Lubricants for the promotion of sexual health and well-being: a systematic review

Figures & data

Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart showing disposition of citations through the search and screening process.

Table 1. Description of studies included in GRADE.

Study	Location	Population	Sampling and Study design	Intervention	Comparator	Outcomes
RCTs
Rosen et al., 2010^Citation20	USA: 3 cities	Sexually active adult women in a stable heterosexual partnership (n = 326; mean (SD) age = 44 (13); age range 21–77; 78% White, 15% African American, 5% Hispanic, 2% Other)	Non-probability (facility-based) RCT	1. Couple lubricants (one lubricant for use by the woman and a second lubricant for concurrent use by her male partner) (n = 80, mean age = 44) 2. Female lubricant (lubricant for use by the woman) (n = 82, mean age = 44)	No lubricant use (n = 82, mean age  = 44)	3. Sexual desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pleasure: Female sexual well-being scale and sub-domains
Sawaya et al., 2008^Citation21	Zimbabwe: Chitungwiza and Epworth (outside Harare)	HIV-negative adult women (n = 2040; no ethnicity data reported)	Non-probability (facility-based) RCT	Received a clinician-fitted latex diaphragm (All-Flex® Arcing Spring diaphragm), a supply of lubricant gel (Replens^TM), and male condoms (n = 1020; age ≤24, 38.3%; 25–34, 45.6%; ≥35, 16.1%)	No lubricant use / condom use only (n = 1020; age ≤24, 36.0%; 25–34, 46.3%; ≥35, 17.8%.)	6. STIs/HIV: Incidence of any HPV type and oncogenic HPV types
Observational studies
Dodge et al., 2015^Citation17	USA (internet)	Self-identified gay (n = 307) and bisexual (n = 25) adult participants in the 2012 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behaviour (NSSHB) who reported sexual behaviours with other male partners during their last sexual encounter (n = 333; age range: 18–70+; 68.4% White, 4.2% Black, 6.6 Other, 18.5% Hispanic, 2.3% more than two races)	Non-probability (convenience) Cross-sectional survey	Used commercial lubricant product(s) at last sexual event (n = 163)	No lubricant use (n = 170)	Vaginal dryness or pain during vaginal/anal penetration: Dryness/pain during penetration
Juraskova et al., 2013^Citation4	Australia	Adult breast cancer survivors in a sexual relationship (n = 25; mean age at diagnosis = 47; current age mean = 51, current age range:37–66; 76% have children)	Non-probability (convenience) Before-after study	Used lubricant (olive oil, pelvic floor muscle relaxation exercises, vaginal moisturiser) (n = 25)	No lubricant use (n = 25, same participants but before using lubricants)	1. Vaginal dryness or pain during vaginal/anal penetration: Dyspareunia, Sexual discomfort

Table 2. GRADE Evidence Profile.

Certainty assessment							№ of patients		Effect		Certainty	Importance
№ of studies	Study design	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Other considerations	lubricants during or prior to sex	no lubricants	Relative (95% CI)	Absolute (95% CI)
1. Vaginal dryness or pain during vaginal/anal penetration: Experience of pain during last insertive partnered sexual event (assessed with: self-report)
1^Citation17	Observational studies	Serious^a	Not serious^b	Not serious	Serious^c	None	11/61 (18.0%)	3/21 (14.3%)	RR 1.26 (0.39–4.09)	37 more per 1000 (from 87 fewer to 441 more)	⊕◯◯◯ VERY LOW	CRITICAL
1. Vaginal dryness or pain during vaginal/anal penetration: Experience of pain during last receptive partnered sexual event (assessed with: self-report)
1^Citation17	Observational studies	Very serious^a,d	Not serious^b	Not serious	Not serious	None	45/71 (63.4%)	3/17 (17.6%)	RR 3.59 (1.27–10.18)	457 more per 1000 (from 48 more to 1000 more)	⊕◯◯◯ VERY LOW	CRITICAL
1. Vaginal dryness or pain during vaginal/anal penetration: Degree of pain during last insertive partnered sexual event (assessed with: self-report, higher score indicates greater pain)
1^Citation17	Observational studies	Serious^a	Not serious^b	Not serious	Not serious	None	2.3	2.9	MD 0.6 lower		⊕◯◯◯ VERY LOW	CRITICAL
1. Vaginal dryness or pain during vaginal/anal penetration: Degree of pain during last receptive partnered sexual event (assessed with: self-report, higher score indicates greater pain)
1^Citation17	Observational studies	Serious^a	Not serious^b	Not serious	Not serious	None	2.2	3	MD 0.8 lower		⊕◯◯◯ VERY LOW	CRITICAL
1. Vaginal dryness or pain during vaginal/anal penetration: Dyspareunia (assessed with: visual analogue score pain assessment of dyspareunia, lower score is better outcome; Scale from: 0–10)
1^Citation4	Observational studies	Serious^a	Not serious^b	Not serious	Serious^e	None	2.7	7	MD 4.3 lower		⊕◯◯◯ VERY LOW	CRITICAL
1. Vaginal dryness or pain during vaginal/anal penetration: Sexual discomfort (assessed with: Sexual Activity Questionnaire – Discomfort subscale assessing vaginal dryness and dyspareunia, higher score is better outcome; Scale from: 0–6)
1^Citation4	Observational studies	Serious^a	Not serious^b	Not serious	Serious^e	None	2.9	0.8	MD 2.1 higher		⊕◯◯◯ VERY LOW	CRITICAL
3. Sexual desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pleasure: Female sexual well-being (assessed with: FSWB scale overall score)
1^Citation20	Randomised trials	Serious^f	Not serious^b	Not serious	Not serious	None	Least-squares mean change in score from baseline vs end of study: Couple lubricant (n = 80) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 6.35 vs 1.94; Female lubricant (n = 82) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 3.99 vs 1.94^g				⊕⊕⊕⃝ MODERATE	IMPORTANT
6. STIs/HIV: HPV incidence (one or more new HPV type(s) detected, among participants with no HPV detected at baseline) (follow up: mean 12 months; assessed with: PCR for HPV consensus probe)
1^Citation21	Randomised trials	Not serious^h	Not serious^b	Not serious	Serious^c	None	120/593 (20.2%)	131/587 (22.3%)	RR 0.91 (0.73–1.13)	20 fewer per 1000 (from 60 fewer to 29 more)	⊕⊕⊕⃝ MODERATE	IMPORTANT
6. STIs/HIV: HPV incidence (one or more new oncogenic HPV type(s) detected, among participants with no HPV detected at baseline) (follow up: mean 12 months; assessed with: PCR for HPV consensus probe)
1^Citation21	Randomised trials	Not serious^h	Not serious^b	Not serious	Serious^c	None	56/593 (9.4%)	51/587 (8.7%)	RR 1.09 (0.76–1.56)	8 more per 1000 (from 21 fewer to 49 more)	⊕⊕⊕⃝ MODERATE	IMPORTANT

Notes: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; FSWB: Female sexual well-being; PCR: Polymerase chain reaction; HPV: Human papillomavirus.

^a Risk of bias: Certainty of evidence downgraded for self-report of pain.

^b Inconsistency: This could not be evaluated, as there is only a single study.

^c Imprecision: Certainty of evidence downgraded because 95% CI for RR includes both 1 (no effect) AND either appreciable harm (0.75) or appreciable benefit (1.25).

^d Risk of bias: Participants who reported using lubricant during their last partnered event were asked to indicate their reasons for using lubricant. The most highly endorsed statement (89.3%) was that lubricant reduced their pain/discomfort. This may indicate reverse causation between lubricant use and experience of pain.

^e Imprecision: Certainty of evidence downgraded due to small sample size (n = 25).

^f Risk of bias: Certainty of evidence downgraded for detection bias. Blinding was not possible given the nature of the intervention, and outcome may have been affected by lack of blinding.

^g FSWB scale includes subscales, whose results (least-squares mean change in score from baseline vs end of study) are presented in this footnote.

Interpersonal domain: Couple lubricant (n = 80) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 1.80 vs 0.13; Female lubricant (n = 82) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 1.32 vs 0.13.

Cognitive-emotional domain: Couple lubricant (n = 80) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 2.48 vs 1.08; Female lubricant (n = 82) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 1.67 vs 1.08.

Physical arousal domain: Couple lubricant (n = 80) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 0.81 vs 0.72; Female lubricant (n = 82) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 0.07 vs 0.72.

