Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11796811›Full record

ArticleJournal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine2001

The acceptability of reuse of the female condom among urban South African women.

A E Pettifor, M E Beksinska, H V Rees, N Mqoqi, K E Dickson-Tetteh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Knowledge of, attitudes toward, and stage of change for female and male condoms among Denver inner-city women.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2003
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

A E PettiforThe Reproductive Health Research Unit at the University of California, Berkeley, USA.
M E Beksinska
H V Rees
N Mqoqi
K E Dickson-Tetteh

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study assessed whether reuse of the female condom was acceptable among two groups of women in central Johannesburg, South Africa, who were taking part in two separate studies of female condom reuse. The first group consisted of women (aged 17 to 43 years) attending a family planning/sexually transmitted infections (STIs) clinic who were participating in a cross-sectional survey of the acceptability of female condoms reuse (n = 100). The second group included women (aged 18-40 years) at high risk for STI (80% self-declared sex workers) who were taking part in an ongoing cohort study to investigate the safety of reuse of the female condom through a structural integrity and microbial retention study (n = 50). Among women participating in the acceptability study, 83% said that they would be willing to reuse the female condom, and 91% thought the idea of reuse of the female condom was acceptable. All women taking part in the safety of reuse study and who reused the female condom up to seven times (n = 49) reported that the steps involved in reusing the device were easy to perform and acceptable. All 49 women said they would reuse the female condom at least once, while 45% said they would use it a maximum of seven or eight times. From the results of the interviews with both study groups, it can be concluded that, among women in a South African urban environment who have used a male and/or female condom, the concept of reuse of the female condom is acceptable and thought to be a good idea.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthEquipment ReuseEquipment SafetyAdolescentAdultCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicSafe SexSexually Transmitted DiseasesSingle-Use Internal CondomSouth AfricaSurveys and QuestionnairesUrban Population

Identifiers

PMID11796811
PMCPMC3455880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.