Content deleted Content added
GreenC bot (talk | contribs) Rescued 1 archive link. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:URLREQ#usaid.gov |
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5 |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 7:
While the terms ''rhythm method'' and ''fertility awareness'' are not synonymous, some sources do treat them as such.<ref>{{cite web |title=Rhythm Method |publisher=Contraception.net |year=2008 |url=http://www.contraception.net/resource_centre/rhythm_method.asp |access-date=2008-05-18 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080512001456/http://www.contraception.net/resource_centre/rhythm_method.asp |archive-date=2008-05-12 }}</ref> However, [[fertility awareness]] is usually used as a broad term that includes tracking [[basal body temperature]] and [[cervical mucus]] as well as cycle length. The [[World Health Organization]] considers the rhythm method to be a specific type of calendar-based method, and calendar-based methods to be only one form of fertility awareness.<ref name="who">{{cite web|title=Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use:Fertility awareness-based methods | version = Third edition |publisher=World Health Organization |year=2004 |url=https://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/mec/fab.html |access-date=2008-04-29 }}</ref>
More effective than calendar-based methods, systems of fertility awareness that track basal body temperature, cervical mucus, or both, are known as symptoms-based methods. Teachers of symptoms-based methods take care to distance their systems from the poor reputation of the rhythm method.<ref>{{cite web |last=Weschler |first=Toni |title=Fertility Myths |work=Ovusoft |publisher=Taking Charge of Your Fertility |url=http://www.ovusoft.com/library/myths.asp#19 |access-date=2008-04-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080422205032/http://www.ovusoft.com/library/myths.asp#19 |archive-date = 2008-04-22}}</ref> Many consider the rhythm method to have been obsolete for at least 20 years,<ref name="tcoyf">{{cite book | first=Toni | last=Weschler | year=2002 | title=Taking Charge of Your Fertility | url=https://archive.org/details/takingchargeofyo00toni | url-access=registration |pages=[https://archive.org/details/takingchargeofyo00toni/page/3 3–4] |edition=Revised |publisher=HarperCollins |place=New York |isbn=0-06-093764-5 }}</ref> and some even exclude calendar-based methods from their definition of fertility awareness.<ref>{{cite web |last=Singer |first=Katie |title=What is Fertility Awareness? |work=The Garden of Fertility |year=2007 |url=http://www.gardenoffertility.com/fertilityawareness.shtml |access-date=2008-05-18 |archive-date=2018-10-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181017053511/http://www.gardenoffertility.com/fertilityawareness.shtml |url-status=dead }}</ref>
Some sources may treat the terms ''rhythm method'' and ''natural family planning'' as synonymous.<ref>{{cite web|title=Rhythm Method |work=Birth Control Health Center |publisher=WebMD |year=2005 |url=http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/rhythm-method |access-date=2008-05-18}}</ref> In the early 20th century, the calendar-based method known as the ''rhythm method'' was promoted by members of the [[Roman Catholic Church]] as the only morally acceptable form of [[family planning]]. Methods accepted by this church are referred to as [[natural family planning]] (NFP): so at one time, the term "the rhythm method" was synonymous with NFP. Today, NFP is an umbrella term that includes symptoms-based fertility awareness methods and the [[lactational amenorrhea method]] as well as calendar-based methods such as rhythm.<ref>{{cite web |title=Natural Family Planning |work=Institute for Reproductive Health, [[Georgetown University]] |year=2005 |url=http://www.irh.org/nfp.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060208191517/http://irh.org/nfp.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=2006-02-08 |access-date=2008-05-18 }}</ref> This overlap between uses of the terms "the rhythm method" and "natural family planning" may contribute to confusion.
Line 28:
In the first half of the 20th century, most users of the rhythm method were Catholic; they were following their church's teaching that all other methods of birth control were sinful. In 1968 the encyclical ''[[Humanae vitae]]'' included the statement, "It is supremely desirable... that medical science should by the study of natural rhythms succeed in determining a sufficiently secure basis for the chaste limitation of offspring." This is interpreted as favoring the then-new, more reliable symptoms-based [[fertility awareness]] methods over the rhythm method. Currently, many fertility awareness teachers consider the rhythm method to have been obsolete for at least 20 years.<ref name="tcoyf" />
New attention was drawn to calendar-based methods in 2002, when the Institute for Reproductive Health at [[Georgetown University]] introduced the Standard Days Method. Designed to be simpler to teach and use than the older rhythm method, the Standard Days Method was initially integrated piloted in 30 [[family planning]] programs worldwide. However, only 16 countries scaled up beyond pilots, with limited adoption since.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Weis |first1=Julianne |last2=Festin |first2=Mario |title=Implementation and Scale-Up of the Standard Days Method of Family Planning: A Landscape Analysis |journal=Global Health
==Types and effectiveness==
Line 46:
* Day 20 through the end of the cycle are considered infertile.
