Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38822304›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Self-reported removal and expulsion of the dapivirine vaginal ring: qualitative reports from female ring users and their male partners in the Ring Study (IPM 027).

Cecilia Milford, Hariska Ramlal, Rorisang Mofokeng, Letitia Rambally Greener, Annaléne Nel, Jennifer Smit, Mariëtte Malherbe

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Cecilia MilfordWits MRU (MatCH Research Unit), Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Commercial City Building, 40 Dr AB Xuma Street, Durban, 4001, South Africa. cecilia.milford@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-0026-7560
Hariska RamlalWits MRU (MatCH Research Unit), Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Commercial City Building, 40 Dr AB Xuma Street, Durban, 4001, South Africa.
Rorisang MofokengWits MRU (MatCH Research Unit), Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Commercial City Building, 40 Dr AB Xuma Street, Durban, 4001, South Africa.
Letitia Rambally GreenerWits MRU (MatCH Research Unit), Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Commercial City Building, 40 Dr AB Xuma Street, Durban, 4001, South Africa.
Annaléne NelIPM South Africa NPC, an affiliate of The Population Council, Inc., New York, NY, USA.
Jennifer SmitWits MRU (MatCH Research Unit), Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Commercial City Building, 40 Dr AB Xuma Street, Durban, 4001, South Africa.
Mariëtte MalherbeIPM South Africa NPC, an affiliate of The Population Council, Inc., New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsThe dapivirine vaginal ring is a self-administered, women-initiated, discreet, long-acting HIV-1 prevention option for women. It was found to be safe and effective in healthy HIV-negative women who adhered to product use instructions, and has been approved for use in women aged 18 and older in some African countries. A qualitative study was conducted to explore participants' and their male partners' discussions on accidental/purposeful vaginal ring removals during The Ring Study (IPM 027 clinical trial).

methodsData were collected via in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with female trial participants and their male partners, from seven research centres in South Africa and Uganda. Data were thematically analysed using NVivo.

resultsMore participants reported purposeful ring removals than accidental expulsions. Various factors influenced purposeful ring removal - including individual (discomfort during use/sex and to clean it), partner (to show them, because of discomfort during sex, to test if partners could feel it, and concerns of harm), organisational (doctor's request), and socio-cultural (rumours about sickness and infertility). Some described their own ring use removal, others discussed why other participants removed their rings.

conclusionsVaginal ring adherence is critical to improve and support product efficacy. Counselling on vaginal anatomy, vaginal ring insertion and importance of adherence is important to minimise vaginal ring removal. Couples counselling is also important to facilitate support and long-term vaginal ring adherence behaviour. Understanding factors influencing vaginal ring adherence is important for tailoring and targeting messages to support correct and consistent vaginal ring use as it is made available to the public.

Indexed as

Contraceptive Devices, FemaleHIV InfectionsPyrimidinesQualitative ResearchSexual PartnersAdolescentAdultAnti-HIV AgentsDevice RemovalFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedSelf ReportAnti-HIV AgentsDapivirinePyrimidinesAdherenceDapivirineExpulsionHIV preventionMale partnersRing removalSub-Saharan AfricaVaginal ring

Identifiers

PMID38822304
PMCPMC11140940

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.