IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0213399.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the PrePex device an alternative for surgical male circumcision in adolescents ages 13–17 years? Findings from routine service delivery during active surveillance in Zimbabwe

Author

Listed:
  • Webster Mavhu
  • Karin Hatzold
  • Ngonidzashe Madidi
  • Brian Maponga
  • Roy Dhlamini
  • Malvern Munjoma
  • Sinokuthemba Xaba
  • Getrude Ncube
  • Owen Mugurungi
  • Frances M Cowan

Abstract

Background: Male circumcision devices have the potential to accelerate adolescent voluntary medical male circumcision roll-out. Here, we present findings on safety, acceptability and satisfaction from active surveillance of PrePex implementation among 618 adolescent males (13–17 years) circumcised in Zimbabwe. Methods: The first 618 adolescents consecutively circumcised from October 2015 to October 2016 using PrePex during routine service delivery were actively followed up. Outcome measures included PrePex uptake, attendance for post-circumcision visits and adverse events (AEs). A survey was conducted amongst 500 consecutive active surveillance clients to assess acceptability and satisfaction with PrePex. Results: A total of 1,811 adolescent males were circumcised across the three PrePex active surveillance sites. Of these, 870 (48%) opted for PrePex but only 618/870 (71%) were eligible. Among the 618, two (0.3%) self-removals requiring surgery (severe AEs), were observed. Four (0.6%) removals by providers (moderate AEs) did not require surgery. Another 6 (1%) mild AEs were due to: bleeding (n = 2), swelling (n = 2), and infection (n = 2). All AEs resolved without sequelae. Adherence to follow-up appointments was high (97.7% attended 7 day visit). A high proportion (71.6%) of survey respondents said they heard about PrePex from a mobilizer; 49.8% said they chose PrePex because they wanted to avoid the pain associated with the surgical procedure/surgery on their penis. Acceptability and satisfaction with PrePex was high; 95.4% indicated willingness to recommend PrePex to peers. A majority (92%) reported experiencing pain when PrePex was being removed. Conclusions: Active surveillance of the first 618 adolescent males circumcised using PrePex suggests that the device is both safe and acceptable when used in routine service delivery among 13–17 year-olds. There is need to intensify specific demand generation activities for PrePex male circumcision among this group of males.

Suggested Citation

  • Webster Mavhu & Karin Hatzold & Ngonidzashe Madidi & Brian Maponga & Roy Dhlamini & Malvern Munjoma & Sinokuthemba Xaba & Getrude Ncube & Owen Mugurungi & Frances M Cowan, 2019. "Is the PrePex device an alternative for surgical male circumcision in adolescents ages 13–17 years? Findings from routine service delivery during active surveillance in Zimbabwe," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0213399
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213399
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0213399
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0213399&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0213399?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0213399. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.