Interest in natural family planning among female family practice patients

Definition of Infertility and Indications for Fertility Evaluation: Consensus Document

Minjeur M et al., 2026 · Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine · Free to read

Infertility is a clinical condition that is recognized by the symptom of an inability to conceive through sexual intercourse or to sustain a pregnancy, with that symptom indicating underlying male and/or female pathology. This definition of infertility was developed through a structured, consensus-informed process involving broad stakeholder engagement. Initially, multiple definitions currently used by various medical professional organizations were reviewed, and a definition document was drafted and submitted to the Board of Directors of the International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine (IIRRM). All IIRRM members were invited to provide feedback on the draft. Approximately 2,500 individuals and 44 organizations from 92 countries were then invited to review the proposed document, representing clinical, scientific, patient, policy, and advocacy perspectives. Submitted comments were reviewed thematically, with suggested revisions evaluated for clarity, clinical relevance, inclusiveness, and consistency with contemporary restorative reproductive medicine. Following this review, 3 substantive changes, 18 minor changes, and 15 citation corrections were incorporated into the final draft which resulted in a revised definition intended to better reflect the medical, social, and practical realities of modern infertility evaluation and care. Final approval by the IIRRM Board of Directors was unanimous.

Subfecundity, Infertility Treatment, and Child Neurodevelopment

Kahn LG et al., 2026 · JAMA Network Open · Free full text on PubMed Central

Increasing numbers of children are conceived using infertility treatment; concerns remain about potential effects on child neurodevelopment. To evaluate whether infertility treatment is associated with child neurodevelopment and whether such an association may be attributable to underlying subfecundity. DESIGN, SETTING, This cohort study was conducted among mother-child dyads in the National Institutes of Health Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Cohort, with infants conceived between 1998 and 2022. Associations of subfecundity and infertility treatment with neurodevelopmental outcomes were assessed among children ages 2 to 10 years. Data were analyzed from May 14, 2025, to March 31, 2026. Subfecundity was defined as prior consultation for, treatment of, or diagnosis of infertility for either partner; at least 2 prior miscarriages; or ever having had unprotected heterosexual intercourse for 12 months without conceiving. Infertility treatment was categorized as in vitro fertilization (IVF) or non-IVF treatment. Harmonized caregiver responses to the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Child Behavior Checklist yielded continuous raw scores for externalizing and internalizing problems. The total raw Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) score quantified autism-like symptoms. Caregivers reported physician diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Among 15 382 mother-infant dyads, there were 14 191 unique maternal participants (mean [SD] age at delivery, 30.9 [5.33] years; 8780 parous participants [57.1%]). ASD and ADHD were diagnosed in 876 offspring (7.6%) and 819 offspring (7.1%), respectively. In generalized linear models, subfecundity was associated with higher externalizing problem and SRS scores among all pregnancies (externalizing problems: b = 0.47 [95% CI, 0.14-0.81]; SRS score: b = 1.08 [95% CI, 0.01-2.14]) and when restricted to natural conceptions (externalizing problems: b = 0.45 [95% CI, 0.07-0.83]; SRS score: b = 1.12 [95% CI, -0.09 to 2.34]). Offspring of parents with subfecundity had higher odds of ASD (overall: odds ratio [OR], 1.27 [95% CI, 1.03-1.57]; natural conceptions: OR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.04-1.64]). Children conceived via non-IVF treatment had higher odds of ADHD compared with those conceived via natural conception with subfecundity (OR, 1.77 [95% CI, 1.16-2.68]) or without subfecundity (OR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.05-2.25]). There were no significant associations for IVF treatment. In this large US cohort study, subfecundity was associated with elevated scores for caregiver-reported symptoms of behavioral problems and higher odds of ASD diagnosis, independent of infertility treatment. Non-IVF treatment was associated with ADHD, warranting further research into specific indications for treatment that may increase risk of offspring neurodevelopmental problems.

Potential increase of the U.S. total fertility rate resulting from restorative treatment of unresolved subfertility: a simulation study

Stanford JB et al., 2026 · Frontiers in Reproductive Health · Free full text on PubMed Central

Background The total fertility rate (TFR) in most developed countries has been declining for decades. In the United States (U.S.), the total fertility rate has remained below replacement level since 2007. Subfertility affects at least 15% of women or couples over their reproductive lifespan and contributes to reduced TFR. Restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) is a medically based approach to subfertility care that can be delivered in primary care settings to increase live birth rates. Objective To estimate the theoretical impact of use of RRM among subfertile couples in the United States. Methods We conducted a simulation study. Model inputs included the number of women of reproductive age in the United States by 5-year age groups; current age-specific and total fertility rates; the proportion of women in each age group with subfertility; estimated spontaneous live birth rates among women with subfertility; and age-specific crude live birth rates with RRM treatment. We evaluated fifteen scenarios including sensitivity analyses: two different varying assumptions for spontaneous conception (25% vs. 50%), two levels of RRM utilization among subfertile women (20% vs. 50%), three different estimates of the number of subfertile women who would be potentially eligible for RRM treatment, and 4 different levels of effectiveness (live birth) from RRM treatment. Results The baseline TFR in the United States was 1.77 during 2015-2019, and 13.5% of women ages 20-44 were estimated to have subfertility. In a conservative scenario (50% spontaneous births; 20% RRM utilization; married women trying to conceive for at least 12 months, 20.7% RRM live births), the TFR increased to 1.79, representing a 1.0% relative increase (absolute +0.02). In an optimistic scenario (25% spontaneous births; 50% RRM utilization; all subfertile women), the TFR increased to 2.02, a 14.5% relative increase (absolute +0.26), approaching replacement-level fertility. Conclusion Simulation results suggest that expanding access to RRM within primary care settings could meaningfully increase the U.S. TFR, by reducing unresolved subfertility. Realizing this potential would require policy and health system changes to address workforce capacity, insurance coverage, and equitable access. These findings underscore the potential contribution of non-IVF fertility care pathways in addressing population-level fertility decline.

