These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Contraceptive failure of the ovulation method of periodic abstinence.
    Author: Trussell J, Grummer-Strawn L.
    Journal: Fam Plann Perspect; 1990; 22(2):65-75. PubMed ID: 2189750.
    Abstract:
    Previously published estimates of probabilities of method and user failure for all contraceptive methods suffer from a serious methodological error and are biased downward, with the extent of bias unknown. Data from a World Health Organization clinical trial of the ovulation method of periodic abstinence were used to provide the first correctly calculated measures of method and user efficacy and to determine the characteristics that distinguish women who consciously take risks from those who do not. Probabilities of pregnancy during the first year are 3.1 percent during perfect use (method failure) and 86.4 percent during imperfect use (user failure). Thus, if used perfectly, the ovulation method is very effective. However, it is extremely unforgiving of imperfect use. Because perfect compliance is difficult for many couples who desire intercourse when it is forbidden by ovulation method rules, and because the risk of pregnancy during imperfect use is so great, the ovulation method cannot be considered an ideal contraceptive method for the typical couple, who are likely to be less compliant than couples who volunteer for a clinical trial. The probability of an accidental pregnancy is greatest when any of the three most serious rules--no intercourse during mucus days, within three days after the day of peak fecundity or during times of stress--are broken. Those who have a poor attitude toward the rules are more likely to take risks, including serious risks. Those who get away with taking a risk (i.e., do not get pregnant) are very likely to take risks again. Because breaking the most serious rules entails a 28 percent risk of pregnancy per cycle, those likely to take risks should be counseled about the probable consequences. Previously published estimates of probabilities of method and user failure for all contraceptive methods suffer from a serious methodological error and are biased downward, with the extent of bias unknown. Data from a World Health Organization clinical trial of the ovulation method of periodic abstinence were used to provide the first correctly calculated measures of method and user efficacy and to determine the characteristics that distinguish women who consciously take risks from those who do not. Probabilities of pregnancy during the 1st year are 3.1% during perfect use (method failure) and 86.4% during imperfect use (user failure). Thus, if used perfectly, the ovulation method is very effective. However, it is extremely unforgiving of imperfect use. Because perfect compliance is difficult for many couples who desire intercourse when it is forbidden by ovulation method rules, and because the risk of pregnancy during imperfect use is so great, the ovulation method cannot be considered an ideal contraceptive method for the typical couple, who are likely to be less compliant than couples who volunteer for a clinical trial. The probability of an accidental pregnancy is greatest when any of the 3 most serous rules--no intercourse during mucus days, within 3 days after the peak fecundity or during times of stress--are broken. Those who have a poor attitude toward the rules are more likely to take risks, including serious risks. Those who get away with taking a risk (i.e., do not get pregnant) are very likely to take risks again. Because breaking the most serious rules entails a 28% risk of pregnancy per cycle, those likely to take risks should be counseled about the probable consequences. The World Health Organization has 5 centers that teach the ovulation method: 1) Auckland, New Zealand; 2) Bangalore, India; 3) Dublin, Ireland; 4) Manila, the Philippines and 5) San Miguel, El Salvador. (Author's modified).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]