Journal of Adolescent Health
Volume 43, Issue 4 , Pages 349-356 , October 2008

Vaginal Microbicide Preferences Among Midwestern Urban Adolescent Women

  • Amanda E. Tanner, Ph.D., M.P.H.

      Affiliations

    • Indiana University School of Medicine, Section of Adolescent Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: Amanda E. Tanner, Ph.D., M.P.H., Section of Adolescent Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, 410 W. 10th Street, Room 1001, Indianapolis IN 46202
    • ,
  • Jennifer M. Katzenstein, M.S.

      Affiliations

    • Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, Department of Psychology, Indianapolis, Indiana
    • ,
  • Gregory D. Zimet, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Indiana University School of Medicine, Section of Adolescent Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
    • ,
  • Dena S. Cox, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, Kelley School of Business, Indianapolis, Indiana
    • ,
  • Anthony D. Cox, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, Kelley School of Business, Indianapolis, Indiana
    • ,
  • J. Dennis Fortenberry, M.D., M.S.

      Affiliations

    • Indiana University School of Medicine, Section of Adolescent Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana

Received 24 July 2007 ,Accepted 19 February 2008.

References 

  1. Alliance for Microbicide Development. Ongoing microbicide clinical trials by phase. http://secure.microbicide.org/NetReports/Clinical TrialsOngoingByPhase.aspxAccessed January 25, 2007
  2. Harrison P, Rosenberg Z, Bowcut J. Topical microbicides for disease prevention: status and challenges. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36:1290–1294
  3. Rosenbaum L, Sanford W, Jacobs JZ. Sexuality. In: The Boston Women's Book Collective, Our bodies, Ourselves for the New Century. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc; 1998;p. 229–267
  4. Diamond LM. Introduction: in search of good sexual-development pathways for adolescent girls. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev. 2006;112:1–7
  5. Farr G, Gabelnick H, Sturgen K, et al. Contraceptive efficacy and acceptability of the female condom. Am J Public Health. 1994;84(12):1960–1964
  6. Kaler A. The female condom in North America: selling the technology of “empowerment.”. J Gender Stud. 2004;13(2):139–152
  7. Short MB, Mills L, Majkowski JM, et al. Adolescent issues associated with knowledge of and access to topical microbicides. J Womens Health. 2004;13(10):1127–1135
  8. Holt B, Morwitz VG, Ngo L, et al. Microbicide preference among young women in California. J Womens Health. 2006;15(3):281–294
  9. Zubowicz EA, Oakes JK, Short MB, et al. Adolescents' descriptions of the physical characteristics of microbicide surrogates and experiences of use. J Womens Health. 2006;15(8):952–961
  10. Tanner AE, Zimet GD, Fortenberry JD, et al. Young women's use of a microbicide surrogate: the role of individual and contextual factors in acceptability and sexual pleasure. J Sex Res (In press).
  11. Short MB, Mills L, Majkowski JM, et al. Topical microbicide use by adolescent girls: concerns about timing, efficacy, and safety. Sex Transm Dis. 2003;30(11):854–858
  12. Elias C, Coggins C. Acceptability research on female controlled barrier methods to prevent heterosexual transmission of HIV: where have we been? (Where are we going?). J Womens Health. 2001;10(2):163–173
  13. Koo H, Woodsong C, Dalberth B, et al. Context of acceptability of topical microbicides: sexual relationships. J Soc Issues. 2005;61(1):67–93
  14. Mantell J, Myer L, Carballo-Dieguez A, et al. Microbicide acceptability research: current approaches and future directions. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:319–330
  15. Sunder PK, Ramos S, Short MB, et al. Adolescent girls' communication with “mothers” about topical microbicides. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2006;19:373–379
  16. Weeks MR, Mosack KE, Abbot M, et al. Microbicide acceptability among high-risk urban U.S. women: experiences and perceptions of sexually transmitted HIV prevention. Sex Transm Dis. 2004;31(11):682–690
  17. Bentley M, Fullem A, Tolley E, et al. Acceptability of a microbicide among women and their partners in a four country phase I trial. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(7):1159–1165
  18. Bancroft J. Researching Sexual Behavior. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press; 1997;
  19. Richman WL, Kiesler S, Weisband S, et al. A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. J Appl Psychol. 1999;84(5):754–775
  20. Kissinger P, Rice J, Farley T, et al. Application of computer-assisted interviews to sexual behavior research. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149(10):950–954
  21. Kann L, Brener ND, Warren CW, et al. An assessment of the effect of data collection setting on the prevalence of health risk behaviors among adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2002;31(4):327–335
  22. Turner CF, Ku L, Rogers SM, et al. Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science. 1998;280(5365):867–873
  23. Severy LJ, Newcomer S. Critical issues in contraceptive and STI acceptability research. J Soc Issues. 2005;61(1):45–65
  24. Woodsong C, Severy LJ. Generation of knowledge for reproductive health technologies: constraints on social and behavioral research. J Soc Issues. 2005;61(1):193–205
  25. Indiana HIV Resources & Statistics. 2004 http://aids.about.com/od/statebystateresources/qt/indiana.htmAccessed January 28, 2007
  26. Zimet GD, Cox AD, Cox DS, Fortenberry JD. Vaginal microbicides for STD prevention: characteristics preferred by adolescent women [Abstract]. J Adolesc Health. 2005;36(2):125
  27. Campbell BA. Race-of-interviewer effects among Southern adolescents. Public Opin Q. 1981;45(2):231–244
  28. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The INFO Project (Assuring access is essential). http://www.infoforhealth.org/inforeports/microbicides/microbs5.shtmlAccessed January 10, 2008
  29. SPSS Inc.. SPSS Conjoint. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc; 2006;
  30. Green P, Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. J Market. 1990;54–57
  31. Churchill GA. Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations. 5th ed.. Chicago, IL: Dryden Press; 1991;
  32. Green PE, Rao VR. Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. J Marketing Res. 1971;8(3):355–363
  33. Phillips KA, Maddala T, Johnson FR. Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. Health Serv Res. 2002;3:1681–1705
  34. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320:1530–1533
  35. Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ. 1997;6:261–273
  36. Zimet GD, Blythe MJ, Fortenberry JD. Vaccine characteristics and acceptability of HIV immunization among adolescents. Int J STD AIDS. 2000;11:143–149
  37. Zimet GD, Mays RM, Sturm LA, et al. Parental attitudes about sexually transmitted infection vaccination for their adolescent children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;159:132–137
  38. Workowski KA, Levine WC. Sexually transmitted treatment guidelines 2002. MMWR. 2002;51(RR06):1–80
  39. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Adolescents and Young Adults (STD Surveillance 2005). http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/adol.htmAccessed December 12, 2006
  40. Armitage CJ, Connor M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol. 2001;40:471–499

 This study was supported by a grant from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (HRSA/T71 MC00008-14-00) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIH-NIAID, U19 AI031494-15).

PII: S1054-139X(08)00160-2

doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.02.017

Journal of Adolescent Health
Volume 43, Issue 4 , Pages 349-356 , October 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution