Allen Caroline F, Lees Shelley S, Desmond Nicola A, Der Geoff, Chiduo Betty, Hambleton Ian, Knight Louise, Vallely Andrew, Ross David A, Hayes Richard J
Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Sex Transm Infect. 2007 Oct;83(6):490-6; discussion 496-7. doi: 10.1136/sti.2007.024810.
To compare coital diaries and face-to-face interviews (FFIs) in measuring sexual behaviour among women at high risk of HIV. To assess the effect of differing levels of support from researchers on reporting in coital diaries and FFIs.
Three groups of 50 women were randomly selected from a cohort of food and recreational facility workers participating in a microbicide trial feasibility study and received differing levels of researcher support. Minimum support involved delivering and collecting coital diaries weekly; medium support included a weekly FFI and discussion of concerns; intensive support also included an unscheduled mid-week visit when diaries were checked and concerns addressed. All respondents participated in an exit FFI, including questions on sexual behaviour over the four-week study period and study acceptability.
Sexual behaviours were generally reported more frequently in coital diaries than weekly or exit interviews. Vaginal and anal sex, male and female condom use, vaginal cleaning and lubrication, sex during menstruation and sex with irregular and regular partners were reported more frequently in coital diaries than exit interviews. In coital diaries, level of support was associated with reporting of vaginal sex and cleaning. In exit interviews, support level was associated with reporting of vaginal sex, vaginal cleaning and sex with regular, irregular and commercial partners. Women with minimum support reported least satisfaction with the research process. Women with intensive support were most likely to report that they informed someone about their study participation and that they completed diaries daily.
Compared with FFIs, coital diaries resulted in higher reporting of socially stigmatised activities, and sexual behaviour reporting varied less by level of support. More researcher support enhanced study acceptability.
比较性交日记与面对面访谈(FFIs)在衡量艾滋病毒高风险女性性行为方面的差异。评估研究人员不同程度的支持对性交日记和面对面访谈报告的影响。
从参与杀微生物剂试验可行性研究的食品和娱乐设施工作人员队列中随机选取三组,每组50名女性,她们获得了不同程度的研究人员支持。最低支持包括每周发放和收集性交日记;中等支持包括每周一次的面对面访谈以及对问题的讨论;强化支持还包括在周中进行一次不定期访问,检查日记并解决问题。所有受访者都参与了退出时的面对面访谈,包括关于四周研究期间性行为和研究可接受性的问题。
与每周或退出访谈相比,性交日记中报告的性行为通常更频繁。与退出访谈相比,性交日记中报告的阴道和肛交、男用和女用避孕套使用、阴道清洁和润滑、经期性行为以及与固定和不固定伴侣的性行为更为频繁。在性交日记中,支持程度与阴道性行为和清洁的报告有关。在退出访谈中,支持程度与阴道性行为、阴道清洁以及与固定、不固定和商业性伴侣的性行为报告有关。获得最低支持的女性对研究过程的满意度最低。获得强化支持的女性最有可能报告她们告知了某人自己参与了研究,并且她们每天都完成了日记。
与面对面访谈相比,性交日记导致对社会污名化活动的报告率更高,并且性行为报告因支持程度的差异较小。更多的研究人员支持提高了研究的可接受性。