A Review of Indian Perceptions on Condom Use

Pratibha Wankhede

Department of Community Health Nursing, Smt. Radhikabai Meghe Memorial College of Nursing, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Sawangi (M), Wardha, Maharashtra, India.

Mayur Wanjari *

Department of Community Health Nursing, Smt. Radhikabai Meghe Memorial College of Nursing, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Sawangi (M), Wardha, Maharashtra, India.

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.


Abstract

In the late 1960s, India's National Family Planning Programme introduced condoms as one of the family planning methods. Since its inception, the condom has been promoted as a method of family planning through social marketing. With the rising prevalence and incidence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), such as HIV/AIDS, the condom has been promoted as a dual method of protection against both unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. Despite different initiatives at various levels, overall condom use among Indian couples remains low. In this paper, we examine the research on condom perception among Indian couples. The report specifically evaluates research and strategies designed to enhance condom usage among couples; predictors of condom use; reasons for not using a condom; and perception versus the experience of condom failure. Non-acceptance by partners, perceived ineffectiveness, reduced comfort, lack of sexual satisfaction, husband's alcohol usage, depression, and anxiety, and not being accessible at the time were among the reported condom-related issues. The importance of the media in promoting condom use was mentioned as a significant strategy to raise awareness and use. Acceptance of male condoms would be aided in a variety of ways.

Keywords: Condom failure, consistent use, effective use, family planning method, mass media role, STIs


How to Cite

Wankhede, P. and Wanjari, M. (2021) “A Review of Indian Perceptions on Condom Use”, Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International, 33(49B), pp. 97–100. doi: 10.9734/jpri/2021/v33i49B33344.