Table 2.
Participants’ behaviour and assessments of TRIO study products (N = 249)
| TRIO study product | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| Tablets | Ring | Injections | |
| N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | |
| At month 3 | |||
| Ranked as top preferred MPTa | 37 (15) | 31 (12) | 155 (62) |
| Ranked as least preferred MPTa | 86 (35) | 103 (41) | 13 (5) |
| Chose to use product in stage 2b | 52 (21) | 37 (15) | 160 (64) |
| Disinterest in using product in the futurec | 108 (43) | 118 (47) | 13 (5) |
| At month 4 | |||
| Switched to product | 22 (9) | 12 (5) | 16 (6) |
| Switched away from product | 11 (4) | 12 (5) | 27 (11) |
MPT, multipurpose prevention technology.
Ranking (from 1 to 4) was among the three TRIO products and male condoms, a known MPT, assuming all products had the same effectiveness as male condoms to prevent HIV and unplanned pregnancy.
Among those, twenty‐three participants (9%) chose to use a product that was not their most preferred one. Of those 23, three‐quarters (n = 17) preferred injections but chose to use tablets (n = 10) or the ring (n = 7). Three of the 23 participants chose a product they would “definitely not consider using in the future:” two chose tablets (reason provided was they “are easy” and “not painful”), and one chose the ring (because she initially found it uncomfortable but wanted to try it again).
Participants were presented with the 3 TRIO products and could choose more than one option. There were 16 participants who openly indicated they would consider using all three products in the future.