Data collection and analysis
This analysis includes data from the UChoose qualitative procedures conducted in April 2018, approximately one month after the final participant study exit. This qualitative study involved the participants in hypothetical situations with identical HIV prevention modalities in addition to exploring acceptability, adherence, and decision variables for contraceptive methods. In our context, participants were purposely recruited at the endpoint to ensure that participants could speak to their experience of using two different contraceptive methods. Study field staff followed up with these participants to confirm their willingness to be selected for FDGs and excluded who may have relocated or did not have active contact information. The emphasis for staff was to invite participants based on their use of at least two products and completion of all study visit activities, not necessarily adherence to two products. Participants included in the final FDGs had all used the vaginal ring and at least one other product over their study participation. The sample sizes for these qualitative activities were designed to provide enough breadth and diversity of answers from each Group category while also assuring data saturation. A semi-structured FGD guide was developed based on a comprehensive literature review guided by the study aims and objectives.The FGD included two activities; completion of an interviewer assisted modified ORTHO pre-survey, described below followed by the participant driven FGD. This activity provided both the participants and interviewers with a way to frame their conversation and ensure debate on differing opinions. The pre-focus group survey is the modification of the ORTHO birth control assessment tool (Table The modification of the ORTHO birth control assessment toolThe semi-structured FGD schedule comprised a series of thoughtfully designed questions that aimed to explore participants’ preferences and experiences related to the HIV prevention method. The schedule covered various topics, including (1) experience with each contraceptive method, (2) preferred contraceptive methods, and (3) preference for biomedical and behavioural HIV prevention methods discussed. To initiate the discussions, participants were asked open-ended questions to gauge their initial impressions and preferences regarding different prevention methods used such as “Can you tell me about the contraception method you are using or have used in the past?”. Subsequently, the FGD facilitators utilized follow-up questions to delve deeper into participants’ underlying motivations, concerns, and experiences related to each of the methods. These follow-up questions sought to uncover the factors influencing participants’ preferences, such as efficacy, convenience, side effects, and personal beliefs. By employing a structured approach, the FGD schedule aimed to elicit rich and detailed responses, offering valuable insights into the participants’ perspectives on the proposed HIV prevention method. This included questions such as “Is there another HIV prevention method that you would prefer more? Why/why not?” Participants were asked about their experiences and opinions based on their use of contraception methods with the intention of having a safe, honest, and non-judgmental open dialogue.The FGDs each included time to complete informed consent followed by the pre- survey, time for the local staff member to provide all participants with reference materials and encouraging participants to answer each of the questions to the best of their ability. FGDs were held in a pre-arranged quiet and discrete location and lasted up to 60 min. All FGD participants were offered refreshments and received reimbursements. The FGDs were co-facilitated by trained local study staff and socio-behavioural leads in local languages. All FGDs were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and translated into English.Descriptive statistics were used to present demographic, background data, and survey data using SPSS, version 25.0 [