Orgasm satisfaction domain: Couple lubricant (n = 80) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 1.43 vs 0.01; Female lubricant (n = 82) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 1.04 vs 0.01.

^h Risk of bias: Certainty of evidence not downgraded for detection bias. Blinding was not possible given the nature of the intervention, but outcome unlikely to have been affected by lack of blinding.

Table 3. Comparative findings from studies included in the effectiveness review

Study	Findings
RCTs
Rosen 2010^Citation20	3. Sexual desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pleasure Female sexual well-being scale: Least-squares mean change in score from baseline vs end of study: Couple lubricant (n = 80) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 6.35 vs 1.94; Female lubricant (n = 82) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 3.99 vs 1.94 Sub-domains of the Female sexual well-being scale were also reported: Interpersonal domain: Couple lubricant (n = 80) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 1.80 vs 0.13; Female lubricant (n = 82) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 1.32 vs 0.13. Cognitive-emotional domain: Couple lubricant (n = 80) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 2.48 vs 1.08; Female lubricant (n = 82) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 1.67 vs 1.08. Physical arousal domain: Couple lubricant (n = 80) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 0.81 vs 0.72; Female lubricant (n = 82) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 0.07 vs 0.72. Orgasm satisfaction domain: Couple lubricant (n = 80) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 1.43 vs 0.01; Female lubricant (n = 82) vs no lubricant (n = 82): 1.04 vs 0.01.
Sawaya 2008^Citation21	6. STIs/HIV Incidence of one or more HPV type: Lubricant: 120/593 (20.2%) vs No lubricant: 131/587 (22.3%); Relative Risk (95% CI): 0.91 (0.73–1.13) Incidence of one or more oncogenic HPV types: Lubricant: 56/593 (9.4%) vs No lubricant: 51/587 (8.7%); Relative Risk (95% CI): 1.09 (0.76–1.56)
Observational studies
Gorbach 2011^Citation18	6. STIs/HIV Rectal STI prevalence: Consistent lubricant use: 9.5% vs Sometimes lubricant use: 2.4% vs Never lubricant use: 4.1% (p = 0.019 Fisher exact test)
Juraskova 2013^Citation4	1. Vaginal dryness or pain during vaginal/anal penetration Dyspareunia (lower score is better outcome, scale from 0 to 10): Lubricant: 2.7 (SD = 2.31) vs No lubricant: 7 (SD = 2.40) Sexual discomfort (higher score is better outcome, scale from 0 to 6): Lubricant: 2.9 (SD = 2.05) vs No lubricant: 0.8 (SD = 1.00)
Maierhofer 2016^Citation19	6. STIs/HIV Rectal gonococcal prevalence: comparing lubricant vs. no lubricant, Gun Oil: adjPR 1.99 (95% CI, 1.04–3.80), Slick: adjPR: 3.55 (95% CI, 1.38–9.12); other lubricants (i.e. Wet, KY Jelly, Vaseline, Baby Oil) had no statistically significant associations Rectal chlamydial prevalence: no lubricants (i.e. Gun Oil, Slick, Wet, KY Jelly, Vaseline, Baby Oil) had no statistically significant associations Prevalence of either rectal gonorrhea or rectal chlamydia: comparing lubricant vs. no lubricant, precum: aPR, 1.68 (95%CI, 1.06–2.66), Vaseline: aPR, 1.70 (95% CI, 1.10–2.64), and baby oil: aPR, 2.26 (95% CI, 1.43–3.57) other lubricants had no statistically significant associations
Blair 2020^Citation16	6. STIs/HIV STI (positive test for infectious syphilis and/or rectal gonorrhea and/or rectal chlamydia): Consistent lubricant use during receptive anal intercourse in the last month: 61/91 (67%) vs Never/inconsistent lubricant use: 243/461 (53%), p = 0.012.unadjusted OR: 1.81 (95% CI: 1.12–2.93) p = 0.015; adjusted OR: 1.81 (95% CI: 1.11–2.96), p = 0.018
Dodge 2015^Citation17	1. Vaginal dryness or pain during vaginal/anal penetration Experience of pain during last insertive partnered sexual event: Lubricant: 11/61 (18%) vs No lubricant: 3/21 (14.3%); AOR (CI):0.94 (0.19–4.59) Experience of pain during last receptive partnered sexual event: Lubricant: 45/71 (63.4%) vs No lubricant: 3/17 (17.6%); AOR (CI): 6.25 (1.72–22.75), p < 0.005 Degree of pain during last insertive partnered sexual event (higher score indicates greater pain): Lubricant: 2.3 vs No lubricant: 2.9; F = 0.5 Degree of pain during last receptive partnered sexual event (higher score indicates greater pain): Lubricant: 2.2 vs No lubricant: 3.0; F = 14.3, p < 0.001

RCT: randomised controlled trial, STI: sexually transmitted infection, HIV: human immunodeficiency virus, HPV: human papillomavirus, adj: adjusted, PR: prevalence ratio, OR: odds ratio, CI: confidence interval

Figure 2. Map showing distribution of studies included in the values and preferences review.

Table 4. Description of studies included in the values and preferences review¹

Study	Location	Population Description	Study design	Sample size (N)	Key results
Carballo-Diéguez 2000^Citation22	USA: New York City	318 Latino MSM; 307 were given a survey about sexual practices and 11 participated in a focus group regarding a theoretical microbicidal anal gel	Multi method: structured survey and focus group	318	Participants did not care about the flavour, smell, or colour of a theoretical microbicidal lubricant, but were concerned about how long it would be effective (if applied prior to sex) and the dose needed for effectiveness without interfering with sexual pleasure.
Clark 2013^Citation23	Peru: Lima	560 MSM recruited from Lima STI and HIV testing sites or through STI screening outreach programmes	Qualitative: in depth individual and group interviews	560	MSM engaged in receptive sex preferred using lubricants for sex more than those engaged in insertive sex. Some preferred the pain of “dry” sex because of their partner’s pleasure. MSM who also had sex with women did not find it as acceptable to use lubricant with female partners and primarily did so with male partners. Most participants preferred commercial lubricants provided by local pharmacies or clinics over substitutes such as saliva, body fluids, or household products but would use these alternatives if commercial lubricant was not readily available.
Dodge 2015^Citation17	USA: national	Self-identified gay (n = 307) and bisexual (n = 25) adult participants in the 2012 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behaviour (NSSHB) who reported sexual behaviours with other male partners during their last sexual encounter	Quantitative: cross-sectional study	712	Primary reasons for using lubricants were to make sex more comfortable (68.8%), to reduce pain during sex (49.9%), and to increase pleasure during sex (40.9%). Other reasons included easier/faster/higher-quality orgasms, to make sex more wet or fun, to enhance foreplay, and to reduce the chances of the condom drying out.
Duby 2016^Citation24	South Africa, Uganda, Zimbabwe	88 women from South Africa (n = 20), Uganda (n = 22) and Zimbabwe (n = 26), who formerly participated in VOICE, an HIV prevention trial of two antiretroviral oral tablets and a vaginal gel. Mean age = 28.6, age range 20–40	Qualitative: in-depth interviews	88	Lubricants were used for penile-anal intercourse to make sex clean, fast, easy insertion; not used because some (e.g. Vasoline) may degrade latex and lead to condom breakage.
Herbenick 2011^Citation25	USA	Adult women (N = 2453) from the U.S. Mean age = 32.69, age range 18–68; most (85.4%) described their ethnicity as White; most (86.5%) self-identified as heterosexual.	Quantitative: prospective cohort following for 5 weeks with randomisation and double-blinding pre-post design (given lubricants as the intervention)	2453	Among penile – vaginal sex events, participants’ self-reports on measures of sexual pleasure and sexual satisfaction were significantly higher for events that included the use of a water-based lubricant or silicone-based lubricant compared with no lubricant use. For penile – anal events, ratings of sexual pleasure and satisfaction were significantly higher for events associated with water-based lubricant over no lubricant. All lubricant types were associated with significantly higher sexual pleasure and satisfaction scores for solo sex events, with no difference between lubricant types.
Herbenick 2014^Citation26	USA: national	Data focused on adult women from a subset of the 2012 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behaviour 2012 NSSHB. Mean age: 46.8, age range: 18–91. Participants were primarily white, non-Hispanic (66.5%) and identified as heterosexual (93.6%).	Quantitative: cross-sectional study	1559	The most common reason why women first started using lubricant was to “make sex more comfortable” (42.9%, n = 438). For women ages 18–39, however, the most commonly endorsed reason was “for fun”. “To enhance foreplay” and “curiosity” were also commonly reported. The most common perception was that a lubricant “makes sex more comfortable” (85.1%, n = 839). Over half agreed that lubricant use during sexual activities “makes sex feel better” and “makes it easier to feel aroused.” Less than 15% of the participants perceived lubricants to be only for older people.
Hickey 2016^Citation27	Australia	38 women having a history of breast cancer, being sexually active with symptoms of vaginal dryness or pain during sexual activity, willingness to be randomised and try both products, willingness to keep a sexual activity diary, and having a normal Pap smear in the previous 2 years. Mean age = 53.1.	Quantitative: randomised, double-blind, crossover trial (given lubricants as the intervention)	38	The majority of women reported that lubricants improved sexual experience and they would continue to use them. Silicone-based lubricants were generally preferred over water-based lubricants.
Javanbakht 2010^Citation28	multi-country (107) [specific countries not specified: North America; Europe; Latin America/Caribbean; Asia; Oceania; Other]: internet	6124 men and women who reported anal intercourse (AI) in the past 6 months, from North America (70%). Male (93%) respondents were older than female respondents (7%), with 55% of men being aged 35 years and older compared with 31% of women.	Quantitative: cross-sectional study (Internet based survey)	6124	Reasons for not using lubricants during AI including that they used saliva or vaginal fluid instead, lack of lubricant availability, or a preference for dry sex. Almost all said that lubricant color/flavor/smell did not matter, or they preferred no color/flavor/smell. Dispensers with a “pop-up” lid or a pump were most preferred, followed by tubes, single-use packets, and containers with screw-top or snap-off lids.
Jones 2008^Citation29	Zambia: Lusaka	155 HIV seropositive males, sexually active. Mean age: 37 years (Range: 21–62). 50% were unemployed, 27% worked part time. Ethnic groups included Bemba (27%), Nsenga, Ngoni, Tumbuka (26%), Tonga (14%), Lozi (15%), Mambwe, Namwanga (8%), and other ethnic groups (10%).	Quantitative: randomised trial without control groups and with assessments at baseline, monthly over 6 months and at 12 months (given lubricants as the intervention)	155	After 2 months of trial use, product ratings based on product selection and stated preference indicated that participants preferences remained fairly evenly distributed between suppositories, high-viscosity gel, and low-viscosity gel. Participants identified “ease of use,” “comfort,” and “increasing sexual pleasure” as the most important factors in product preference; being “fun” to use and “being in control” were considered “least important” factors. Two thirds of those sampled reported that both they and their partners “liked” the lubricants.
Jozkowski 2013^Citation30	USA: Internet	Mean age = 32.69, age range = 18 - 68, median = 31.0. Participants were predominantly white (87.7%, N = 2095), heterosexual (88.2, N = 2121), and were married and living with their spouse (57.7%, N = 1395).	Quantitative: cross-sectional study	2451	Women reported positive perceptions of lubricant, with younger women (18–24 and 25–29) reporting less positive perceptions than older women (40–49). Most women liked sex to feel wet, reported their partners preferred sex to feel wet, and reported being most easily orgasmic when sex was wet. Negative perceptions were when lubricants were perceived as sticky.
Juraskova 2013^Citation4	Australia	Adult female in a sexual relationship; amenorrheaic for at least 6 months or were taking aromatase inhibitors; had undergone adjuvant chemotherapy; and reported current symptoms of vaginal dryness and dyspareunia. Mean age: 51. Mean age at breast cancer diagnosis = 47.	Quantitative: prospective pilot study; time-series study across four time points (weeks 0, 4, 12, and 26) (given olive oil for lubricant as the intervention)	25	Overall, 76% of women found olive oil as a lubricant useful and all participants (100%) would recommend the intervention as a whole (Replents vaginal moisturiser, pelvic floor muscles, and olive oil) to other women with breast cancer who have similar problems.
Lee 2017^Citation31	South Africa: Pretoria	81 male, mean age = 25.16, range 20–39. Most participants identified as gay. The sample also included biologically male participants who self-identified as “drag queen”, women or transgender.	Qualitative: in-depth interviews	81	Facilitators to condom and lubricant use included: access to free condoms, partner dynamics (distrust), and increased acceptability to openly carry condoms and lubricants. Barriers included sexual initiation, issues with accessibility and availability, being in the heat of the moment, alcohol and drug use, partner dynamics, namely partner distrust again, and group sex.
Montgomery 2009^Citation32	Zimbabwe, South Africa	2523 in the intervention arm, and 2522 in the control arm. Age distribution <=24: 38.4%, 25–34: 39.1%, >=35: 22.5%. 58.9% of the participants are married. Lifetime # of sexual partners, mean (range):2.24(1–30). Age at first sex, mean (range):18.04 (10–31).	Quantitative: randomised controlled trial with 3 arms (diaphragm, gel and condoms (intervention) arm, or condoms-only (control) arm.)	5023	Only 1% of participants mentioned problems with the gel, including perceived burning or itchiness, increased discharge or wetness, or partner not liking the feeling of the gel during sex.
Reece 2014^Citation33	USA: national	1510 adult US males, mean age = 46.13, age range: 18–89. 67.3% participants were white, non-Hispanic with a sizable minority of participants indicating that they were black, nonHispanic (10.7%), or Hispanic (15.2%). Most identified as heterosexual (93.6%).	Quantitative: cross-sectional study	1510	Reasons for lubricant use included to make sex more comfortable, for fun (especially men aged 18–49), curiosity (especially men aged 18–49), partner preference for lubricant, to make sex more pleasurable, to reduce discomfort/pain during sex, makes it easier to feel aroused, makes sex feel better, makes it easier to have an orgasm. 10% of participants perceived that lubricants are only for older people
Rojanapithayakorn 1995^Citation34	Thailand: Ratchaburi, Ban Pong District and Damnoen Saduak District of Ratchaburi Province	female sex workers mean age = 22, age range 14 - 34. The average length of time the participant had worked in sex entertainment establishments (SEs) was 2.2 years. The participants had an average of 3.4 clients per day.	Quantitative; three time points (weeks 0 (before lubricant)), 1 (after 1week of lubricant as the intervention), and 8 (follow up 8 weeks later)	week 0: 134; week 1: 111; week 8: 58	About 95% of those interviewed expressed interest in using the water-soluble lubricant on a regular basis, because it reduced the time clients needed to ejaculate, reduced vaginal pain and discomfort and reduced condom breakage. More than 70% said the majority of their clients found using lubricants made condom use more enjoyable.
Romijnders 2015^Citation35	Tanzania: Dar es Salaam and Tanga	300 MSM, median age: 23 (IQR: 21–28); employed (81.3%); 58.3% self-identified as gay or homosexual, while 36.0% as MSMW	Quantitative: cross-sectional study	300	Reasons for using lubricants included that it feels better during anal sex and that it prevents condom tears or lesions during anal sex. Reasons for not using lubricant included availability (looking for lubricants only as the need arises, difficult to find, expensive). Only 8.7% disliked using lubricant.
Sahin-Hodoglugil 2011^Citation36	Multi-country (2): South Africa: Durban, Johannesburg; Zimbabwe: Harare	Sexually active, 18–49-year-old, HIV-negative women from five clinics. Women in FGD (n = 105): age: 18–24 years = 36 (36.5%); 25–34 years = 44 (42.3%); 35–49 years = 22 (21.2%). Women whose male partners participated (n = 41): age: 18–24 years = 14 (34.2%); 25–34 years = 21 (51.2%); 35–49 years = 6 (14.6%).	Qualitative: focus group discussions and in-depth interviews women (14 FGD) and 41 male partners (7 FGD plus 10 IDI) (given lubricants as part of intervention)	105	The gel was very well accepted and easily used by participants. Benefits included being seen as a product that increased sexual pleasure and stimulation for women, and relief from vaginal dryness and pain during intercourse. Only two men reported dissatisfaction with the gel as they preferred a dry vagina. Gendered sexual norms meant men had control over when/how often to have sex and what methods to use, and male sexual satisfaction was a larger theme than women’s sexual satisfaction.
Sanders 2018^Citation37	USA: Jackson, Mississippi	173 women recruited from an STI clinic engaged in penile-vaginal sex within the past three months. Mean age = 27.16, median age = 24, age range = 18–63. Most women identified as Black/African American (85.9%), with 4.7% identifying as White and the remainder not indicating a racial identity.	Quantitative: cross-sectional study	173	The majority of women were willing to experiment with condoms and lubricant. Lubricants were generally found to increase sexual pleasure. Negative perceptions of lubricants included when the lubrication amount was not enough to last until sex ended or maintain sexual satisfaction, or that lubrication “turned them off”.
Schick 2015^Citation38	USA: national	145 lesbian – and bisexually identified women and most recent sexual partner was a female. Age 18–24: 15.2%; 25–29: 21.1%; 30–39: 15.2%; 40–49: 18.9%; 50–59: 24.6%; 60+: 5.0%. 57.0% White/Non-Hispanic; 22.0% Black/Non-Hispanic; 10.9% Hispanic. 75.1% lesbian/homosexual; 24.9% bisexual.	Quantitative: cross-sectional study	145	Reasons for lubricant use included to make sex more comfortable, self or partner did not produce enough natural lubrication, reduce pain/discomfort during sex, increase pleasure during sex, and improve ability to orgasm/time to achieve orgasm/quality of orgasm. 65% agreed or strongly agreed that lubricant use improved their ability to orgasm, time to achieve orgasm, and quality of orgasm.
Steiner 1994^Citation39	USA: North Carolina (Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill)	268 couples, median age is slightly over 30 years (females: 31 years, males: 32 years) with a high level of formal education (median: females: 14.5 years, males: 15 years), predominately Caucasian (female: 85%, males: 84%).	Quantitative: pre-post study (Given lubricant as part of intervention)	536: 268 couples	Couples preferred the water-based lubricant over the oil-based lubricant (p < 0.001). When no additional lubricant was compared to the oil-based lubricant, couples preferred no additional lubricant (p < 0.001). When the comparison was between no additional lubricant and the water-based lubricant, they preferred the water-based lubricant (p < 0.001).
Sutton 2012^Citation40	Canada: internet	122 adult women. Dyspareunia group (n = 61), self-reported pain during or after penetrative intercourse, at least 50% of the time, for a 6-month duration, mean age = 29.85, 77% heterosexual; Control group (n = 61) reported no history or current chronic dyspareunia, mean age = 30.42, 77% heterosexual.	Quantitative: cross-sectional study	122 (61 control group, 61 dyspareunia group)	Lubricants were used to prevent or reduce pain, especially for women with dyspareunia. Reasons for not using lubricant were that it was not perceived as needed. Lubricants were used for masturbation or at the beginning of foreplay. Participants preferred water-based lubricants versus one with flavor, or lubricants with a tingling or warming sensation.

