Abstract
Objective: To equip the reader with the tools necessary to evaluate studies of natural family planning (NFP) effectiveness found in the literature and to make recommendations for future NFP effectiveness studies.
Design: Current standards to evaluate contraceptive method effectiveness are reviewed. A framework for evaluating reports on NFP is presented.
Results: Most NFP studies found in the literature are flawed in design and do not calculate pregnancy rates correctly. The results from the few well-designed studies are presented.
Discussion: Many factors influence NFP effectiveness, and these factors must be considered when evaluating published studies and designing future studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
World Health Organization. Natural family planning: A guide to provision of services, Geneva, Switzerland, 1988.
Hatcher J, Trussell J, Stewart F et al. Contraceptive Technology. 16th Revised Edition. New York: Irvington; 1994: 660–3.
Trussell J, Kost K. Contraceptive failure in the United States: A critical review of the literature. Stud Fam Plann. 1987; 18: 237–83.
Trussell J. Methodological pitfalls in the analysis of contraceptive failure. Stat Med. 1991; 10: 201–20.
Medina J, Cifuentes A, Abernathy J, Spieler J, Wade M. Comparative evaluation of two methods of natural family planning in Colombia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1980; 138: 1142–7.
Wade M, McCarthy P, Braunstein G et al. A randomized prospective study of the use-e¡ectiveness of two methods of natural family planning. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981; 140: 368–9.
Jones E, Forrest J. Contraceptive failure rates based on the 1988 NSFG. Fam Plann Perspect. 1992; 24: 12–19.
Lamprecht V, Grummer-Strawn L, Kambic B, Trussell J. The calendar method: revisited. Presented at the American Public Health Association Meeting,Washington, DC., 1993.
Dorairaj K. Use e¡ectiveness of fertility awareness among the urban poor. Soc Action. 1984; 34: 286–306.
Johnston J, Robert D, Spencer R. NFP: A survey evaluation of the e¡ectiveness and e¤ciency of natural family planning services and methods in Australia: Report of a research project, St. Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia, 1978.
Trussell J, Sturgen K, Strickler J, Dominik R. Comparative contraceptive e¤cacy of the female condom and other barrier methods. Fam Plann Perspect. 1994; 26: 66–72.
Trussell J, Grummer-Strawn L. Further analysis of contraceptive failure of the ovulation method. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991; 165: 2054–9.
Ball M. A prospective ¢eld trial of the `ovulation method' of avoiding pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1976; 6: 63–6.
World Health Organization. A prospective multicenter trial of the ovulation method of natural family planning. II. The e¡ectiveness phase. Fertil Steril. 1981; 36: 591–8.
Rice F, Lanctot C, Garcia-Devesa C. E¡ectiveness of the sympto-thermal method of natural family planning: An international study. Int J Fertil. 1981; 26: 222–30.
Klaus H. Natural Family Planning: A Review. Washington, DC: Natural Family Planning Center of Washington, DC, Inc, 1995.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lamprecht, V., Trussell, J. Natural family planning effectiveness: evaluating published reports. Advances in Contraception 13, 155–165 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006595703472
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006595703472