Restorative Reproductive Medicine Restricting Access to Care

Minjeur M et al., 2026 · JAMA

Women's interest in natural family planning

Lemaire JC et al., 1998 · J Fam Pract

In the United States, approximately 4% of women of reproductive age use natural family planning (NFP) to avoid pregnancy. It is unclear whether this low number is related to a lack of available information, women's lack of interest, or other factors. Our study examined women's interest in using NFP either to become pregnant or to avoid it. A questionnaire was mailed to 1500 women, aged 18 to 50, who were randomly selected from driver's license renewal records in Missouri for the year beginning July 1991 and ending June 1992. Of the 747 returned questionnaires, 484 were from women who were still potentially fertile. Of these women, 22.5% indicated that they would be likely or very likely to use NFP in the future to avoid pregnancy, and 37.4% indicated that they would be likely or very likely to use NFP in the future to become pregnant. Only 2.8% were currently using a method of NFP. Past use of any method of NFP (including the outdated calendar rhythm method) to avoid pregnancy was associated with interest in future use of modern methods of NFP to avoid pregnancy. Past use of NFP to become pregnant and the possible desire for future pregnancy were associated with interest in future use of NFP to conceive. Many women who are not currently using NFP indicated that they are interested in doing so in the future, either to avoid pregnancy or to conceive. Interest in future use of NFP is associated with, but not limited to, those who have previously used NFP.

Factors influencing the choice to use modern natural family planning

Rauchfuss M et al., 2003 · Contraception

A discrepancy exists between the interest in modern methods of natural family planning (NFP) and their actual use in developed countries. To explore reasons for this discrepancy, we analyzed data from a questionnaire administered to postpartum women in Berlin (n = 223) and Cracow (n = 233). Knowledge of NFP, past use of NFP and expected effects of abstinence on the partnership were independently associated with interest in using NFP, but not the choice to do so among those interested. Desire for future pregnancies, importance of religious belief and location in Cracow were independently associated with the choice to use NFP among those interested. Perceived accuracy of observation to identify the fertile time and acceptance of own body were independently associated with both interest in and choice to use NFP. Frequency of intercourse had no effect on interest. These results suggest that increased access and cultural support would likely lead to a higher prevalence of NFP use in developed countries.

Physician and Nurses’ Knowledge and Use of Natural Family Planning

Fehring RJ, 1995 · Linacre Q

Perinatal health professionals are in key positions to either promote or dissuade the use of Natural Family Planning (NFP). The purpose of this article is to describe a survey conducted with perinatal physicians and nurses on their knowledge and professional use of NFP. Four hundred and fifty physicians and nurses (150 MDs and 300 RNs) were sent a questionnaire on the use of and knowledge of NFP. One hundred sixty-six (or 37%) returned the completed questionnaires. Fifty-two percent of the nurses who returned the questionnaires and 48% of the physicians indicated they were taught about NFP in basic (generic) medical or nursing school. The average lecture time spent on the subject in either nursing or medical school was less than one hour. The majority learned about NFP through self-education or on-the-job training. Only four (1 RN and 3 MDs) are certified to teach NFP. Fifty-three percent of the nurses and 44% of physicians would not advise the use of NFP to avoid pregnancy. The most frequent reasons given for not promoting the use of NFP to either avoid or achieve pregnancy were that it is not effective, not natural, too difficult to learn, better methods are available, and it only works for highly motivated educated women.

Natural family planning: physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practice

Choi J et al., 2010 · J Obstet Gynaecol Can

To assess physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practice with respect to four evidence-based natural family planning (NFP) Standard Days, cervical mucus, basal body temperature, and the lactational amenorrhea method. We undertook a cross-sectional survey of a random sample of family physicians and all gynaecologists in British Columbia (n = 460) who have women of reproductive age in their practice, as well as all affiliated residents (n = 239). Main outcome measures were (1) physicians' attitudes towards NFP and their perceptions of its effectiveness; (2) the relationship between physicians' demographic factors, their personal experience or beliefs, and their attitudes and knowledge; and (3) how these factors affect the counselling physicians offer their patients. The survey response rate was 44%. Only 3% to 6% of physicians had correct knowledge of the effectiveness in perfect use of the NFP methods cited in this study. Fifty percent of physicians who responded mention NFP to their patients as an option for contraception, and 77% of physicians mention NFP as an option to couples trying to conceive. Family physicians and residents were much more likely than gynaecologists or gynaecology residents to mention NFP during counselling. Older physicians were more likely to mention NFP than younger physicians and also had more personal experience with NFP. Most physicians in our study underestimated the effectiveness of NFP methods, and only a small proportion of physicians provide information about NFP during contraceptive counselling. Physicians need better understanding of modern methods of NFP to provide evidence-based contraceptive counselling to selected highly motivated patients who prefer NFP as a contraceptive choice.