{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020634920634920634, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.602094240837697, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Microbicide acceptability: insights for future directions from providers and policy makers.

To help fill the gap concerning health care providers' and policy makers' knowledge of and views concerning microbicides, we compared data from one U.S. study and two South African studies that explored these issues. Frontline providers in South Africa were enthusiastic about any method that would have the potential to slow the HIV/AIDS epidemic, whereas providers in New York City and policy makers in South Africa balanced their enthusiasm with more concerns. Across all studies, participants wanted timely and accurate scientific information, and they raised issues about safety, "messiness," and cost. Many had difficulty understanding that promoting a partially effective method can reduce risk if a client uses it more often than a highly effective method. Microbicide advocates need to effectively communicate to providers the evidence-based findings from microbicide trials and find approaches to introduce concepts such as "harm reduction" and "prevention equation" perspectives in client counseling. Developing these approaches will maximize the positive influence that providers can exert on user acceptability of microbicides once they become available.