No abstract

Microbicides are most usually conceptualised within a disease prevention framework and studies usually define acceptability in terms of product characteristics, willingness to use and risk reduction. This starting point has led to assumptions about microbicides which, rather than being challenged by empirical studies, have tended to foreclose the data and subsequent conceptual models. Few studies take an emic ('insider') perspective or attempt to understand how microbicides fit into the broader context of women's and men's everyday lives. As part of the integrated social science component of the MDP301 Phase III microbicide trial, in-depth interviews were conducted with female trial participants in South Africa, Zambia, Tanzania and Uganda. Women's experiences of the gel challenge several assumptions that have commonly been reiterated about microbicides. Our analysis suggests that current definitions and conceptual frameworks do not adequately account for the range of meanings that women attribute to gel. Even within the context of a clinical trial, it is possible to obtain a richer, ethnographic and cross-cultural concept of acceptability based on women's practice and emic interpretations. We now need to move beyond limited notions of acceptability and consider how microbicides fit into a more holistic picture of women's and men's sexuality and sexual health.

BackgroundThe collection of accurate data on adherence and sexual behaviour is crucial in microbicide (and other HIV-related) research. In the absence of a “gold standard” the collection of such data relies largely on participant self-reporting. After reviewing available methods, this paper describes a mixed method/triangulation model for generating more accurate data on adherence and sexual behaviour in a multi-centre vaginal microbicide clinical trial. In a companion paper some of the results from this model are presented [1].Methodology/Principal FindingsData were collected from a random subsample of 725 women (7.7% of the trial population) using structured interviews, coital diaries, in-depth interviews, counting returned gel applicators, focus group discussions, and ethnography. The core of the model was a customised, semi-structured in-depth interview. There were two levels of triangulation: first, discrepancies between data from the questionnaires, diaries, in-depth interviews and applicator returns were identified, discussed with participants and, to a large extent, resolved; second, results from individual participants were related to more general data emerging from the focus group discussions and ethnography. A democratic and equitable collaboration between clinical trialists and qualitative social scientists facilitated the success of the model, as did the preparatory studies preceding the trial. The process revealed some of the underlying assumptions and routinised practices in “clinical trial culture” that are potentially detrimental to the collection of accurate data, as well as some of the shortcomings of large qualitative studies, and pointed to some potential solutions.Conclusions/SignificanceThe integration of qualitative social science and the use of mixed methods and triangulation in clinical trials are feasible, and can reveal (and resolve) inaccuracies in data on adherence and sensitive behaviours, as well as illuminating aspects of “trial culture” that may also affect data accuracy.

BackgroundAccurate data on adherence and sexual behaviour are crucial in microbicide (and other HIV-related) research. In the absence of a “gold standard” the collection of such data relies largely on participant self-reporting. The Microbicides Development Programme has developed a mixed method/triangulation model for generating more accurate data on adherence and sexual behaviour.Methodology/Principal FindingsData were collected from a random subsample of 725 women using structured case record form (CRF) interviews, coital diaries (CD) and in-depth interviews (IDI). Returned used and unused gel applicators were counted and additional data collected through focus group discussions and ethnography. The model is described in detail in a companion paper [1]. When CRF, CD and IDI are compared there is some inconsistency with regard to reporting of sexual behaviour, gel or condom use in more than half. Inaccuracies are least prevalent in the IDI and most prevalent in the CRF, where participants tend to under-report frequency of sex and gel and condom use. Women reported more sex, gel and condom use than their partners. IDI data on adherence match the applicator-return data more closely than the CRF. The main reasons for inaccuracies are participants forgetting, interviewer error, desirability bias, problems with the definition and delineation of key concepts (e.g. “sex act”). Most inaccuracies were unintentional and could be rectified during data collection.Conclusions/SignificanceThe CRF – the main source of self-report data on behaviour and adherence in many studies – was the least accurate with regard to measuring sexual behaviour, gel and condom use. This has important implications for the use of structured questionnaires for the collection of data on sexual behaviour and adherence. Integrating in-depth interviews and triangulation into clinical trials could increase the richness and accuracy of behavioural and adherence data.