Characteristics of endemic areas and clusters for gonorrhoea, England: 2012 and 2013.

<p>Characteristics of endemic areas and clusters for gonorrhoea, England: 2012 and 2013.</p

Patients attending GUM clinics and diagnoses of gonorrhoea, England: 2012 to 2013.

<p>Patients attending GUM clinics and diagnoses of gonorrhoea, England: 2012 to 2013.</p

Quarterly gonorrhoea diagnosis rate with regions grouped by Local Authority (LA), England: 2013.

<p>Regions are compared to the English average (12.6/100,000 people) as higher, similar or lower. Similar regions were denoted as those within 20% above or below the English average (12.6–15.1 and 10.1–12.6/100,000 people, respectively).</p

Gonorrhoea endemic regions and outbreak clusters, England: 2012 & 2013.

<p>Brighton, London, Birmingham and Manchester were endemic for gonorrhoea by persistently arising in clusters every six months for two years. The London area is enlarged to the top right to better illustrate endemic areas and clusters. Circles denote 33 clusters across 21 aggregate regions (1,137 MSOAs). Numbers next to clusters correspond to region names listed in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0195178#pone.0195178.s006" target="_blank">S1 Table</a>. All outbreak clusters are interpreted as significant at <i>p</i><0.05. Age, gender, ethnicity, and IMD were included covariates.</p

Relative preferences for products and their characteristics.

<p>Note: All full product preferences are based on free distribution. Best profiles are specified as microbicides and the diaphragm able to be used in secret and with 95% protection against pregnancy and HIV for all products. Worst profiles are specified as not being able to be used in secret and the lowest product specific effectiveness included in the experiment (i.e. prevention effectiveness: 75% for the diaphragm and female condom and 0% for microbicides; for HIV prevention effectiveness: 35% for the diaphragm and microbicide and 75% for the female condom).</p

An example of the choice task.

<p>An example of the choice task.</p

DCE physical attributes and levels.

<p>MCD: microbicide; DGM: Diaphragm; FC: Female condom; *Depending on what they did the last time they had sex, a card was placed over the attributes with the appropriate attribute levels for either using a male condom with its attributes, or no protection.</p

Sample descriptive statistics.

<p>The denominator of the proportions for ‘This Sample’ are based on the full sample, ranging from 1012 to 1017 to account for some missing responses.** The risk question was posed as: “Do you consider yourself at high medium, low, or no risk of getting HIV or becoming re-infected?” No further quantification was provided and therefore was the individuals subjective valuation of these categories. Risk is an ordinal variable that is used as a cardinal measure in the model estimates, valued as 0 for ‘No risk’ to 3 for ‘High risk’.</p

Additional file 2: of A cluster randomized controlled trial to assess the impact on intimate partner violence of a 10-session participatory gender training curriculum delivered to women taking part in a group-based microfinance loan scheme in Tanzania (MAISHA CRT01): study protocol

Participant Information and Consent Form for MAISHA CRT01 – In-depth Interview. Information provided to potential participants, as part of the informed consent process for participant and key informant in-depth interviews, and the informed consent form signed by participants and key informants who agree to take part in the in-depth interviews. (DOC 49 kb

Predicted uptake of microbicides among women who had and had not used a condom.

<p><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0083193#pone-0083193-g003" target="_blank">Figure 3</a> shows the probability of switching to a microbicide with different levels of HIV prevention effectiveness, pregnancy prevention effectiveness and price, according to whether she had used a condom or not in her last sex-act and predicted population level uptake. The choice is between the microbicide and a free female condom (with 95% protection against HIV and pregnancy), or neither. The light bars on the left are the probabilities for women who reported having used a condom in their last sex-act, on the darker bars on the right are the probabilities for women who had not used a condom in their last sex-act, the vertical line shows the predicted population level. The base case is modelled close to the CAPRISA 004 trial effectiveness results (54% effective against HIV and no pregnancy effectiveness). On the very left, it can be seen that an expensive microbicide with low prevention effectiveness would have a low probability of being chosen. As the product characteristics improve (towards the right of the figure), women find the product becomes more and more attractive relative to the female condom or what they did last time.</p