Abstract
Objective
Study design
Results
Conclusion
Implications
Keywords
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to ContraceptionReferences
- Performance of the reality polyurethane female condom and a synthetic latex prototype: a randomized crossover trial among south African women.Contraception. 2006; 73: 386-393
- Short-term acceptability of the reality polyurethane female condom and a synthetic latex prototype: a randomized crossover trial among South African women.Contraception. 2006; 73: 394-398
- The new female condom (FC2) in Uganda: perceptions and experiences of users and their sexual partners.Afr J AIDS Res. 2011; 10: 219-224https://doi.org/10.2989/16085906.2011.626289
- New female condoms in the pipeline.Reprod Health Matters. 2012; 20: 188-196https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-8080(12)40659-0
- Contraceptive methods women have ever used: United States, 1982–2010.Natl Health Stat Report. 2013; 14: 1-15
- Prevention Gap Report.Geneva, Switzerland, 2016
- The female condom: the international denial of a strong potential.Reprod Health Matters. 2010; 18: 119-128https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-8080(10)35499-1
- Effectiveness of female controlled barrier methods in preventing sexually transmitted infections and HIV: current evidence and future research directions.Sex Transm Infect. 2005; 81: 193-200https://doi.org/10.1136/sti.2003.007153
- Media portrayals of the female condom.J Health Commun. 2012; 17: 1138-1150https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2012.665423
- Failure of many United States Department of Health Web sites to provide accurate information about the female condom.Contraception. 2015; 92: 40-45https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2015.03.009
- The female condom: still an underused prevention tool.Lancet Infect Dis. 2008; 8: 343https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(08)70103-8
- Acceptability of the female condom by sub-Saharan African women: a literature review.Afr J Reprod Health. 2014; 18: 34-44
- Performance and safety of the second-generation female condom (FC2) versus the Woman's, the VA worn-of-women, and the cupid female condoms: a randomised controlled non-inferiority crossover trial.Lancet Glob Health. 2013; 1: e146-e152https://doi.org/10.1016/s2214-109x(13)70054-8
- A randomized noninferiority crossover controlled trial of the functional performance and safety of new female condoms: an evaluation of the Velvet, Cupid2, and FC2.Contraception. 2015; 92 ([S0010-7824(15)00220-6 pii]): 261-267https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2015.05.008
- Comparative crossover study of the PATH Woman's Condom and the FC Female Condom.Contraception. 2008; 78: 465-473https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2008.07.020
- Three new female condoms: which do South-African women prefer?.Contraception. 2011; 83: 248-254https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2010.08.002
- Short-term acceptability of the PATH Woman's Condom among couples at three sites.Contraception. 2006; 73: 588-593https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2005.10.017
- Short-term acceptability of the Woman's Condom among married couples in Shanghai.J Sex Transm Dis. 2016; 2016: 6201421https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6201421
- Contraceptive efficacy of a novel spermicidal microbicide used with a diaphragm: a randomized controlled trial.Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 110: 577-586https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000278078.45640.13
- Standardized definitions of failure modes for female condoms.Contraception. 2007; 75: 251-255https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2006.10.003
- The female condom learning curve: patterns of female condom failure over 20 uses.Contraception. 2015; 91: 85-90https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2014.09.011
- Prevalence of knowledge and use of the female condom in South Africa.AIDS Behav. 2014; 18: 146-158https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-013-0580-3
- The female condom: tool for women's empowerment.Am J Public Health. 2000; 90: 1377-1381
- The impact of information about the female condom on female condom use among males and females from a US urban community.AIDS Behav. 2013; 17: 2194-2201https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-012-0381-0
- An intervention to promote the female condom to sexually transmitted disease clinic patients.Behav Modif. 2005; 29: 318-369
- Female condoms=missed opportunities: lessons learned from promotion-centered interventions.Womens Health Issues. 2015; 25: 366-376https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2015.03.015
- The acceptability of the female condom: perspectives of family planning providers in New York City, South Africa, and Nigeria.J Urban Health. 2001; 78: 658-668
- Obstetrical and gynecological devices; reclassification of single-use female condom, to be renamed single-use internal condom. final order.Fed Regist. 2018; 83: 48711-48713
- Stuck in the middle: the use and interpretation of mid-points in items on questionnaires.J Gen Psychol. 2015; 142: 71-89https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2014.994590
- Assessing the potential of the Woman's Condom for vaginal drug delivery.Contraception. 2015; 92: 254-260https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2015.05.005
Article info
Publication history
Footnotes
☆Conflicts of interest: Dr. Chen has received research support through Medicines360, Merck and Sebela, all managed through the Magee-Womens Research Institute, and serves on a Merck & Co. advisory board. Dr. Blithe is an employee of the NIH and is principal investigator of a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement between NICHD and HRA Pharma. Dr. Muraguri has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Lance is a Nexplanon trainer for Merck. Dr. Carr receives grant support and consults for AbbVie, receives grant support from Synteract (Medicines360) and serves on the data safety and monitoring board for Repros Therapeutics. Dr. Jensen has received payments for consulting from AbbVie, Cooper Surgical, Bayer Healthcare, Merck, Sebela and the Population Council. He has received research support managed through OHSU from AbbVie, Bayer Healthcare, Daré, Estetra SPRL, Medicines360, Merck and Sebela. These companies and organizations may have a commercial or financial interest in the results of this research and technology. These potential conflicts of interest have been reviewed and managed by OHSU. Dr. Kimble has received research support from Medicines360, Allergan, Inovio, Antiva, Sebela, Mithra, AbbVie, Agile and Chemo, and is on a speaker's bureau for Merck Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie and Lupin Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Murthy has received research funding from Mithra. She is a Nexplanon trainer for Merck and a ParaGard trainer for Teva/Cooper Surgical. Dr. Schreiber has received research support through ContraMed (Sebela), Bayer Healthcare, Medicines360 and Dare Bioscience, all managed through the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. Dr. Thomas has received research support through Agile Therapeutics, Bayer Healthcare and Medicines360, all managed through the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. Ms. Walsh has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Westhoff is a consultant to Merck, Bayer and Agile Therapeutics, and receives research support from Estetra SPRL, Leon Farma, Sebela and Medicines360, all managed through Columbia University. Dr. Burke has received research support from Bayer and Leon Farma, managed through Johns Hopkins University.
☆☆Funding: This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Contraceptive Clinical Trials Network.
★Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01223313
