ArticleFrontiers in reproductive health2026
Multipurpose vaginal rings: preferences from a national discrete choice experiment survey among US women.
Article in Frontiers in reproductive health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We assessed US women's preferences to inform development of a novel nonhormonal multipurpose prevention technology (MPT)-a vaginal ring to prevent pregnancy, HIV, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and bacterial vaginosis (BV). Methods: In cross-sectional online surveys with US women ages 18-49 currently/interested in using contraception, we conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) comprising 7 MPT ring attributes. Mixed multinomial logit models examined relative attribute importance and sub-population preferences. Results: Of 2,105 survey completers (mean age 31) from all 50 states (Dec 2023 to Jan 2024), 53% were married/cohabiting, 57% had ≥1 child, 43% ever had an unintended pregnancy, and 9% had an STI in the past year. Participants valued effectiveness for contraception about twice as much as for HIV prevention and about 3 times that of STI prevention. Younger women (18-29 vs. 30-49) desired higher pregnancy and HIV prevention effectiveness. Women who were worried about HIV valued effectiveness for HIV and pregnancy similarly. While most women valued BV prevention and no menstrual side effects, a nonhormonal formulation mattered only to women averse to hormonal contraception (61%) and on-demand use (vs. continuous-use only) was not preferred. Women were willing to trade off some pregnancy prevention effectiveness for other desired attributes. Overall, 73% reported being likely/very likely to use a nonhormonal MPT ring at moderate protection levels (80% pregnancy, 50% HIV/STIs). Conclusions: Interest in an MPT ring was strong, even with conservative effectiveness estimates. Preferences and desired levels of prevention effectiveness and nonhormonal options were shaped by contraceptive history and personal context.
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.