When used to avoid pregnancy, the standard days method has been estimated<ref>[https://irh.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/SDM_Top_20_FAQs_English.pdf «Standard Days Method® and CycleBeads®: Top 20 Most Frequently Asked Questions»]. ''Institute for Reproductive Health''.</ref> to have perfect-use efficacy of 95% and typical-use efficacy of 88%.<ref name="Arévalo M, Jennings V, Sinai I 2002 333–8"/><ref name="WF">Weis, Julianne; Festin, Mario (2020-02-07). [https://www.ghspjournal.org/content/8/1/114 «Implementation and Scale-Up of the Standard Days Method of Family Planning: A Landscape Analysis»]. ''Global Health: Science and Practice'' '''8''' (1): 114-124. {{ISSN|2169-575X}}. {{doi|10.9745/ghsp-d-19-00287}}.</ref> These figures are based on a 2002 study in Bolivia, Peru, and the Philippines of women of reproductive age having menstrual cycles between 26 and 32 days,<ref name="Arévalo M, Jennings V, Sinai I 2002 333–8"/><ref>{{cite book|title=Management of Common Problems in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 5th ed.|editor-last=Goodwin|editor-first=T. Murphy|editor2-last=Montoro|editor2-first=Martin N.|editor3-last=Muderspach|editor3-first=Laila|editor4-last=Paulson|editor4-first=Richard|editor5-last=Roy|editor5-first=Subir|publisher=Wiley-Blackwell|year=2010|asin=B005D7EP92}}</ref>{{rp|505}} and on a 2014 study in Turkey.<ref>Kursun, Zerrin; Cali, Sanda; Sakarya, Sibel (2014-06). [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24597662/ «The Standard Days Method(®): efficacy, satisfaction and demand at regular family planning service delivery settings in Turkey»]. ''The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care: The Official Journal of the European Society of Contraception'' '''19''' (3): 203-210. {{ISSN|1473-0782}}. {{PMID|24597662}}. {{doi|10.3109/13625187.2014.890181}}.</ref> However, other researchers have criticized the methodology of the first study, have stated that the 95% figure has been presented to the public in misleading ways, and have argued that the true efficacy figures are likely to be much lower.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Marston|first1=Cicely A.|last2=Church|first2=Kathryn|date=2016-06-01|title=Does the evidence support global promotion of the calendar-based Standard Days Method® of contraception?|url=http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(16)00005-6/fulltext|journal=Contraception|language=en|volume=93|issue=6|pages=492–497|doi=10.1016/j.contraception.2016.01.006|pmid=26794286|issn=0010-7824|doi-access=free}}</ref> Another meta study indicated that typical-use efficacy ranged between 90% and 82%, a bit lower than the 88% figure originally found.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Weis |first1=Julianne |last2=Festin |first2=Mario |title=Implementation and Scale-Up of the Standard Days Method of Family Planning: A Landscape Analysis |journal=Global Health
==Software-based systems==
Line 52:
==Advantages==
The Standard Days method (SDM) was introduced as part of [[family planning]] programs in developing countries.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Weis |first1=Julianne |last2=Festin |first2=Mario |title=Implementation and Scale-Up of the Standard Days Method of Family Planning: A Landscape Analysis |journal=Global Health
==Potential concerns==
Line 59:
One concern related to the use of calendar-based methods is their relatively high failure rate, compared to other methods of birth control. Even when used perfectly, calendar-based methods, especially the rhythm method, result in a high pregnancy rate among couples intending to avoid pregnancy. Of commonly known methods of birth control, only the [[cervical cap]] and [[contraceptive sponge]] have comparably high failure rates. This lower level of reliability of calendar-based methods is because their formulas make several assumptions that are not always true.<ref name="kippleycalendar">Kippley, p.154</ref>
The postovulatory ([[Menstrual cycle#Luteal phase|luteal]]) phase has a normal length of 12 to 16 days,<ref>Weschler, p.48.</ref> and the rhythm method formula assumes all women have luteal phase lengths within this range. However, many women have shorter luteal phases, and a few have longer luteal phases.<ref>Kippley, p.111</ref> For these women, the rhythm method formula incorrectly identifies a few fertile days as being in the infertile period.<ref name="kippleycalendar" /> Roughly 30-50% of women have phases outside this range.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Marston |first1=Cicely A. |last2=Church |first2=Kathryn |title=Does the evidence support global promotion of the calendar-based Standard Days Method® of contraception?
Finally, calendar-based methods assume that all bleeding is true menstruation. However, mid-cycle or [[anovulatory bleeding]] can be caused by a number of factors.<ref>Kippley, pp.413-415</ref> Incorrectly identifying bleeding as menstruation will cause the method's calculations to be incorrect.<ref name="kippleycalendar" />
Line 67:
===Destruction of fertilized eggs===
Philosopher Luc Bovens has suggested that the use of the rhythm method probably results in a large number of abortions, because unprotected intercourse in the infertile periods of the menstrual cycle may still result in conceptions but create zygotes incapable of implanting.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Luc Bovens |title=The rhythm method and embryonic death |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |year=2006 |volume=32 |pages=355–356 |url= |doi=10.1136/jme.2005.013920 |pmid=16731736 |pmc=2563373 |issue=6}}</ref> Bovens's argument
==References==
Line 76:
{{DEFAULTSORT:Calendar-Based Contraceptive Methods}}
[[Category:1930 introductions]]
[[Category:Fertility awareness]]
[[Category:Calendars]]
| |||