Improving the reproductive health of immigrant populations requires understanding the specific context of risk and need. As part of a field trial of the FemCap™, a woman-initiated cervical barrier contraceptive, we conducted postintervention focus group discussions (FGDs) with 20 women (five FGDs) of Haitian background, the majority of whom were born in Haiti and spoke Haitian Créole at home, at a community health center in south Florida. Participants discussed the role of religion and inequitable gender norms in Haitian traditions about family planning decisions and provided important insights into the gender-power nuances of their partnership dynamics vis à vis the use of female barrier methods. Encouraged by more equitable gender norms in the United States, participants were eager to serve as health education agents, with strong altruistic sentiments toward other Haitian girls and women who they felt could be encouraged to negotiate for greater reproductive decision-making power.
GomezAMFuentesLAllinaA. Women or LARC first? Reproductive autonomy and the promotion of long-acting reversible contraceptives. Contraception2014; 46: 171–175.
4.
GubriumACMannESBoreroS. Realizing reproductive health equity needs more than long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). Am J Public Health2016; 106: 18–19.
5.
HigginsJA. Celebration meets caution: long acting reversible contraception (LARC)'s boons, potential busts, and the benefits of a reproductive justice approach. Contraception2014; 89: 237–241.
6.
GollubELSteinZA. Beyond LARC: advancing reproductive health to include men. Am J Public Health2016; 106: 1169–1170.
7.
van der StratenASahin-HodoglugilNClouseK. Feasibility and potential acceptability of three cervical barriers among vulnerable young women in Zimbabwe. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care2010; 36: 13–19.
8.
MontgomeryETChengHvan der StratenA. Acceptability and use of the diaphragm and Replens lubricant gel for HIV prevention in Southern Africa. AIDS Behav2010; 14: 629–638.
9.
CoffeyPSKilbourne-BrookM. Wear and care of the SILCS diaphragm: experience from three countries. Sex Health2010; 7: 159–164.
10.
Sundari RavindranTRaoSS. Is the diaphragm a suitable method of contraception for low-income women: a user perspectives study, Madras, India. Beyond acceptability: users' perspectives on contraception, London: Reproductive Health Matters, for the World Health Organization, 1997, pp. 78–88. .
11.
LaraDKGrossmanDAMuñozJE. Acceptability and use of the female condom and diaphragm among sex workers in Dominican Republic: results from a prospective study. AIDS Educ Prev2009; 21: 538–551.
12.
KyamwangaITTuryakiraEKilbourne-BrookM. Potential for revitalization of the diaphragm for family planning in Uganda: a rapid assessment of the feasibility of introducing the SILCS diaphragm. Afr J Reprod Health2014; 18: 77–86.
13.
Di Giacomo do LagoTBarbosaRMKalckmannS. Acceptability of the diaphragm among low-income women in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Int Fam Plan Perspect1995; 21: 114–118.
14.
GollubELCyrus-CameronEDévieuxJ. ‘Men don't need to know everything’: a field trial of a discreet, female-initiated, contraceptive barrier method (FemCap™) among Haitian American women. Cult Health Sex2015; 17: 842–858.
15.
CyrusEGollubELJean-GillesM. An exploratory study of acculturation and reproductive health among Haitian and Haitian-American women in Little Haiti, South Florida. J Immigr Minor Health2016; 18: 666–672.
16.
MaternowskaMC. Reproducing inequities: Poverty and the politics of population in Haiti, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2006.
17.
MantellJEHoffmanSWeissE. The acceptability of the female condom: perspectives of family planning providers in New York City, South Africa, and Nigeria. J Urban Health2001; 78: 658–668.
18.
HolmesW. Adding to the menu of modern methods––the diaphragm. Sex Health2010; 7: 101–102.
19.
GollubEL. Women's barrier contraceptive methods as modern methods. Sex Health2011; 8: 128–129.
20.
PATH and the Coalition Advancing Multipurpose Innovations. Saving lives with multipurpose prevention technologies: Turning ideas into solutions for sexual and reproductive health, Seattle: Program for Appropriate Technology in Health, 2010.
21.
StoneA. Multipurpose prevention technologies for reproductive and sexual health. Reprod Health Matters2014; 22: 213–217.
22.
