Cohort Comparison of Two Fertility Awareness Methods of Family Planning

被引:0
作者
Fehring, Richard J. [1 ]
Schneider, Mary
Barron, Mary Lee
Raviele, Kathleen
机构
[1] Marquette Univ, Coll Nursing, Milwaukee, WI 53201 USA
关键词
family planning; fertility; fertility monitoring; natural family planing; CERVICAL-MUCUS; PREGNANCY; EFFICACY; MONITOR;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE: To determine if an electronic hormonal fertility monitor aided method (EHFM) of family planning is more effective than a cervical mucus only method (CMM) in helping couples to avoid pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: Six hundred twenty-eight women were taught how to avoid 1)regnancy with either the EHFM (n = 313) or the CMM (n = 315). Both methods involved standardized group teaching and individual follow-up. All 1)regnancies were reviewed and classified by health professionals. Correct use and total unintended pregnancy rates over 12 months of use were determined by survival analysis. Comparisons of unintended pregnancies between the 2 methods were made by list) of the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: There were it total of 28 unintended pregnancies with the EFHM and 41 with the CMM. The 12-month correct use pregnancy rate of the monitor-aided method was 2.0%, and the total pregnancy rate was 12.0%. In comparison, the 12-month correct use pregnancy rate of the CMM was 3.0%, and the total pregnancy rate was 23.0%. There was a significant difference ill total pregnancies between the 2 groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: EFHM is more effective than CMM. Further research is needed to verify the results. (J Reprod Med 2009;54:165-170)
引用
收藏
页码:165 / 170
页数:6
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]   Efficacy of the new TwoDay Method of family planning [J].
Arévalo, M ;
Jennings, V ;
Nikula, M ;
Sinai, I .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2004, 82 (04) :885-892
[2]   Efficacy of a new method of family planning:: the Standard Days Method [J].
Arévalo, M ;
Jennings, V ;
Sinai, I .
CONTRACEPTION, 2002, 65 (05) :333-338
[3]   Prediction of ovulation by urinary hormone measurements with the home use ClearPlan® Fertility Monitor:: comparison with transvaginal ultrasound scans and serum hormone measurements [J].
Behre, HM ;
Kuhlage, J ;
Gassner, C ;
Sonntag, B ;
Schem, C ;
Schneider, HPG ;
Nieschlag, E .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2000, 15 (12) :2478-2482
[4]  
Bonnar J, 1999, BRIT J FAM PLAN, V24, P128
[5]  
DEIRALA J, 2007, BMC WOMENS HEALTH, V7, P1
[6]   Chronological aspects of ultrasonic, hormonal, and other indirect indices of ovulation [J].
Ecochard, R ;
Boehringer, H ;
Rabilloud, M ;
Marret, H .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2001, 108 (08) :822-829
[7]  
Fehring R J, 1994, J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs, V23, P303, DOI 10.1111/j.1552-6909.1994.tb01881.x
[8]   Efficacy of cervical mucus observations plus electronic hormonal fertility monitoring as a method of natural family planning [J].
Fehring, Richard J. ;
Schneider, Mary ;
Raviele, Kathleen ;
Barron, Mary Lee .
JOGNN-JOURNAL OF OBSTETRIC GYNECOLOGIC AND NEONATAL NURSING, 2007, 36 (02) :152-160
[9]   New low- and high-tech calendar methods of family planning [J].
Fehring, RJ .
JOURNAL OF MIDWIFERY & WOMENS HEALTH, 2005, 50 (01) :31-38
[10]   A comparison of the fertile phase as determined by the Clearplan Easy Fertility Monitor™ and self-assessment of cervical mucus [J].
Fehring, RJ ;
Raviele, K ;
Schneider, M .
CONTRACEPTION, 2004, 69 (01) :9-14