Giving voice to the end-user: input on multipurpose prevention technologies from the perspectives of young women in Kenya and South Africa

References

• Mavalankar DV, Rosenfield A. Maternal mortality in resource-poor settings: policy barriers to care. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(2):200–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alkema L, Kantorova V, Menozzi C, et al. National, regional, and global rates and trends in contraceptive prevalence and unmet need for family planning between 1990 and 2015: a systematic and comprehensive analysis. Lancet. 2013;381(9878):1642–1652.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adding it up: investing in contraception and maternal and newborn health. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Sustainable Development Goals: Knowledge Platform. 2019. United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3. [cited 2020 Jan 30]. Available from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg3.
   Google Scholar
• Schelar E, Polis CB, Essam T, et al. Multipurpose prevention technologies for sexual and reproductive health: mapping global needs for introduction of new preventive products. Contraception. 2016;93(1):32–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sedgh G, Singh S, Hussain R. Intended and unintended pregnancies worldwide in 2012 and recent trends. Stud Fam Plann. 2014;45(3):301–314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birdthistle I, Tanton C, Tomita A, et al. Recent levels and trends in HIV incidence rates among adolescent girls and young women in ten high-prevalence African countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(11):e1521–e1540.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karim SSA, Baxter C. HIV incidence rates in adolescent girls and young women in sub-Saharan Africa. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(11):e1470–e1471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evidence for Contraceptive Options HIV Outcomes Trial Consortium. HIV incidence among women using intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, a copper intrauterine device, or a levonorgestrel implant for contraception: a randomised, multicentre, open-label trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10195):303–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deese J, Philip N, Lind M, et al. Sexually transmitted infections among women randomised to depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, a copper intrauterine device or a levonorgestrel implant. Sex Transm Infect. 2021;97(4):249–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Initiative for Multipurpose Prevention Technologies (IMPT). Available from: http://mpts101.org/.
   Google Scholar
• The initiative for Multipurpose Prevention Technologies (IMPT). The MPT pipeline by delivery method ; 2020. Available from: http://mpts101.org/docs/MPT-Pipeline-Table_Delivery-Method_July2020.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Chakhtoura N. Multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs) for prevention of HIV and pregnancy. HIV Research for Prevention (R4P). Virtual; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Achilles S, Kelly CW, Blithe DL, et al. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and vaginal bleeding associated with continuous versus cyclic 90-day use of dapivirine and levonorgestrel vaginal rings for multipurpose prevention of HIV and pregnancy. HIV Research for Prevention (R4P). Virtual; January 28, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Li LA, Krovi SA, Norton C, et al. Biodegradable implant for delivery of antiretroviral (ARV) and hormonal contraceptive. Poster session presented at: Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI); 2020 Mar 8-11; Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Jain AK, Winfrey W. Contribution of contraceptive discontinuation to unintended births in 36 developing countries. Stud Fam Plann. 2017;48(3):269–278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minnis AM, Roberts ST, Agot K, et al. Young women's ratings of three placebo multipurpose prevention technologies for HIV and pregnancy prevention in a randomized, cross-over Study in Kenya and South Africa. AIDS Behav. 2018;22(8):2662–2673.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Straten A, Agot K, Ahmed K, et al. The tablets, ring, injections as options (TRIO) study: what young African women chose and used for future HIV and pregnancy prevention. J Int AIDS Soc. 2018;21(3):e25094.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinrib R, Minnis A, Agot K, et al. End-users’ product preference across three multipurpose prevention technology delivery forms: baseline results from young women in Kenya and South Africa. AIDS Behav. 2018;22(1):133–145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National AIDS and STI Control Programme, Ministry of Health. Kenya HIV Estimates: Report 2020; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• HIV Impact Assessment Summary. The fifth South African national HIV prevalence, incidence, behaviour and communication survey, 2017: HIV Impact Assessment Summary Report. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC); 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Agot K, Minnis AM, Manenzhe K, et al. Engaging study participants in interpreting results: lessons from the TRIO study in Kenya and South Africa. Int J Womens Health. 2019;11:395–403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minnis AM, Browne EN, Boeri M, et al. Young women's stated preferences for biomedical HIV prevention: results of a discrete choice experiment in Kenya and South Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019;80(4):394–403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapley-Quinn MK, Manenzhe KN, Agot K, et al. We are not the same: African women's view of multipurpose prevention products in the TRIO clinical study. Int J Womens Health. 2019;11:97–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mensch BS, van der Straten A, Katzen LL. Acceptability in microbicide and PrEP trials: current status and a reconceptualization. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2012;7(6):534–541.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodsong C, Musara P, Chandipwisa A, et al. Interest in multipurpose prevention of HIV and pregnancy: perspectives of women, men, health professionals and community stakeholders in two vaginal gel studies in Southern Africa. BJOG. 2014;121(Suppl 5):45–52.
   Google Scholar
• Hynes JS, Sales JM, Sheth AN, et al. Interest in multipurpose prevention technologies to prevent HIV/STIs and unintended pregnancy among young women in the United States. Contraception. 2018;97(3):277–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atujuna M, Newman PA, Wallace M, et al. Contexts of vulnerability and the acceptability of new biomedical HIV prevention technologies among key populations in South Africa: A qualitative study. PloS One. 2018;13(2):e0191251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thummalachetty N, Mathur S, Mullinax M, et al. Contraceptive knowledge, perceptions, and concerns among men in Uganda. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):792.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Higgins JA, Kramer RD, Ryder KM. Provider bias in long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) promotion and removal: perceptions of young adult women. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(11):1932–1937.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duvall S, Thurston S, Weinberger M, et al. Scaling up delivery of contraceptive implants in sub-Saharan Africa: operational experiences of Marie Stopes international. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2014;2(1):72–92.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts ST, Nair G, Baeten JM, et al. Impact of male partner involvement on women's adherence to the dapivirine vaginal ring during a phase III HIV prevention trial. AIDS Behav. 2020;24:1432–1442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montgomery ET, van der Straten A, Chidanyika A, et al. The importance of male partner involvement for women's acceptability and adherence to female-initiated HIV prevention methods in Zimbabwe. AIDS Behav. 2011;15(5):959–969.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cabral A JMB, Ngure K, et al. Intimate partner violence and self-reported pre-exposure prophylaxis interruptions among HIV-negative partners in HIV serodiscordant couples in Kenya and Uganda. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2018;77(2):154–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilson D, Ahmed R, Bobin N. Increasing LARC uptake in Kenya through improved demand creation strategies and provider support; 2015. [cited 2018 Sept 3]. Available from: https://www.psi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/WHP-Kenya_July-274.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Markowitz M, Gettie A, St. Bernard L, et al. Weekly oral Islatravir provides effective PEP against IV challenge with SIVMAC251. Boston (MA): CROI, March 8–11; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Donnelly RF, Larraneta E. Microarray patches: potentially useful delivery systems for long-acting nanosuspensions. Drug Discov Today. 2018;23(5):1026–1033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthews R, Barrett S, Patel M, et al. First-in-human trial of MK-8591-eluting implants demonstrates concentrations suitable for HIV prophylaxis for at least one year. Mexico City: IAS 2019; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson LM, Krovi SA, Li L, et al. Characterization of a reservoir-style implant for sustained release of tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Pharmaceutics. 2019;11; 315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar