Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Mar;54(3):165-70.

Cohort comparison of two fertility awareness methods of family planning

Affiliations
  • PMID: 19370902

Cohort comparison of two fertility awareness methods of family planning

Richard J Fehring et al. J Reprod Med. 2009 Mar.

Abstract

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 pregnancy with either the EHFM (n=313) or the CMM (n = 315). Both methods involved standardized group teaching and individual follow-up. All pregnancies 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 use of the Fisher exact test.

Results: There were a 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 in total pregnancies between the 2 groups (p<0.05).

Conclusion: EFHM is more effective than CMM. Further research is needed to verify the results.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

LinkOut - more resources