Vaginal rings address a critical need for an independently initiated, long-acting HIV prevention method, but their design must be acceptable to promote uptake and adherence. Human-centered design (HCD) may help address design preference questions. In two Phase I studies of vaginal rings for HIV prevention conducted in the United States, we used qualitative interviews to assess participants' perceptions and opinions of the physical characteristics of the ring they used and of a ring's physical characteristics after comparing four ring designs presented via a visual tool. Users were found to prefer ring designs that appear easy to use, are physically comfortable, that function well, and are aesthetically pleasing. The parameters for these features varied widely. Product developers and marketers should consider marketing messages in which the target users feel this product is made to meet their needs and desires. Product developers are encouraged to design using HCD early in ring development (Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03234400 and NCT03670355).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
UNAIDS: Global HIV & AIDS statistics 2020 fact sheet. Available at https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/fact-sheet (2019), accessed November20, 2020.
2.
SidebottomD, EkströmAM, StrömdahlS: A systematic review of adherence to oral pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV—How can we improve uptake and adherence?. BMC Infect Dis, 2018; 18:581–581.
3.
van der StratenA, MontgomeryET, MusaraP, et al.: Disclosure of pharmacokinetic drug results to understand nonadherence. AIDS (London, England), 2015; 29:2161–2171.
4.
GriffinJB, RidgewayK, MontgomeryE, et al.: Vaginal ring acceptability and related preferences among women in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. PLoS One, 2019; 14:e0224898.
5.
MusaraP, MilfordC, Shapley-QuinnMK, et al.: Preferences and acceptability of vaginal delivery forms for HIV prevention among women, male partners and key informants in South Africa and Zimbabwe: Qualitative findings. AIDS Behav, 2021; 25:124–138.
6.
van der StratenA, BrowneEN, Shapley-QuinnMK, et al.: First impressions matter: How initial worries influence adherence to the dapivirine vaginal ring. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr, 2019; 81:304–310.
7.
Morrow GuthrieK, VargasS, ShawJG, et al.: The promise of intravaginal rings for prevention: User perceptions of biomechanical properties and implications for prevention product development. PLoS One, 2015; 10:e0145642.
8.
RosenRK, van den BergJJ, VargasSE, et al.: Meaning-making matters in product design: Users' sensory perceptions and experience evaluations of long-acting vaginal gels and intravaginal rings. Contraception, 2015; 92:596–601.
9.
BauermeisterJA, GolinkoffJM, Carballo-DiéguezA, et al.: A mixed-methods study examining adherence to and acceptability of intravaginal rings for HIV prevention: Behavioral results of MTN-027. AIDS Behav, 2020; 24:607–616.
10.
HolemanI, KaneD: Human-centered design for global health equity. Inf Technol Dev, 2020; 26:477–505.
11.
BiroscakBJ, SchneiderT, Martinez TysonD, Aguado LoiCX, BryantCA: Applying tools from human-centered design to social marketing planning. Soc Mar Q, 2018; 24:63–73.
12.
WangY, MasoodianM: Designing visual tools to facilitate human-centered design. Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. Salerno, Italy: Association for Computing Machinery, 2020:Article 81.
13.
GleggSMN: Facilitating interviews in qualitative research with visual tools: A typology. Qual Health Res, 2019; 29:301–310.
14.
GuthrieKM, RohanL, RosenRK, et al.: Vaginal film for prevention of HIV: Using visual and tactile evaluations among potential users to inform product design. Pharm Dev Technol, 2018; 23:311–314.
15.
MorrowKM, FavaJL, RosenRK, et al.: Willingness to use microbicides is affected by the importance of product characteristics, use parameters, and protective properties. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr, 2007; 45:93–101.
16.
TolleyEE, MorrowKM, OwenDH: Designing a multipurpose technology for acceptability and adherence. Antiviral Res, 2013; 100Suppl:S54–S59.
GuthrieKM, DunsigerS, VargasSE, et al.: Perceptibility and the ‘Choice Experience’: User sensory perceptions and experiences inform vaginal prevention product design. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses, 2016; 32:1022–1030.
19.
GuthrieKM, RosenRK, VargasSE, et al.: User evaluations offer promise for pod-intravaginal ring as a drug delivery platform: A mixed methods study of acceptability and use experiences. PLoS One, 2018; 13:e0197269.
20.
Clinicaltrials.gov. A phase 1, randomized pharmacokinetics and safety study of extended duration dapivirine vaginal rings. Available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03234400 (2019), accessed November9, 2020.
21.
Clinicaltrials.gov. Pharmacokinetic and safety study of a 90 day intravaginal ring containing tenofovir. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03670355 (2019), accessed November9, 2020.
22.
