Topical microbicides are a promising solution to address the global threat of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. To be successful, a microbicide not only needs to be biologically functional but also highly acceptable to users. User acceptability of microbicides can be incorporated early in the product formulation and design process. Previous qualitative research revealed women had strong preferences regarding product shape, while preferences related to size and firmness were less clear. Here, we explored the effect of size and firmness on the acceptability of semisolid ovoid microbicide prototypes intended for vaginal use. Sexually active women (n = 74) were randomized to one of two conditions: with and without applicator. Nine different prototypes were evaluated; they were formulated to low, medium and high firmness using mixtures of kappa and iota carrageenan and potassium chloride. Three sizes were produced at each firmness level. Women manipulated all nine prototypes, rating them for perceived effectiveness, imagined ease-of-insertion and willingness-to-try on visual analog scales. The influence of size and firmness on these three outcome measures were assessed using ANOVA and response surface models. Results indicated size and firmness both influenced the outcome measures, but firmess was more influential than size. Also, the specific effects of size and firmness depended strongly on presence or absence of an applicator. Generally, women in the without applicator condition wanted a larger, firmer product. Collectively, these data suggest efforts to rationally design of microbicides for enhanced user acceptability must consider factors like size and firmness. Also, the decision to include or forego an applicator should be addressed early in the design process, as it strongly influences other design decisions.

Just-about-right (JAR) scaling is criticized for measuring attribute intensity and acceptability simultaneously. Using JAR scaling, an attribute is evaluated for its appropriateness relative to one’s hypothetical ideal level that is pre-defined at the middle of a continuum. Alternatively, ideal scaling measures these two constructs separately. Ideal scaling allows participants to rate their ideal freely on the scale (i.e., without assuming the “Too Little” and “Too Much” regions are equal in size). We hypothesized that constraining participants’ ideal to the center point, as is done in the JAR scale, may cause a scaling bias and, thereby, influence the magnitude of “Too Little” and “Too Much”. Furthermore, we hypothesized that the magnitude of “Too Little” and “Too Much” would influence liking to different extents. Coffee-flavored dairy beverages (n=20) were formulated using a fractional, constrained-mixture design that varied the ratio of water, milk, coffee extract, and sucrose. Participants tasted 4 of 20 prototypes that were served in a monadic sequential order using a balanced incomplete block design. Data reported here are for participants randomly assigned to one of two research conditions: ideal scaling (n=129) or JAR scaling (n=132). For both conditions, participants rated overall liking using a 9-point hedonic scale. Four attributes (sweetness, milk flavor, coffee flavor and thickness) were evaluated. The reliability of an individual participant’s ideal rating for an attribute was evaluated using the standard deviation of their ideal ratings (n=4). All data from a participant were eliminated from further analyses when his/her standard deviation of the ideal ratings for any of the four rated attributes was identified as a statistical outlier. This resulted in the elimination of 15 of 129 (12 %) of participants in the ideal scaling group. Multiple linear regression was employed to model liking as a function of “Too Little” or “Too Much” attribute intensities. Mean ideal ratings (averaged across participants) for all four attributes were significantly different from the central point of the scale (i.e., 50). However, Coffee flavor was the only attribute for which the mean ideal rating (57.2) fell outside the central 10% (45.0–55.0). Even so, the magnitude of “Too Little” and “Too Much” was not affected by the scaling method. The influence of the magnitude of “Too Little” and “Too Much” on liking was asymmetrical. Both scaling methods agreed that sweetness and coffee flavor were the main sensory attributes affecting liking. Overall, JAR scaling and ideal scaling were comparable for measuring “Too Little” and “Too Much”, and identifying the main factors affecting liking.

HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are a global threat to public health that may be countered, in part, by microbicides. A successful microbicide must be both biologically efficacious and highly acceptable to users. Sensory attributes have a direct influence on product acceptability. We created a series of vaginal suppositories appropriate for use as microbicides to investigate the influence of shape on women's willingness-to-try. The influence of perceived size and firmness on acceptability was also assessed. Sexually-active women (n=99) were invited to participate in an evaluation of vaginal suppositories in 5 different shapes including: Bullet, Long Oval, Round Oval, Teardrop and Tampon. The volume (3 ml) and formulation for these 5 prototypes were identical. After manipulating prototypes ex vivo (in their hands), participants rated their willingness-to-try on a 100-point visual analog scale. The appropriateness of size and firmness were evaluated using 5-point just-about-right (JAR) scales. Each participant evaluated all 5 prototypes individually. Samples were presented in a counterbalanced monadic sequence using a Williams design. Mean willingness-to-try varied by shape, with Bullet and Long Oval receiving significantly higher scores. This was consistent with JAR data for size, as 70 and 65% of women indicated these shapes were `just-about–right', respectively. In contrast, a minority of women endorsed the other 3 shapes as having a size that was `just-about-right'. The proportion of women who felt the firmness was `just-about-right' was uniformly high, irrespective of shape, suggesting prior attempts to optimize the formula were successful. Perceptions of size and firmness were influenced by the physical length and width of the prototypes, in spite of having constant volume. Women showed high willingness-to-try when asked to assume they were at risk. These results are relevant for behavioral and formulation scientists working on microbicides, to better understand the influence of sensory attributes on acceptability, as acceptability and compliance ultimately impact effectiveness.

Designed experiments provide product developers feedback on the relationship between formulation and consumer acceptability. While actionable, this approach typically assumes a simple psychophysical relationship between ingredient concentration and perceived intensity. This assumption may not be valid, especially in cases where perceptual interactions occur. Additional information can be gained by considering the liking-intensity function, as single ingredients can influence more than one perceptual attribute. Here, 20 coffee-flavored dairy beverages were formulated using a fractional mixture design that varied the amount of coffee extract, fluid milk, sucrose, and water. Overall liking (liking) was assessed by 388 consumers using an incomplete block design (4 out of 20 prototypes) to limit fatigue; all participants also rated the samples for intensity of coffee flavor (coffee), milk flavor (milk), sweetness (sweetness) and thickness (thickness). Across product means, the concentration variables explained 52% of the variance in liking in main effects multiple regression. The amount of sucrose (β = 0.46) and milk (β = 0.46) contributed significantly to the model (p’s <0.02) while coffee extract (β = −0.17; p = 0.35) did not. A comparable model based on the perceived intensity explained 63% of the variance in mean liking; sweetness (β = 0.53) and milk (β = 0.69) contributed significantly to the model (p’s <0.04), while the influence of coffee flavor (β = 0.48) was positive but marginally (p = 0.09). Since a strong linear relationship existed between coffee extract concentration and coffee flavor, this discrepancy between the two models was unexpected, and probably indicates that adding more coffee extract also adds a negative attribute, e.g. too much bitterness. In summary, modeling liking as a function of both perceived intensity and physical concentration provides a richer interpretation of consumer data.

In just-about-right (JAR) scaling and ideal scaling, attribute delta (i.e., “Too Little” or “Too Much”) reflects a subject’s dissatisfaction level for an attribute relative to their hypothetical ideal. Dissatisfaction (attribute delta) is a different construct from consumer acceptability, operationalized as liking. Therefore, we hypothesized minimizing dissatisfaction and maximizing liking would yield different optimal formulations. The objective of this research was to compare product optimization strategies, i.e. maximizing liking vis-à-vis minimizing dissatisfaction. Coffee-flavored dairy beverages (n = 20) were formulated using a fractional mixture design that constrained the proportions of coffee extract, milk, sucrose, and water. Participants (n = 388) were randomly assigned to one of three research conditions, where they evaluated 4 of the 20 samples using an incomplete block design. Samples were rated for overall liking and for intensity of the attributes sweetness, milk flavor, thickness and coffee flavor. Where appropriate, measures of overall product quality (Ideal_Delta and JAR_Delta) were calculated as the sum of the absolute values of the four attribute deltas. Optimal formulations were estimated by: a) maximizing liking; b) minimizing Ideal_Delta; or c) minimizing JAR_Delta. A validation study was conducted to evaluate product optimization models. Participants indicated a preference for a coffee-flavored dairy beverage with more coffee extract and less milk and sucrose in the dissatisfaction model compared to the formula obtained by maximizing liking. That is, when liking was optimized, participants generally liked a weaker, milkier and sweeter coffee-flavored dairy beverage. Predicted liking scores were validated in a subsequent experiment, and the optimal product formulated to maximize liking was significantly preferred to that formulated to minimize dissatisfaction by a paired preference test. These findings are consistent with the view that JAR and ideal scaling methods both suffer from attitudinal biases that are not present when liking is assessed. That is, consumers sincerely believe they want ‘dark, rich, hearty’ coffee when they do not. This paper also demonstrates the utility and efficiency of a lean experimental approach.