Remember....from this thread:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=101272#post101272
HERE YOU GO....
Principles & Practice
The Future of Professional Education in Natural Family Planning
http://jognn.awhonn.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/34
Four general methods of NFP are used and taught in the United States. The calendar rhythm and basal body temperature (BBT) methods are considered to be old methods, whereas the two so-called modern methods are referred to as the ovulation method (OM or cervical mucus only) and the symptothermal method (STM). The modern methods also are sometimes referred to as single and multiple indicator methods.
.......Modern variations of the calendar methods have recently been developed that stipulate a fixed number of days of fertility in the menstrual cycle (e.g., days 8–19) and the use of a simple bead-counting system to help women track their cycles. A recent study of 478 women users of the standard days method of NFP from three countries (Bolivia, Peru, and the Philippines) indicated that the fixed day method had a cumulative]
probability of pregnancy of 4.75% with correct use and an 11.96% probability of pregnancy with typical use (Arevalo, Jennings, & Sinai, 2002 ).
.......In the first prospective effectiveness study of BBT, reported in 1968, 502 couples had a
typical use effectiveness of 6.6 pregnancies per 100 woman-years when intercourse was confined to the post-BBT shift period (after the postovulatory rise in body temperature) and 19.3 pregnancies when intercourse occurred in both the pre- and postovulatory phases of the cycle (Marshall, 1968 ).
Correct use of BBT only as a postovulatory method will result in a method effectiveness of close to 99% (Hatcher et al., 1998 ).
Both the single indicator, mucus-only methods, and the multiple indicator, symptothermal methods, were developed in the last half of the 20th century. Single indicator methods use the cyclical estrogenic changes of cervical mucus to determine the beginning, peak, and end of the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle.
A five-country World Health Organization (WHO) study (1981) of 725 ovulation method users yielded a method-related
pregnancy rate of 2.2% and a typical use pregnancy rate of 22.3%, of which 15.4% was due to conscious departure from the rules. There are a number of variants of the single indicator cervical mucus method, including a standardized form known as the Creighton Model (CrM) system and a simplified version, the Modified Mucus method. Researchers are investigating the effectiveness of a simple 2-day algorithm for the mucus-only system (2 consecutive dry days without mucus indicates an infertile state) in avoiding pregnancy (Jennings & Sinai, 2001 ; Sinai, Jennings, & Arevalo, 1999 ).
The combination of several natural indicators of fertility, including cervical mucus, BBT shift, calendar formulas, and cervical changes, are used in the various forms of the symptothermal methods (STMs).
There are only a few comparative studies on NFP effectiveness. Some consider the STM to be more effective when used to avoid pregnancy than the single-indicator mucus method (Kambic, 2000 ). A recent European study that compared a double-check STM with a single-check STM found a
2.6% unintended pregnancy rate with the double-check and an 8.5% unintended pregnancy rate with the single-check method (Freundl, 1999 ). The double-check method involves use of a calendar day formula and the observation of cervical mucus to determine the beginning of the fertile period and two biological markers to determine the end of the fertile phase (i.e., the peak in cervical mucus and temperature changes). The single-check method uses one biological indicator (cervical mucus) to determine the beginning of the fertile period and one indicator (temperature) to determine the end of the fertile period.
.......
Few health care professionals have in-depth knowledge, appreciation, and understanding of natural family planning.
...... NFP methods can be very effective in helping couples to both achieve and avoid pregnancy (Hilgers & Stanford, 1998 ; Howard & Stanford, 1999 ). However, very few studies on NFP effectiveness have been clinical trials with comparison groups (Lamprecht & Trussell, 1997 ). Adherence to NFP method instruction and spousal support are key factors in high effectiveness rates (Tommaselli, Guida, & Palomba, 2000 ). There is also the realization that the older calendar methods of NFP might be more effective than was previously thought (Kambic, 2000 ).
__________________________________________________ ______________
The Allen Guttmacher Institute
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html , rates “periodic abstinence”—
which lumps ALL sorts of Fertility Awareness methods together—with “perfect use” from 1.0-9.0 failure rate, and a “typical use” failure rate of 25.0. Of course—as noted in the above article—these methods require commitment and self control from the users.
Quote:
So then it is good that I wasn't merely making assertion, but actually were dispensing actual facts. You should try it sometimes. Then you wouldn't have to be called on as the liar you are all the time.
Do you take it all back now, steen? I won’t hold my breath.........
...could happen....:smile: