1 prevention among women reporting engagement in transactional sex
- Date Crossref
- 17/04/2023
- Éditeur
- Informa UK Limited
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.