Table 1.
Summary of acceptability articles published in 2011 and 2012
| Authors | Publication Date | Country(ies) | Population(s)** | Product Type | Route of Administration | Product | Acceptability Measure(s)† | Analysis Linking Acceptability to Use/Adherence | Data Collection Method(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brooks et al. [15] | 2012 | US | 25 GBM SDC | Hypothetical | Oral | PrEP tablet | C, E, F, H, I | No | Mixed Methods |
| Brooks et al. [16] | 2011 | US | 25 GBM SDC | Hypothetical | Oral | PrEP tablet | C, E, F, G, H, I | No | Qualitative |
| Carballo-Diéguez et al. [17*] | 2011 | US/Puerto Rico | 61 WSM | Actual | Vaginal | VivaGel® | A, D, E, F, G, I | No | Mixed Methods |
| Eisingerich et al. [18*] | 2012 | Botswana, India, Kenya, Peru, Uganda, South Africa | 1790 FSW, IDU, MSM, SDC, WSM | Hypothetical | Oral/parenteral | PrEP tablet, Injection | B, C,D, E, G, H, I | No | Quantitative |
| Frezieres et al. [19] | 2012 | US | 34 heterosexual couples | Actual | Vaginal | BufferGel, SILCS diaphragm | A, B, C, E, F, G, I | No | Mixed Methods |
| Galea, et al. [20] | 2011 | Peru | 45 FSW, TG, MSM | Hypothetical | Oral | PrEP tablet | C,D, E, G, H, I | No | Mixed Methods |
| Giguere et al. [21] | 2012 | US/Puerto Rico | 61 WSM | Actual | Vaginal | VivaGel® | A, D, E, F, G, H, I | No | Mixed Methods |
| Heffron et al. [22] | 2012 | Kenya | 181 heterosexual SDC | Hypothetical | Oral | Early ART or PrEP tablet | C, E, D, G, I | No | Quantitative |
| Hoel et al. [23] | 2011 | South Africa | 29 WSM | Hypothetical | Vaginal | Microbicide | G, H, I | No | Qualitative |
| Kohli et al. [24] | 2011 | India | 15 MSW | Hypothetical | Vaginal | Microbicide | E, F, G, H, I | No | Qualitative |
| Mahan et al. [25] | 2011 | US | 10 WSM | Proxy/Placebo | Vaginal | Lubricant | A (perceptual differences) | No | Quantitative |
| McGowan et al. [26] | 2011 | US | 61 WSM | Actual | Vaginal | VivaGel® | C, E, I | No | Quantitative |
| Mutua et al. [27] | 2012 | Kenya | 67 MSM, 5 FSW | Actual | Oral | FTC/TDF tablet | C, D, I | No | Quantitative |
| Nel et al. [28*] | 2011 | Burkina Faso, Tanzania, Zambia | 526 WSM, 31 MSW partners | Proxy/Placebo | Vaginal | Film, soft-gel capsule (SGC), tablet | A, B, D, E, F, G, I | No | Quantitative |
| van der Straten at al. [12*] | 2012 | Zimbabwe | 80 WSM, 20 MSW partners | Actual | Vaginal | BufferGel/Duet cervical barrier | D, E, F, G | Yes | Mixed Methods |
| van der Straten at al. [13*] | 2012 | South Africa, Tanzania | 157 WSM, 19 MSW partners | Proxy/Placebo | Vaginal | Silicone elastomer ring | C, D, E, F, G, H, I | No | Mixed Methods |
| Whitehead et al. [29] | 2011 | Thailand | 60 HIV+ WSM | Actual | Vaginal | Carraguard® gel | A, C, E, F, G | No | Quantitative |
| Zhou et al. [30] | 2012 | China | 152 MSM | Hypothetical | Oral | PrEP tablet | C, E, H, I | No | Quantitative |
Female sex workers (FSW), Gay and bisexual men (GBM), Injecting drug users (IDU), Men who have sex with men (MSM), Men who have sex with women (MSW), Sero-discordant couples (SDC), Transgender (TG), Women who have sex with men (WSM)
(A) Product characteristics (color, smell, size, volume, consistency); (B) Delivery mechanism, (tablet, gel, ring, film, suppository); (C) Efficacy (hypothetical); (D) Dosing regimen, (daily, precoital, percoital, intermittent ); (E) Use attributes, (physical sensation in situ, ease and comfort of use, discreteness/secrecy leakiness, side effects, ancillary benefits); (F) Effects of product on the sexual encounter (lubrication, effect on sexual pleasure); (G) Partner's attitude, (awareness, support, approval/disapproval); (H) Product-associated norms (stigma, community attitudes about formulation); (I) Willingness to use