Your search found 1 Results
CONTRACEPTION. 1995 Oct; 52(4):223-8.In November 1991 in Cotonou, Benin, 30 sex workers complained that the World Health Organization (WHO) blue condoms were not as good as the USAID condoms. The National AIDS Programme had replaced the USAID condoms with WHO condoms. Leading complaints about WHO condoms were in order of importance: causes pain in vagina, too short, too small, insufficient lubrication, breaks easily, and several condoms needed per client due to breakage. Samples of both condoms underwent laboratory tests to learn more about the complaints. Informal interviews were conducted with professionals in contact with users (e.g., family planning workers and condom vendors) and condom users (prostitutes, bar girls, and men). There were some differences between the two condom types. For example, the USAID condom exerted 20-30% less pressure on the penis than the WHO condom. However, researchers considered the differences to be too small to completely explain the complaints. Two social workers had done a suboptimal job of explaining to sex workers how to unroll condoms. Other than these sex workers, others accepted the WHO condom well. Both condoms had at least the same strength, suggesting that other factors likely explain the complaints (e.g., breakage). The WHO condom had less lubricant than the USAID condom (223 vs. 451 mg), yet the amount was within the range of that on the commercial market. One batch of WHO condoms had much less lubricant than other WHO batches. Even though the sex workers complained that the WHO condom was too short, it was actually longer than the USAID condom, suggesting that the WHO condoms were not unrolled completely. These findings indicate the need to teach correct application procedures to condom users and to make condoms as immune as possible to incorrect or suboptimal techniques (e.g., changes in lubricant).