Calendar-based contraceptive methods: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:24, 2 June 2025

Revision as of 08:55, 2 June 2025

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,: Science and Practice |pages=114–124 |doi=10.9745/GHSP-D-19-00287 |date=30 March 2020|volume=8 |issue=1 |pmid=32033980 |pmc=7108942 }}</ref><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? |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26794286/ |journal=Contraception |access-date=15 October 2024 |pages=492–497 |doi=10.1016/j.contraception.2016.01.006 |date=June 2016|volume=93 |issue=6 |pmid=26794286 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wright |first1=Kelsey |last2=Iqteit |first2=Hiba |last3=Hardee |first3=Karen |title=Standard Days Method of contraception: Evidence on use, implementation, and scale up |url=https://knowledgecommons.popcouncil.org/departments_sbsr-rh/885/ |website=Reproductive Health |access-date=15 October 2024 |doi=10.31899/rh9.1057 |date=1 January 2015}}</ref>

==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,: Science and Practice |pages=114–124 |doi=10.9745/GHSP-D-19-00287 |date=30 March 2020|volume=8 |issue=1 |pmid=32033980 |pmc=7108942 }}</ref>

==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,: Science and Practice |pages=114–124 |doi=10.9745/GHSP-D-19-00287 |date=30 March 2020|volume=8 |issue=1 |pmid=32033980 |pmc=7108942 }}</ref> The method is satisfactory for many women and men.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Kalaca S, Cebeci D, Cali S, Sinai I, Karavus M, Jennings V |title=Expanding family planning options: offering the Standard Days Method to women in Istanbul |journal=J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=123–7 |year=2005 |pmid=15921552 |doi=10.1783/1471189053629446|doi-access=free |hdl=11424/241581 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{citation |author1=Urmil Dosajh |author2=Ishita Ghosh |author3=Rebecka Lundgren |title=Feasibility of Incorporating the Standard Days Method into CASP Family Planning Services in Urban Slums of India |publisher=The Institute for Reproductive Health, Georgetown University |url=http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADG768.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061001111304/http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADG768.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=October 1, 2006 |access-date=2006-12-02 }}</ref> The low cost of the method may also enable it to play a useful role in countries that lack funding to provide other methods of [[birth control]].<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Gribble J, Jennings V, Nikula M |title=Mind the gap: responding to the global funding crisis in family planning. |journal =J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care |volume=30 |issue=3 |pages=155–7 |year=2004 |pmid=15222918 |doi=10.1783/1471189041261483|doi-access=free }}</ref>

==Potential concerns==