Article Text
Abstract
Objective To examine the long-term effectiveness and continuation of the Standard Days Method (SDM)®, a fertility awareness-based method of family planning that identifies Days 8–19 (inclusive) of the cycle as the fertile window. On these days users avoid unprotected sexual intercourse to prevent pregnancy. The method works best for women with cycles that are usually in the range of 26–32 days, which is an important reason for method discontinuation in the first year of use. The authors determine if this continues to be an issue in the second and third years of method use.
Methods Participants in an earlier efficacy study (478 women in three countries) and method introduction studies (1181 women in four countries) were followed for 2 years beyond the original 1-year study period, to determine their continued use of the method, intended and unintended pregnancies, and reasons for discontinuation. Life-tables were used to approximate typical use pregnancy rates.
Results The method continues to be effective in the second and third years of use, and compares favourably to other user-directed family planning methods. Women with no more than two cycles outside the 26–32-day range within a year are likely to continue having cycles within this range.
Conclusions Women who complete the first year of SDM use are likely to continue to be able to use the method successfully and effectively. The method presents a viable longer-term option for women who prefer this approach to family planning.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
-
Funding The Institute for Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA supported this study under cooperative agreement #HRN-00-A-97-00011-00 with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID); the preparation of this article was supported under cooperative agreement #GPO-A-00-07-00003-00 with the USAID. The views expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of USAID or Georgetown University.
-
Ethical approval Procedures and instruments for all these studies were approved by the Georgetown University Institutional Review Board.
-
Competing interests None.
-
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.