Galvão Loren W, Oliveira Laurione C, Díaz Juan, Kim Dhong-Jin, Marchi Nádia, van Dam Johannes, Castilho Roger F, Chen Michael, Macaluso Maurizio
Population Council, Campinas, 13083-745, Brazil.
Contraception. 2005 Feb;71(2):130-6. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2004.08.008.
Comparison of male condom (MC) vs. female condom (FC) with respect to self-reported mechanical and acceptability problems and semen exposure using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as an objective biological marker and evaluation of the effect of an educational intervention on self-reported problems and semen exposure, by condom type.
Randomized crossover trial.
Four hundred women attending a family planning clinic in Brazil were randomized and either received in-clinic instruction or were encouraged to read the condom package insert; all used two FCs and two MCs. We measured the rates of self-reported user problems with MC and FC use and the rates of semen exposure during use (assessed by testing vaginal fluid for PSA).
The educational intervention group reported fewer problems with either condom as compared with the control group (p = .0004, stratified by condom type). In both groups, self-reported problems were more frequent with FC use than with MC use (p < .0001, stratified by intervention). The educational intervention did not significantly reduce semen exposure. Overall, semen exposure occurred more frequently with FC use (postcoital PSA, > 1 ng/mL; 22%) than with MC use (15%); the difference, however, was small and nonsignificant for high PSA levels (> or = 150 ng/mL; 5.1% for FC vs. 3.6% for MC).
In this study, the FC was less effective than the MC in preventing semen exposure during use and led more frequently to self-reported user problems. Both devices were highly protective against "high-level" semen exposure, as measured by postcoital PSA levels in vaginal fluid. In-clinic education may reduce user problems and increase acceptability and use of both devices.
比较男用避孕套(MC)和女用避孕套(FC)在自我报告的机械问题和可接受性问题方面的差异,以及使用前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)作为客观生物学标志物评估精液暴露情况,并按避孕套类型评估教育干预对自我报告问题和精液暴露的影响。
随机交叉试验。
在巴西一家计划生育诊所就诊的400名女性被随机分组,要么接受诊所内指导,要么被鼓励阅读避孕套包装说明书;所有人都使用两个FC和两个MC。我们测量了使用MC和FC时自我报告的使用者问题发生率以及使用期间的精液暴露率(通过检测阴道液中的PSA进行评估)。
与对照组相比,教育干预组报告的两种避孕套的问题均较少(p = 0.0004,按避孕套类型分层)。在两组中,自我报告的FC使用问题比MC使用问题更频繁(p < 0.0001,按干预分层)。教育干预并未显著降低精液暴露率。总体而言,FC使用时精液暴露比MC使用时更频繁(性交后PSA>1 ng/mL;22%);然而,对于高PSA水平(≥150 ng/mL;FC为5.1%,MC为3.6%),差异较小且无统计学意义。
在本研究中,FC在使用过程中预防精液暴露方面不如MC有效,且更频繁地导致自我报告的使用者问题。通过阴道液中性交后PSA水平衡量,两种避孕套对“高水平”精液暴露均有高度防护作用。诊所内教育可能会减少使用者问题,提高两种避孕套的可接受性和使用率。