Hardy Ellen, Hebling Eliana M, Sousa Maria H, Almeida Anecy F, Amaral Eliana
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, São Paulo 13.083-970, Brazil.
Contraception. 2007 Aug;76(2):126-31. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2007.04.013. Epub 2007 Jun 27.
A crossover study was carried out in 405 couples to compare women's difficulties with three different devices that could be used to administer a microbicide and to evaluate adherence to use and preference for any one of the devices.
Couples used a single size diaphragm, a vaginal ring or disposable applicators for 1 month each in a randomly assigned order.
Few women reported difficulty using the applicators or the ring; however, almost two-thirds reported difficulty using the diaphragm. Approximately 5%, 10% and 40% of the women and a similar but slightly lower percentage of their partners reported incorrect use of the applicator, vaginal ring and diaphragm, respectively. About half the women preferred the vaginal ring, while around half the men preferred the applicator.
The release of microbicides from a vaginal ring is a lead worth pursuing. The diaphragm is the only one of the three devices that also offers mechanical protection, but it requires greater investment in patient education to ensure adherence to use.
对405对夫妇进行了一项交叉研究，以比较女性使用三种不同的可用于施用杀微生物剂的器械时遇到的困难，并评估对器械使用的依从性以及对任何一种器械的偏好。
夫妇们按随机分配的顺序，每种器械各使用1个月，分别是单一尺寸的子宫帽、阴道环或一次性 applicators。
很少有女性报告使用 applicators 或阴道环有困难；然而，近三分之二的女性报告使用子宫帽有困难。分别约有5%、10%和40%的女性以及比例相近但略低的其伴侣报告使用 applicator、阴道环和子宫帽不正确。约一半的女性更喜欢阴道环，而约一半的男性更喜欢 applicator。
从阴道环释放杀微生物剂是一个值得探索的方向。子宫帽是这三种器械中唯一还提供机械保护的，但需要在患者教育方面投入更多，以确保坚持使用。
