Trial reportContraception2019
Acceptability of the Woman's Condom in a phase III multicenter open-label study.
Trial report in Contraception, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A novel vaginal pH regulator: results from the phase 3 AMPOWER contraception clinical trial.Contraception: X · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the acceptability of the Woman's Condom (WC) over 6 months (183 days) and ≥6 menstrual cycles in a US-based multicenter open-label phase III contraceptive efficacy trial. STUDY
designWe assessed acceptability via written questionnaire at visit 2 (after the third cycle) and visit 3 (after the sixth cycle or >183 days, or upon early discontinuation). Key domains included ease of use, comfort/lubrication, sexual satisfaction, male partner satisfaction and confidence in pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention. We analyzed quantitative data using descriptive statistics. We conducted a content analysis to identify major themes from four open-ended questions.
resultsMost women [327/405 (81%)] had limited or no previous experience with female (internal) condoms. Of 405 evaluable women, 346 women completed questionnaires at visit 2 and 303 women at visit 3; 282 women attended both visits. Of women attending both visits, 165/282 (59%) reported at visit 2 that WC insertion was easy/very easy; this increased to 195/282 (69%) at visit 3 (p=.03). Many women [166/281 (59%)] preferred the WC [105/281 (37%)] or were neutral [61/281 (22%)], while 115/281 (41%) preferred male condoms. Women attending visit 3 felt confident that the WC could prevent pregnancy [246/303 (81%)] and STIs [217/303 (72%)]. Many women expressed empowerment with having control over their contraception; some disliked the design, esthetics and insertion process. Most women (254/299 (85%)] would recommend the WC to a friend.
conclusionThe WC's acceptability and ease of use is promising for wider dissemination as a female-controlled method that can protect against both pregnancy and STIs. IMPLICATIONS: The WC's overall acceptability and ease of use is promising for a new female-controlled barrier contraceptive option that can protect against both pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.