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
Review
. 2020 Mar 31;8(1):114-124.
doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-19-00287. Print 2020 Mar 30.

Implementation and Scale-Up of the Standard Days Method of Family Planning: A Landscape Analysis

Julianne Weis  1 , Mario Festin  2
Affiliations
Review

Implementation and Scale-Up of the Standard Days Method of Family Planning: A Landscape Analysis

Julianne Weis et al. Glob Health Sci Pract. .

Abstract

The Standard Days Method (SDM), a modern fertility awareness-based family planning method, has been introduced in 30 countries since its development in 2001. It is still unclear to what extent the SDM was mainstreamed within the family planning method mix, particularly in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, where the SDM had been introduced by donors and implementing partners. This review of implementation science publications on the SDM in LMICs first looked at community pilot studies of the SDM to determine the acceptability of the method; correct use and efficacy rates; demographics of users; and changes to contraceptive prevalence rates and family planning behaviors, especially among men and couples. Then, we examined the status of the SDM in the 16 countries that had attempted to scale up the method within national family planning protocols, training, and service delivery. At the community level, evidence demonstrated a high level of acceptability of the method; efficacy rates comparable to the initial clinical trials; diversity in demographic characteristics of users, including first-time or recently discontinued users of family planning; increased male engagement in family planning; and improved couple's communication. Nationally, few countries had scaled up the SDM due to uneven stakeholder engagement, lackluster political will, and competing resource priorities. Results of this review could help policy makers determine the added value of the SDM in the contraceptive method mix and identify potential barriers to its implementation moving forward.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

None
CycleBeads have colored beads that each correspond to 1 menstrual cycle day. © 2019/Institute for Reproductive Health
None
The iCycleBeads mobile device app in Arabic. © 2019/Cycle Technologies
FIGURE
FIGURE
Methodology of Landscape Analysis Review of SDM Studies Abbreviations: IRH, Institute for Reproductive Health; SDM, Standard Days Method.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sinai I, Jennings V, Arévalo M. The importance of screening and monitoring: the Standard Days Method and cycle regularity. Contraception. 2004;69(3):201–206. 10.1016/j.contraception.2003.11.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arévalo M, Yeager B, Sinai I, Panfichi R, Jennings V. Adding the Standard Days Method® to the contraceptive method mix in a high-prevalence setting in Peru. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2010;28(2):80–85. 10.1590/s1020-49892010000800002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Peragallo Urrutia R, Polis CB, Jensen ET, Greene ME, Kennedy E, Stanford JB. Effectiveness of fertility awareness-based methods for pregnancy prevention: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132(3):591–604. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002784. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gribble JN, Lundgren RI, Velasquez C, Anastasi EE. Being strategic about contraceptive introduction: the experience of the Standard Days Method. Contraception. 2008;77(3):147–154. 10.1016/j.contraception.2007.11.001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kursun Z, Cali S, Sakarya S. The Standard Days Method®: Efficacy, satisfaction and demand at regular family planning service delivery settings in Turkey. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2014;19(3):203–210. 10.3109/13625187.2014.890181. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types