MenschBS, van der StratenA, KatzenLL: Acceptability in microbicide and PrEP trials: Current status and a reconceptualization. Curr Opin HIV AIDS, 2012; 7:534–541.
23.
JohnsonTJ, ClarkMR, AlbrightTH, et al.: A 90-day tenofovir reservoir intravaginal ring for mucosal HIV prophylaxis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2012; 56:6272–6283.
24.
ThurmanAR, SchwartzJL, BracheV, et al.: Randomized, placebo controlled phase I trial of safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and acceptability of tenofovir and tenofovir plus levonorgestrel vaginal rings in women. PLoS One, 2018; 13:e0199778.
25.
RobertsST, HawleyI, LueckeEH, et al.: Acceptability and preference for 3-month versus 1-month vaginal rings for HIV-1 risk reduction among participants in a phase 1 trial. Paper presented at: AIDS 2020 Virtual: 23rd International AIDS Conference, 2020.
26.
LiuAY, Dominguez IslasC, GundackerH, et al.: Phase 1 pharmacokinetics and safety study of extended duration dapivirine vaginal rings in the United States. J Int AIDS Soc, 2021; 24:e25747.
27.
Stoner MCDBE, GundackerHM, HawleyI, et al.: Acceptability of an extended duration vaginal ring for HIV prevention and interest in a multi-purpose ring. Plos One. Under Review.
28.
MTNstopshiv.org. MTN-036/IPM 047 Study Implementation Materials. Available at https://mtnstopshiv.org/research/studies/mtn-036ipm-047/mtn-036ipm-047-study-implementation-materials, accessed August21, 2021.
29.
MTNstopshiv.org. MTN-038 Study Implementation Materials. Available at https://mtnstopshiv.org/research/studies/mtn-038/mtn-038-study-implementation-materials, accessed August21, 2021.
30.
VincentKL, MossJA, MarzinkeMA, et al.: Safety and pharmacokinetics of single, dual, and triple antiretroviral drug formulations delivered by pod-intravaginal rings designed for HIV-1 prevention: A Phase I trial. PLoS Med, 2018; 15:e1002655.
31.
BischofN, ComiA, EpplerMJ: Knowledge visualization in qualitative methods—Or How Can I See What I Say? Paper presented at: 2011 15th International Conference on Information Visualisation, 2011.
32.
McCoyCF, MillarBG, MurphyDJ, et al.: Mechanical testing methods for drug-releasing vaginal rings. Int J Pharm, 2019; 559:182–191.
33.
RogersE: Diffusion of innovations,5th ed. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 2003.
34.
SteenM: Tensions in human-centred design. CoDesign, 2011; 7:45–60.
35.
MontgomeryET, van der StratenA, ChitukutaM, et al.: Acceptability and use of a dapivirine vaginal ring in a phase III trial. AIDS (London, England), 2017; 31:1159–1167.
36.
WeinribR, BrowneEN, Shapley-QuinnMK, et al.: Perspectives from young South African and Zimbabwean Women on attributes of four (placebo) vaginal microbicide delivery forms. AIDS Behav, 2020; 24:637–647.
37.
AgotK, LutnickA, Shapley-QuinnM, et al.: I felt like a TRIO champion? End-user perspectives on their role as co-designers of multi-purpose technologies [version 1; peer review: Awaiting peer review]. Gates Open Res, 2020; 4:163.
38.
KiserPF, JohnsonTJ, ClarkJT: State of the art in intravaginal ring technology for topical prophylaxis of HIV infection. AIDS Rev, 2012; 14:62–77.
39.
MorrowKM, UnderhillK, van den BergJJ, VargasS, RosenRK, KatzDF: User-identified gel characteristics: A qualitative exploration of perceived product efficacy of topical vaginal microbicides. Arch Sex Behav, 2014; 43:1459–1467.
40.
KrogstadEA, AtujunaM, MontgomeryET, et al.: Perspectives of South African youth in the development of an implant for HIV prevention. J Int AIDS Soc, 2018; 21:e25170–e25170.
41.
van VelsenL, EversM, BaraC-D, Op den AkkerH, BoeremaS, HermensH: Understanding the acceptance of an ehealth technology in the early stages of development: An end-user walkthrough approach and two case studies. JMIR Form Res, 2018; 2:e10474–e10474.
42.
LutnickA, Shapley-QuinnMK, ManenzheKN, et al.: Two birds with one stone: Health care providers' perspectives about prevention technologies in Kenya and South Africa. J Int Assoc Providers of AIDS Care, 2019; 18:2325958219841366.
43.
van der StratenA, RyanJH, ReddyK, et al.: Influences on willingness to use vaginal or oral HIV PrEP during pregnancy and breastfeeding in Africa: The multisite MAMMA study. J Int AIDS Soc, 2020; 23:e25536.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
