Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31703094›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Vaginal ring acceptability and related preferences among women in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Jennifer B Griffin, Kathleen Ridgeway, Elizabeth Montgomery, Kristine Torjesen, Rachel Clark, Jill Peterson, Rachel Baggaley, Ariane van der Straten

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial
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

8 authors.

Jennifer B GriffinRTI International, Center for Global Health, Durham, NC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4621-2773
Kathleen RidgewayFHI 360, Global Health Population and Nutrition, Durham, NC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0839-2830
Elizabeth MontgomeryRTI International, Center for Global Health, Durham, NC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5477-4445
Kristine TorjesenFHI 360, Global Health Population and Nutrition, Durham, NC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3439-1199
Rachel ClarkRTI International, Public Health Research Division, Durham, NC, United States of America.
Jill PetersonFHI 360, Global Health Population and Nutrition, Durham, NC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7075-3003
Rachel BaggaleyWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Ariane van der StratenRTI International, Center for Global Health, Durham, NC, United States of America.

Funding

Ujima Mentoring ProgramP30MH062246 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI MALLORY O JOHNSON · 2001 to 2026
$57.4M
NIMH NIH HHS P30 MH062246PEPFAR AID-OAA-A-14-00012World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The vaginal ring (VR) is a female-initiated drug-delivery platform used for different indications, including HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). We conducted a systematic review of VR acceptability, values and preferences among women in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) to inform further investment and/or guidance on VR use for HIV prevention. Following PRISMA guidelines, we used structured methods to search, screen, and extract data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting quantitative outcomes of acceptability of the VR for any indication published 1/1970-2/2019 (PROSPERO: CRD42019122220). Of 1,110 records identified, 68 met inclusion criteria. Studies included women 15-50+ years from 25 LMIC for indications including HIV prevention, contraception, abnormal bleeding, and menopause. Overall VR acceptability was high (71-98% across RCTs; 62-100% across observational studies), with 80-100% continuation rates in RCTs and favorable ease of insertion (greater than 85%) and removal 89-99%). Users reported concerns about the VR getting lost in the body (8-43%), although actual expulsions and adverse events were generally infrequent. Most women disclosed use to partners, with some worrying about partner anger/violence. The VR was not felt during intercourse by 70-92% of users and 48-97% of partners. Acceptability improved over time both within studies (as women gained VR experience and worries diminished), and over chronological time (as the device was popularized). Women expressed preferences for accessible, long-acting, partner-approved methods that prevent both HIV and pregnancy, can be used without partner knowledge, and have no impact on sex and few side effects. This review was limited by a lack of standardization of acceptability measures and study heterogeneity. This systematic review suggests that most LMIC women users have a positive view of the VR that increases with familiarity of use; and, that many would consider the VR an acceptable future delivery device for HIV prevention or other indications.

Indexed as

Contraceptive Devices, FemalePatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient PreferenceCognitionContraceptionCost-Benefit AnalysisEmotionsFemaleHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePregnancyPublication BiasPublic Health Surveillance

Identifiers

PMID31703094
PMCPMC6839883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.