As described in WHO guideline on self-care interventions for health and well-being⁴⁷

Rosen RC, Althof SE, Barbach LG, et al. Female sexual well-being ScaleTM: responsiveness to interventional product use by sexually functional women. J Sex Med. 2010;7(7):2479–2486.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sawaya GF, Chirenje MZ, Magure MT, et al. Effect of diaphragm and lubricant gel provision on human papillomavirus infection among women provided with condoms: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(5):990–997.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dodge B, Hubach RD, Schick V, et al. Lubricant use at last sexual encounter with a male partner: findings from a nationally representative sample of self-identified gay and bisexual men in the United States. Sex Health. 2015;12(4):300–307.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Juraskova I, Jarvis S, Mok K, et al. The acceptability, feasibility, and efficacy (phase I/II study) of the OVERcome (olive oil, vaginal exercise, and MoisturizeR) intervention to improve dyspareunia and alleviate sexual problems in women with breast cancer. J Sex Med. 2013;10(10):2549–2558.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gorbach PM, Weiss RE, Fuchs E, et al. The slippery slope: lubricant use and rectal sexually transmitted infections: a newly identified risk. Sex Transm Dis. 2011;39(1):59–64.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Maierhofer C, Rice CE, Shu-Hua W, et al. Lubricant use and rectal chlamydial and gonococcal infections among men who engage in receptive anal intercourse. Sex Transm Dis. 2016;43(7):423–428.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Blair CS, Javanbakht M, Comulada WS, et al. Lubricants and rectal douching: associations with rectal gonorrhea, chlamydia, and/or syphilis infection among men who have sex with men. Int J STD AIDS. 2020;31(11):1040–1046.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Carballo-Diéguez A, Stein Z, Sáez H, et al. Frequent use of lubricants for anal sex among men who have sex with men: the HIV prevention potential of a microbicidal gel. Am J Public Health. 2000;90(7):1117–1121.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Clark J, Salvatierra H, Segura E, et al. Frequency, patterns, and preferences of lubricant use during anal intercourse within male sexual partnerships in Lima, Peru: implications for a rectal microbicide HIV prevention intervention. AIDS Care. 2013;25(5):579–585.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Duby Z, Hartmann M, Montgomery E, et al. Condoms, lubricants and rectal cleansing: practices associated with heterosexual penile-anal intercourse amongst participants in an HIV prevention trial in South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(4):754–762.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Herbenick D, Reece M, Hensel D, et al. Association of lubricant use with women's sexual pleasure, sexual satisfaction, and genital symptoms: a prospective daily diary study. J Sex Med. 2011;8(1):202–212.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Herbenick D, Reece M, Schick V, et al. Women's use and perceptions of commercial lubricants: prevalence and characteristics in a nationally representative sample of American adults. J Sex Med. 2014;11(3):642–652.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hickey M, Marino JL, Braat S, et al. A randomized, double-blind, crossover trial comparing a silicone- versus water-based lubricant for sexual discomfort after breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;158(1):79–90.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Javanbakht M, Murphy R, Gorbach P, et al. Preference and practices relating to lubricant use during anal intercourse: implications for rectal microbicides. Sex Health. 2010;7(2):193–198.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jones DL, Weiss SM, Chitalu N, et al. Acceptability and use of sexual barrier products and lubricants among HIV-seropositive Zambian men. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2008;22(12):1015–1020.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jozkowski KN, Herbenick D, Schick V, et al. Women's perceptions about lubricant use and vaginal wetness during sexual activities. J Sex Med. 2013;10(2):484–492.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lee M, Sandfort T, Collier K, et al. Breakage is the norm: use of condoms and lubrication in anal sex among Black South African men who have sex with men. Cult Health Sex. 2017;19(4):501–514.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Montgomery ET, Blanchard K, Cheng H, et al. Diaphragm and lubricant gel acceptance, skills and patterns of use among women in an effectiveness trial in Southern Africa Montgomery et al. diaphragm gel patterns of use in Southern Africa. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2009;14(6):410–419.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reece M, Herbenick D, Schick V, et al. Men's use and perceptions of commercial lubricants: prevalence and characteristics in a nationally representative sample of American adults. J Sex Med. 2014;11(5):1125–1135.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rojanapithayakorn W, Goedken J. Lubrication use in condom promotion among commercial sex workers and their clients in Ratchaburi, Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai. 1995;78(7):350–354.

