Editorials: Controversies in Family Medicine
Is Natural Family Planning a Highly Effective Method of Birth Control? Yes: Natural Family Planning Is Highly Effective and Fulfilling
FREE PREVIEW Log in or buy this issue to read the full article. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles. Subscribe now.
FREE PREVIEW Subscribe or buy this issue. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles.
Am Fam Physician. 2012 Nov 15;86(10):online.
This is one in a series of pro/con editorials discussing controversial issues in family medicine.
Related article: Natural Family Planning
Related editorial: Is Natural Family Planning a Highly Effective Method of Birth Control? No: Natural Family Planning Methods Are Overrated
Natural family planning (NFP) is an effective and fulfilling method of avoiding pregnancy 1 that has developed significantly over the past 80 years. Because many physicians lack a correct understanding of modern NFP methods, they may underestimate the effectiveness of NFP and offer limited information to their patients.2–4 Between 40 and 60 percent of surveyed women report that they are interested in learning more from their physicians about nonhormonal, nonbarrier, and nonsurgical methods of birth control.5–7 This interest reaches across geographic regions, religions, and socioeconomic and education levels.7,8
Only 1 to 3 percent of U.S. women use NFP for birth control.8 Although most women included in studies of NFP are in stable long-term relationships and have high educational levels and socioeconomic status, there are no proven predictors of success.8 International studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of NFP, regardless of the user's religion, marital status, or socioeconomic level.8 A survey of women who use NFP indicated that less than 1 percent made the decision to use it based on the advice of their physician.8
NFP practices are thought to be complicated, but actually can be simple. For example, a woman using the TwoDay Method asks herself, “Did I note cervical secretions today?” and “Did I note cervical secretions yesterday?” If the answer to either question is “yes,” she is considered fertile. If the answer to both is “no,” her probability of conceiving that day is low.9 This method can be taught within the time allowed for a contraceptive counseling visit.8 Significant advantages of this method include its effectiveness, regardless of cycle regularity or irregularity.9,10
With correct use, the failure rate of NFP is similar to those of more commonly accepted hormonal and barrier contraceptive methods. The symptothermal method, which monitors basal body temperature, cervical secretions, cervical position, and cycle patterns to predict periods of fertility, has been proven effective: its failure rate is 0.4 percent per year with perfect use, and 7.5 percent per year with typical use.1 The effectiveness of the TwoDay method rivals that of condoms: with perfect use, the TwoDay Method has a 4 percent annual rate of unintended pregnancy compared with 2 percent for condoms; with typical use, 14 percent compared with 18 percent for condoms.10
NFP is effective and offers benefits that hormonal and barrier contraceptive methods cannot, including no or low cost, ease of use, no systemic adverse effects, and no medication interactions.4,5,10 NFP is safe for women in whom hormonal methods are undesirable because of medical comorbidities. NFP empowers the couple in understanding fertility, increases relationship satisfaction, and is associated with lower rates of elective termination.4,5,8 More than 90 percent of TwoDay users and their partners report being satisfied with this method.5,10 Some physicians may avoid recommending NFP because they think periodic abstinence will interfere with a couple's sex life; however, couples who use NFP have equal or more frequent sex compared with non-NFP users.8 Additionally, knowledge of fertility awareness can help a couple conceive effectively, without the delay in return to fertility that occurs with some artificial contraceptive methods.8 To make NFP methods easier to follow, computer programs are available that help a woman track her daily symptoms and fertile days.11
As noted in a 2004 Cochrane review, a systematic review of the evidence for NFP is challenging.12 Because of the lack of consistency among available randomized controlled trials, a meta-analysis combining data from multiple studies could not be performed. Despite these challenges, there are numerous studies on NFP methods that are promising and noteworthy. NFP should be included in birth control counseling because it can be used effectively if the couple commits to it. Modern NFP methods are as effective as hormonal and barrier contraception, and family physicians should understand and discuss these methods with their patients.3,8
Address correspondence to Crista B. Warniment, MD, at email@example.com. Reprints are not available from the authors.
Author disclosure: No relevant financial affiliations to disclose.
1. Frank-Herrmann P, Heil J, Gnoth C, et al. The effectiveness of a fertility awareness based method to avoid pregnancy in relation to a couple's sexual behaviour during the fertile time: a prospective longitudinal study. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(5):1310–1319.
2. Choi J, Chan S, Wiebe E. Natural family planning: physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practice. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2010;32(7):673–678.
3. Kelly PJ, Witt J, McEvers K, et al. Clinican perceptions of providing natural family planning methods in Title X funded clinics. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2012;57(1):35–42.
4. Stanford JB, Thurman PB, Lemaire JC. Physicians' knowledge and practices regarding natural family planning. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94(5 pt 1):672–678.
5. Leonard CJ, Chavira W, Coonrod DV, Hart KW, Bay RC. Survey of attitudes regarding natural family planning in an urban Hispanic population. Contraception. 2006;74(4):313–317.
6. Stanford JB, Lemaire JC, Thurman PB. Women's interest in natural family planning. J Fam Pract. 1998;46(1):65–71.
7. Stanford JB, Lemaire JC, Fox A. Interest in natural family planning among female family practice patients. Fam Pract Res J. 1994;14(3):237–249.
8. Pallone SR, Bergus GR. Fertility awareness-based methods: another option for family planning [published correction appears in J Am Board Fam Med. 2009;22(5):596]. J Am Board Fam Med. 2009;22(2):147–157.
9. Jennings V, Sinai I. Further analysis of the theoretical effectiveness of the TwoDay method of family planning. Contraception. 2001;64(3):149–153.
10. Arévalo M, Jennings V, Nikula M, Sinai I. Efficacy of the new TwoDay Method of family planning. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(4):885–892.
11. The Couple to Couple League. CyclePro charting software. http://ccli.org/productsservices/nfp-materials/cyclepro-charting-software.php. Accessed February 16, 2012.
12. Grimes DA, Gallo MF, Grigorieva V, Nanda K, Schulz KF. Fertility awareness-based methods for contraception Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004(4):CD004860.
Copyright © 2012 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact firstname.lastname@example.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.
Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions