Table 2.
Rotated factor pattern and final communality estimates from principal component analysis of participants' (and participants' perception of partners') knowledge, attitude, or practices regarding diaphragm use with “helping” partner, Nairobi, Kenya, 2004-2005*.
| Knowledge, attitude, or practices† | Component 1 (Perceived partner support of diaphragm use)* | Component 2 (Attitudes toward study product attributes)* | Communality estimate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlikely that “helping” partner would make fun of participant for diaphragm + gel use | .58* | .01 | .33 |
| Unlikely that “helping” partner would argue because of diaphragm + gel use | .89* | .12 | .80 |
| Unlikely that “helping” partner would get mad because of diaphragm + gel use | .87* | .14 | .77 |
| Unlikely that “helping” partner would hit or beat participant because of diaphragm + gel use | .76* | .05 | .57 |
| Unlikely that “helping” partner would refuse sex because of diaphragm + gel use | .91* | .13 | .84 |
| Unlikely that “helping” partner would end relationship because of diaphragm + gel use | .89* | .12 | .81 |
| Unlikely that “helping” partner would stop support because of diaphragm + gel use | .89* | .08 | .80 |
| If participant wanted to use diaphragm + gel and “helping” partner did not, he would not refuse to have sex with diaphragm + gel | .69* | .06 | .48 |
| If participant wanted to use diaphragm + gel and “helping” partner did not, he would not talk participant out of use | .51* | .14 | .28 |
| If participant wanted to use diaphragm + gel and “helping” partner did not, he would not insist on non-use | .51* | .13 | .28 |
| “Helping partner” likes extra lubrication from diaphragm + gel use | .46* | .31 | .30 |
| Likes extra lubricant from diaphragm + gel use | .10 | .63* | .41 |
| No hormonal side effects is benefit of diaphragm + gel use | .01 | .51* | .26 |
| Lubrication is benefit of diaphragm + gel use | .09 | .63* | .40 |
| Uninterrupted sex is benefit of diaphragm + gel use | .10 | .62* | .39 |
*Factor loading was .40 or greater for the given component; based on 313 intervals from 121 women who reported having sex with “helping” partner during at least one follow-up interval.
† The following factors did not load on either component: Diaphragm + gel use is easier than condom use; Diaphragms + gel are very effective in protecting against HIV or other STDs; Diaphragms + gel are very effective in protecting against pregnancy; Important to use diaphragms + gel with all partners; Does not prefer condoms to diaphragm + gel; Plans to use diaphragm + gel at next coitus with "helping" partner; Ability to use without partner permission is benefit of diaphragm + gel use; Ability to use without partner awareness is benefit of diaphragm + gel use; No need for condoms is benefit of diaphragm + gel; Important that diaphragm use does not interrupt sex.