 Google Scholar

Romijnders KA, Nyoni JE, Ross MW, et al. Lubricant use and condom use during anal sex in men who have sex with men in Tanzania. Int J STD AIDS. 2015;27(14):1289–1302.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sahin-Hodoglugil NN, Montgomery E, Kacanek D, et al. User experiences and acceptability attributes of the diaphragm and lubricant gel in an HIV prevention trial in Southern Africa. AIDS Care. 2011;23(8):1026–1034.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sanders SA, Crosby RA, Milhausen RR, et al. Women’s willingness to experiment with condoms and lubricants: a study of women residing in a high HIV seroprevalence area. Int J STD AIDS. 2018;29(4):367–374.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schick VR, Hensel D, Herbenick D, et al. Lesbian- and bisexually-identified women's use of lubricant during their most recent sexual event with a female partner: findings from a nationally representative study in the United States. LGBT Health. 2016;2(2):169–175.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Steiner M, Piedrahita C, Glover L, et al. The impact of lubricants on latex condoms during vaginal intercourse. Int J STD AIDS. 1994;5(1):29–36.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sutton KS, Boyer SC, Goldfinger C, et al. To lube or not to lube: experiences and perceptions of lubricant use in women with and without dyspareunia. J Sex Med. 2012;9(1):240–250.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

World Health Organization. WHO guideline on self-care interventions for health and well-being. Geneva: WHO; 2021.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

All data come from published articles. Extracted data are available on request to the corresponding author.