Women's Health Issues
Volume 14, Issue 3 , Pages 85-93 , May 2004

Acceptability of an existing, female-controlled contraceptive method that could potentially protect against hiv: a comparison of diaphragm users and other method users

  • Sheryl Thorburn Bird, PhD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Department of Public Health, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence to: Sheryl Thorburn Bird, PhD, MPH, Department of Public Health, Oregon State University, 264 Waldo Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-6406, USA. Phone: 541-737-9493; Fax: 541-737-4001.
    • ,
  • S.Marie Harvey, DrPH

      Affiliations

    • Department of Public Health, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA
    • Center for the Study of Women in Society, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA
    • ,
  • Julie E. Maher, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Program Design and Evaluation Services, Multnomah County Health Department and Oregon Department of Human Services, Portland, Oregon, USA
    • ,
  • Linda J. Beckman, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Alliant International University, Los Angeles, California, USA

Received 20 August 2003 ,Revised 26 January 2004 ,Accepted 3 March 2004.

References 

  1. Anderson, D. (2002, September). The cervix: The Achilles heel of the female reproductive tract: HIV immunology. Paper presented at the Diaphragm Renaissance: The Role of Cervical Barriers, Seattle, Washington
  2. Beckman LJ, Harvey SM, Murray J. Dimensions of the multidimensional contraceptive attributes questionnaire (CAQ). Psychology of Women Quarterly. 1992;16:243–259
  3. Brafford LJ, Beck KH. Development and validation of a condom self-efficacy scale for college students. Journal of American College Health. 1991;39:219–225
  4. Branch M. R., Harvey S. M., Casillas A. Bird S. T. (2003, November). A new look at an old method: Exploring diaphragm use as a potential HIV prevention strategy among high risk women. Paper presented at the American Public Health Association Conference, San Francisco, CA
  5. Cohen, C. R. (2002, May). The diaphragm: A female controlled method to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted infections? Paper presented at Microbicides, Antwerp, Belgium
  6. Diaphragm Renaissance: The Role of Cervical Barriers. (2002, September). Meeting Sponsored by Ibis Reproductive Health, University of California at San Francisco and Program for Appropriate Technology in Health, Seattle, WA
  7. Ellertson C, Burns M. Re-examining the role of cervical barrier devices. Outlook. 2003;20(2):1–8
  8. Gollub EL. Human rights is a US problem, too (The case of women and HIV). American Journal of Public Health. 1999;89:1479–1482
  9. Harvey SM, Bird ST, Branch MR. A new look at an old method (The diaphragm). Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2003;35:270–273
  10. Harvey SM, Bird ST, Maher J, Beckman LJ. Who continues using the diaphragm and who doesn't (Implications for the acceptability of female-controlled HIV prevention methods). Women's Health Issues. 2003;13:185–193
  11. Levy, J. (2002, September). Keynote address: Overview of science. Paper presented at the Diaphragm Renaissance: The Role of Cervical Barriers, Seattle, Washington
  12. Maher, J. E., Harvey, S. M., Bird, S. T., Stevens, V. J., & Beckman, L. J. (In press). Acceptability of the vaginal diaphragm among current users. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
  13. Mantell JE, Hoffman S, Exner TM, Stein ZA, Atkins K. Family planning providers' perspectives on dual protection. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2003;35:71–78
  14. Moench TR, Chipato R, Padian NS. Preventing disease by protecting the cervix (The unexplored promise of internal vaginal barrier devices). AIDS. 2001;15:1595–1602
  15. Piccinino LJ, Mosher WD. Trends in contraceptive use in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives. 1998;30:4–10 , 46
  16. Schwartz JL, Gabelnick HL. Current contraceptive research. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2002;34:310–316
  17. Stein Z. HIV prevention (An update on the status of methods women can use). American Journal of Public Health. 1993;83:1379–1382
  18. Stein Z. Editorial (More on women and the prevention of HIV infection). American Journal of Public Health. 1995;85:1485–1487
  19. Stein Z, Susser M. Annotation (Prevention of HIV, other sexually transmitted diseases, and unwanted pregnancy—testing physical barriers available to women). American Journal of Public Health. 1998;88:872–874
  20. Stone KM, Timyan J, Thomas EL. Barrier methods for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. In:  Holmes KK,  Mardh P,  Sparling PF, et al. editor. Sexually transmitted diseases. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1999;p. 1307–1321
  21. Trussell J, Strickler J, Vaughan B. Contraceptive efficacy of the diaphragm, the sponge and the cervical cap. Family Planning Perspectives. 1993;25:100–105
  22. Trussell J, Vaughan B. Contraceptive failure, method-related discontinuation and resumption of use (Results from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth). Family Planning Perspectives. 1999;31:64–72

☆ This research was supported by Grant Number 5R01 HD40137 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to S.M. Harvey. Dr. Bird and Dr. Beckman were previously with the Center for the Study of Women in Society, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. Dr. Maher was previously with the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon.

PII: S1049-3867(04)00017-9

doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2004.03.003

Women's Health Issues
Volume 14, Issue 3 , Pages 85-93 , May 2004

Article Tools