Ann Gottert, Barbara A Friedland, Marlena Plagianos, Brady Zieman, Jessica M Sales, Jessica Atrio, Shakti Shetty, Caio Sant'Anna Marinho, Nicole Roselli, Ruth Merkatz, Irene Bruce, Lisa B Haddad
{"title":"美国女性及其男性伴侣多维阴道内环接受度量表的开发和验证。","authors":"Ann Gottert, Barbara A Friedland, Marlena Plagianos, Brady Zieman, Jessica M Sales, Jessica Atrio, Shakti Shetty, Caio Sant'Anna Marinho, Nicole Roselli, Ruth Merkatz, Irene Bruce, Lisa B Haddad","doi":"10.1111/psrh.70009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Intravaginal rings (IVRs) are marketed or in development for contraception and other indications. We sought to develop and validate the IVR Acceptability Scale (IVR-AS) as a multidimensional, standardized tool for assessing IVR acceptability among end-users in the United States.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Scale items reflect specific aspects of IVR acceptability for women and male partners. Response options range from 1 (not-at-all acceptable) to 5 (highly acceptable). We evaluated the IVR-AS within a randomized, crossover clinical trial of three nonmedicated silicone IVRs of differing external diameters (46, 56, 66 mm) in heterosexual couples who used each for ~30 days, then completed a self-administered survey. We conducted exploratory factor analysis and multivariable regression to assess convergent validity. Follow-up in-depth interviews with all participants explored scale salience.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-four couples participated (mean age 27). The final 19-item women's scale (Cronbach's alpha = 0.93) included six subdimensions: ease of use; experience and sensation; effect on sexual desire/engagement, and effect on vaginal sex (all alphas > 0.78). The final eight-item men's scale comprised two subdimensions: effect on sexual desire/engagement and effect on vaginal sex (all alphas > 0.89). For both sexes, higher overall/subdimension scores were consistently associated with favorable assessments of the ring, for example, ease of insertion/removal; adherence (most p < 0.001). The 46/56 mm IVRs had higher overall and subdimension scores than the 66 mm IVR (most p < 0.001). Qualitative reports reinforced the salience of scale subdimensions and item content.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The IVR-AS captures multiple dimensions of IVR acceptability among women and their partners. The scales demonstrated excellent reliability and convergent validity. Further validation is warranted in future studies.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Clinical Trials.gov: NCT05128136. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05128136?intr=non-medicated%20silicone%20ring&rank=2.</p>","PeriodicalId":47632,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Intravaginal Ring Acceptability Scale Among US Women and Their Male Partners.\",\"authors\":\"Ann Gottert, Barbara A Friedland, Marlena Plagianos, Brady Zieman, Jessica M Sales, Jessica Atrio, Shakti Shetty, Caio Sant'Anna Marinho, Nicole Roselli, Ruth Merkatz, Irene Bruce, Lisa B Haddad\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/psrh.70009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Intravaginal rings (IVRs) are marketed or in development for contraception and other indications. We sought to develop and validate the IVR Acceptability Scale (IVR-AS) as a multidimensional, standardized tool for assessing IVR acceptability among end-users in the United States.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Scale items reflect specific aspects of IVR acceptability for women and male partners. Response options range from 1 (not-at-all acceptable) to 5 (highly acceptable). We evaluated the IVR-AS within a randomized, crossover clinical trial of three nonmedicated silicone IVRs of differing external diameters (46, 56, 66 mm) in heterosexual couples who used each for ~30 days, then completed a self-administered survey. We conducted exploratory factor analysis and multivariable regression to assess convergent validity. Follow-up in-depth interviews with all participants explored scale salience.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-four couples participated (mean age 27). The final 19-item women's scale (Cronbach's alpha = 0.93) included six subdimensions: ease of use; experience and sensation; effect on sexual desire/engagement, and effect on vaginal sex (all alphas > 0.78). The final eight-item men's scale comprised two subdimensions: effect on sexual desire/engagement and effect on vaginal sex (all alphas > 0.89). For both sexes, higher overall/subdimension scores were consistently associated with favorable assessments of the ring, for example, ease of insertion/removal; adherence (most p < 0.001). The 46/56 mm IVRs had higher overall and subdimension scores than the 66 mm IVR (most p < 0.001). Qualitative reports reinforced the salience of scale subdimensions and item content.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The IVR-AS captures multiple dimensions of IVR acceptability among women and their partners. The scales demonstrated excellent reliability and convergent validity. Further validation is warranted in future studies.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Clinical Trials.gov: NCT05128136. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05128136?intr=non-medicated%20silicone%20ring&rank=2.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47632,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/psrh.70009\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psrh.70009","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Intravaginal Ring Acceptability Scale Among US Women and Their Male Partners.
Objective: Intravaginal rings (IVRs) are marketed or in development for contraception and other indications. We sought to develop and validate the IVR Acceptability Scale (IVR-AS) as a multidimensional, standardized tool for assessing IVR acceptability among end-users in the United States.
Methods: Scale items reflect specific aspects of IVR acceptability for women and male partners. Response options range from 1 (not-at-all acceptable) to 5 (highly acceptable). We evaluated the IVR-AS within a randomized, crossover clinical trial of three nonmedicated silicone IVRs of differing external diameters (46, 56, 66 mm) in heterosexual couples who used each for ~30 days, then completed a self-administered survey. We conducted exploratory factor analysis and multivariable regression to assess convergent validity. Follow-up in-depth interviews with all participants explored scale salience.
Results: Twenty-four couples participated (mean age 27). The final 19-item women's scale (Cronbach's alpha = 0.93) included six subdimensions: ease of use; experience and sensation; effect on sexual desire/engagement, and effect on vaginal sex (all alphas > 0.78). The final eight-item men's scale comprised two subdimensions: effect on sexual desire/engagement and effect on vaginal sex (all alphas > 0.89). For both sexes, higher overall/subdimension scores were consistently associated with favorable assessments of the ring, for example, ease of insertion/removal; adherence (most p < 0.001). The 46/56 mm IVRs had higher overall and subdimension scores than the 66 mm IVR (most p < 0.001). Qualitative reports reinforced the salience of scale subdimensions and item content.
Conclusion: The IVR-AS captures multiple dimensions of IVR acceptability among women and their partners. The scales demonstrated excellent reliability and convergent validity. Further validation is warranted in future studies.
期刊介绍：
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health provides the latest peer-reviewed, policy-relevant research and analysis on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States and other developed countries. For more than four decades, Perspectives has offered unique insights into how reproductive health issues relate to one another; how they are affected by policies and programs; and their implications for individuals and societies. Published four times a year, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health includes original research, special reports and commentaries on the latest developments in the field of sexual and reproductive health, as well as staff-written summaries of recent findings in the field.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
