Trial reportPerspectives on sexual and reproductive health2025
Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Intravaginal Ring Acceptability Scale Among US Women and Their Male Partners.
Trial report in Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05128136 (A 3-month Pilot Crossover Study in 24 US Couples to Compare Adherence, Preference and Acceptability of 3 Non-medicated Silicone Intravaginal Rings), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
A 3-month Pilot Crossover Study in 24 US Couples to Compare Adherence, Preference and Acceptability of 3 Non-medicated Silicone Intravaginal Rings (IVRs) of Different External Diameters, Each Used for 30 Days
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Women's Perceptions of Novel 3-D Printed Vaginal Rings for Multipurpose Prevention.AIDS and behavior · 2026Article
- A comparison of acceptability of contraceptive vaginal rings, pills, and injectables among cisgender women in Kenya and Zimbabwe: protocol for a mixed-methods study.Gates open research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIntravaginal rings (IVRs) are marketed or in development for contraception and other indications. We sought to develop and validate the IVR Acceptability Scale (IVR-AS) as a multidimensional, standardized tool for assessing IVR acceptability among end-users in the United States.
methodsScale items reflect specific aspects of IVR acceptability for women and male partners. Response options range from 1 (not-at-all acceptable) to 5 (highly acceptable). We evaluated the IVR-AS within a randomized, crossover clinical trial of three nonmedicated silicone IVRs of differing external diameters (46, 56, 66 mm) in heterosexual couples who used each for ~30 days, then completed a self-administered survey. We conducted exploratory factor analysis and multivariable regression to assess convergent validity. Follow-up in-depth interviews with all participants explored scale salience.
resultsTwenty-four couples participated (mean age 27). The final 19-item women's scale (Cronbach's alpha = 0.93) included six subdimensions: ease of use; experience and sensation; effect on sexual desire/engagement, and effect on vaginal sex (all alphas > 0.78). The final eight-item men's scale comprised two subdimensions: effect on sexual desire/engagement and effect on vaginal sex (all alphas > 0.89). For both sexes, higher overall/subdimension scores were consistently associated with favorable assessments of the ring, for example, ease of insertion/removal; adherence (most p < 0.001). The 46/56 mm IVRs had higher overall and subdimension scores than the 66 mm IVR (most p < 0.001). Qualitative reports reinforced the salience of scale subdimensions and item content.
conclusionThe IVR-AS captures multiple dimensions of IVR acceptability among women and their partners. The scales demonstrated excellent reliability and convergent validity. Further validation is warranted in future studies.
trial registrationClinical Trials.gov: NCT05128136. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05128136?intr=non-medicated%20silicone%20ring&rank=2.
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.