IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1992825669-674_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Barrier contraceptives and sexually transmitted diseases in women: A comparison of female-dependent methods and condoms

Author

Listed:
  • Rosenberg, M.J.
  • Davidson, A.J.
  • Chen, J.-H.
  • Judson, F.N.
  • Douglas, J.M.

Abstract

Introduction. Most efforts at sexually transmitted disease (STD) protection center on condom use, but little is known about how condoms compare with other barrier methods, particularly those controlled by women. Methods. To evaluate the effect of different barrier contraceptives on the prevalence of STDs and other vaginal infections, we retrospectively studied 5681 visits by women to an urban STD clinic. Results. As compared with women using no contraceptive or with tubal ligations, women using the contraceptive sponge or diaphragm had at least 65% lower rates of infection with Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Trichomonas vaginalis, while condom users had 34% and 30% lower rates, respectively. For Chlamydia trachomatis, the reduction was 13% among sponge users, 72% among diaphragm users, and 3% among condom users, although these differences were not significant. When compared with women using condoms, women using female-dependent methods (sponge or diaphragm) had significantly lower rates of both gonorrhea and trichomoniasis. Vaginal candidiasis was more common among women using diaphragms but not other barrier methods, while rates of bacterial vaginosis were similar among all groups. Conclusions. Women using the contraceptive sponge or diaphragm experience protection from STDs to a greater extent than those relying on condoms. Female-dependent barrier contraceptives should receive more attention in STD risk-reduction programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosenberg, M.J. & Davidson, A.J. & Chen, J.-H. & Judson, F.N. & Douglas, J.M., 1992. "Barrier contraceptives and sexually transmitted diseases in women: A comparison of female-dependent methods and condoms," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 82(5), pages 669-674.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1992:82:5:669-674_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Valerie F. Reyna & Mary B. Adam, 2003. "Fuzzy‐Trace Theory, Risk Communication, and Product Labeling in Sexually Transmitted Diseases," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 325-342, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1992:82:5:669-674_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.