Baeten JM, Palanee-Phillips T, Brown ER, et al. Use of a vaginalring containing dapivirine for HIV-1 prevention in women. N Engl J Med 2016. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1506110.
ShihataAAGollubE. Acceptability of a new intravaginal barrier contraceptive device (Femcap™). Contraception1992; 46: 511–519.
28.
MoenchTRChipatoTPadianNS. Preventing disease by protecting the cervix: the unexplored promise of internal vaginal barrier devices. AIDS2001; 15: 1595–1602.
29.
RosenbergMJGollubEL. Methods women can use that may prevent sexually transmitted disease including HIV. Am J Public Health1992; 82: 1473–1478.
30.
PadianNSvan der StratenARamjeeG. Diaphragm and lubricant gel for prevention of HIV acquisition in Southern African women: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet2007; 370(9583): 251–261.
31.
SteinZGlymourMM. Diaphragms and lubricant gel for prevention of HIV (Authors'reply). Lancet2007; 370: 1823–1824.
32.
GollubELCyrus-CameronEArmstrongK. Basic body knowledge in street-recruited, active drug-using women enrolled in a ‘body empowerment’ intervention trial. AIDS Care2013; 25: 732–737.
33.
GollubECyrus-CameronEArmstrongK. Active drug-using women use female-initiated barrier methods to reduce HIV/STI risk: results from a randomized trial. ISRN Addict2013; 2013: 1–9.
34.
RicheyLA. Construction, control, and family planning in Tanzania: some bodies the same, and some bodies different. Feminist Rev2004; 78: 56–79.
35.
GermainA. Addressing the demographic imperative through health, empowerment, and rights: ICPD implementation in Bangladesh. Health Transit Rev1997; 7(Suppl 4): 33–36.
36.
EdmondYMRandolphSMRichardGL. The Lakou system: a cultural, ecological analysis of mothering in rural Haiti. J Pan Afr Stud2007; 2: 19–32.
37.
HaydocyKEYotebiengMNorrisA. Restavèk children in context: wellbeing compared to other Haitian children. Child Abuse Negl2015; 50: 42–28.
38.
HoggartLNewtonVL. Young women's experiences of side-effects from contraceptive implants: a challenge to bodily control. Reprod Health Matters2013; 21: 196–204.
39.
HyttelMRasanathanJJKTellierM. Use of injectable hormonal contraceptives: diverging perspectives of women and men, service providers and policymakers in Uganda. Reprod Health Matters2012; 20: 148–157.
40.
HardonAP. The needs of women vs the interests of family planning personnel, policy-makers and researchers: conflicting views on safety and acceptability of contraceptives. Soc Sci Med1995; 35: 753–766.
41.
Germain A. Are we speaking the same language? Women's health advocates and scientists talk about contraceptive technology. In: Four essays on birth control needs and risks, [by] Ruth Dixon-Mueller and Adrienne Germain. [New York, New York], International Women's Health Coalition, 1993. 3–6. (Reproductive Tracts: Issues and Innovations in Reproductive Health), http://www.popline.org/node/325838#sthash.KZqDxFvT.dpuf (accessed 16 August 2016).
42.
Smith FawziaMCLambertaWSingleraJM. Factors associated with forced sex among women accessing health services in rural Haiti: implications for the prevention of HIV infection and other sexually transmitted diseases. Soc Sci Med2005; 60: 679–689.
43.
MontgomeryETChidanyikaAChipatoT. Sharing the trousers: gender roles and relationships in an HIV-prevention trial in Zimbabwe. Cult, Health Sex2012; 14: 795–810.
44.
VenablesEStadlerJ. The study has taught me to be supportive of her: empowering women and involving men in microbicide research. Cult, Health Sex2012; 14: 181–194.
45.
MooreLBeksinskaMRumphsA. Knowledge, attitudes, practices and behaviors associated with female condoms in developing countries: a scoping review. Open J Contraception2015; 2015: 125–142.
46.
MaccobyEEJacklinCN. The Psychology of Sex Differences, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1974.
47.
GilliganC. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.
48.
EaglyAHCrowleyM. Gender and helping behavior: a meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychol Bull1986; 100: 283–308.
49.
McGinleyMCarioGCrockettLJ. Stressed and helping: the relations among acculturative stress, gender, and prosocial tendencies in Mexican Americans. J Soc Psychol2010; 150: 34–56.
