The female condom and STDs: Design of a community intervention trial

Citation
Pj. Feldblum et al., The female condom and STDs: Design of a community intervention trial, ANN EPIDEMI, 10(6), 2000, pp. 339-346
Citations number
46
Categorie Soggetti
Envirnomentale Medicine & Public Health
Journal title
ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
ISSN journal
10472797 → ACNP
Volume
10
Issue
6
Year of publication
2000
Pages
339 - 346
Database
ISI
SICI code
1047-2797(200008)10:6<339:TFCASD>2.0.ZU;2-C
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The main purpose of this study is to compare sexually transmitt ed disease (STD) prevalence in cohorts of women with and without access to female condoms. METHODS: Six matched pairs of communities were identified from Kenya tea, c offee and flower plantations. One community within each pair was randomly s elected to receive the female condom intervention. Approximately 160 eligib le women were enrolled at each site. Female condom communities underwent an education program on use of female and male condoms and STDs, comprising g roup meetings, puppetry and other folk media, and training of clinic servic e providers and community outreach workers. Control communities received si milar information on use of male condoms (freely available at all sites). A t baseline, participants were tested for cervical gonorrhea and chlamydia a nd Vaginal trichomoniasis, to be repeated at 6 and 12 months. The study has 80% power to detect a 10% prevalence difference, assuming an aggregate STD prevalence of 20% with 25% loss to follow-up and intracluster correlation of 0.03. RESULTS: Among 1929 women at baseline, the mean age was 33.1 years; 78% had never used a male condom. The prevalences of gonorrhea, chlamydia and tric homoniasis were 2.6%, 3.2% and 20.4%, respectively (23.9% overall). The int racluster correlation based on these data was near zero. CONCLUSIONS: Comparable pairs of study sites have been selected. STD preval ence is sufficiently high, and the variation between sites is acceptably lo w. The study is feasible as designed. Ann Epidemiol 2000;10:339-346. (C) 20 00 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.