Natural family planning (NFP) empowers women to control their reproductive health and approach fertility as a normal biological process. Although substantive literature supports their comparative effectiveness with contraceptive methods, there is a paucity of this knowledge amongst clinicians and users. This study aimed to understand clinicians' perceptions regarding offering NFP to patients as part of reproductive health care. It explored clinicians' knowledge of NFP, described their perceptions of their effectiveness, and identified enabling and deterring factors to their use. Basic Interpretive qualitative research design was appropriate in obtaining an in-depth description of this phenomenon. It was conducted in 2018 in two hospitals and clinics in Ekurhuleni health district, located East of Gauteng Province, South Africa. Fifteen doctors and nurses from diverse cultural and educational backgrounds were purposefully selected and interviewed. Transcribed data were analyzed, coded, and recurrent themes identified. Training that empowers clinicians on NFP methods and their effectiveness will improve their willingness to advocate for it and promote patient autonomy by providing comprehensive counseling on family planning methods. Further, a pro-NFP policy would drive training in undergraduate and postgraduate programs and increase public awareness, including early education of male and female children.
natural family planning clinician perceptions, NFP qualitative study providers, fertility awareness provider attitudes, reproductive health counseling clinicians, natural family planning clinical practice, FABM clinician barriers, provider education natural family planning, contraceptive counseling clinician perspectives, family planning clinician attitudes, NFP clinical integration
PMID 35875372 35875372 DOI 10.1177/00243639221078070 10.1177/00243639221078070 Joan Ibeziako et al. 2022, Joan Ibeziako 2022
Cite this article
Joan Ibeziako, O. (2022). Natural Family Planning, An Option in Reproductive Healthcare: A Qualitative Study on Clinicians' Perceptions. The Linacre Quarterly, 89(3), 298-318. https://doi.org/10.1177/00243639221078070
Joan Ibeziako O. Natural Family Planning, An Option in Reproductive Healthcare: A Qualitative Study on Clinicians' Perceptions. Linacre Q. 2022;89(3):298-318. doi:10.1177/00243639221078070
Joan Ibeziako, Ozoemena. "Natural Family Planning, An Option in Reproductive Healthcare: A Qualitative Study on Clinicians' Perceptions." The Linacre Quarterly, vol. 89, no. 3, 2022, pp. 298-318.
This study explores differences in the use of CycleProGo™ (CPG), a fertility-tracking app developed by Couple to Couple League (CCL), between those exposed to it as a part of natural family planning (NFP) instruction versus those who find it on their own. An anonymous data set of 17,543 CPG accounts opened between April 2013 and June 2016 was used for analysis. Nonmember users opened the most accounts (58 percent, n = 10,134), CCL members represented 38 percent (n = 6,758) of new accounts, and 207 CCL teachers (4 percent) were using CPG for personal charting. Significantly more nonmember accounts had zero days of use after the initial opening compared to CCL member accounts (61 percent vs. 23 percent, respectively, χ(2) = 2,405.9, p < .001). Conversely, significantly more CCL member accounts were used for ninety days or longer than nonmember accounts (47 percent vs. 13 percent, respectively, χ(2) = 2,404.2, p < .001). CCL students-those who began using the app as part of a formal NFP teaching curriculum-were more likely to use the app for > six cycles compared to nonmembers. In accounts with at least one complete cycle, CCL students were the most diligent at daily recording (95 percent of cycle days with observation recorded) followed by CCL members (88 percent) and nonmembers (76 percent). CCL teachers had the lowest frequency of cycle days with a recorded observation (73 percent). Within each cohort, accounts with > six recorded cycles had a lower proportion of cycle days with an observation recorded, likely reflecting increasing knowledge of their personal fertility patterns. Long-term users who had no known formal training in NFP still had the lowest proportion cycle days with a fertility observation. We conclude formal NFP instruction increases the probability of long-term app use, and regardless of training, long-term users will likely record observations on about 70 percent of cycle days.
"CycleProGo™ users with NFP training were more persistent and diligent about daily data input than those without training."
Comparative Studies · Contraception Versus Fertility Awareness
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.
Diagnostic Criteria and Classification · Terminology and Definitions
Teede HJ et al., 2026·Lancet (London, England)·
Open Access
Polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS), previously named polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), affects one in eight women. However, the term PCOS is inaccurate, implying pathological ovarian cysts, obscuring diverse endocrine and metabolic features, and contributing to delayed diagnosis, fragmented care, and stigma, while curtailing research and policy framing. Building on an international mandate for change, we outline an unprecedented, rigorous, multistep global consensus process for the name change. Funding and governance were established with engagement of 56 leading academic, clinical, and patient organisations. Using iterative global surveys (with responses from 14 360 people with PCOS and multidisciplinary health professionals from all world regions), modified Delphi methods, nominal group technique workshops, and marketing and implementation analyses, we identified principles prioritising scientific accuracy, clarity, stigma avoidance, cultural appropriateness, and implementation feasibility. An accurate new name was prioritised over retaining the PCOS acronym or a generic name. Implementation approaches prioritised evolution rather than transformation. Preferred terms were polyendocrine, metabolic, and ovarian, reflecting the condition's multisystem pathophysiology, and polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome was the consensus new name. Accuracy was improved by omitting cysts and by capturing endocrine, metabolic, and ovarian dysfunction. A co-designed global implementation strategy, including a transition period, education, and alignment with health systems and disease classification, is under way.
Advocacy and Public Understanding · Public Awareness
Parnell TA et al., 2026·Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine
This study examined public attitudes toward restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) using secondary analysis and comparative reporting of two independent surveys conducted in the United States. It also explored preferences among individuals with fertility issues and the general population’s views on treatment options. A secondary analysis was conducted using data from two nationally representative online surveys, designed and administered by organizations independent of the researchers, whose samples demographically reflected the U.S. adult population. The surveys—conducted by J.L. Partners (N=1002) and McLaughlin & Associates (N=1000)—assessed familiarity, acceptance, and attitudes toward IVF and RRM. The J.L. Partners survey focused on IVF, including medical risks, creation and use of embryos, preimplantation genetic testing, arguments for government oversight of IVF, and overall attitudes toward IVF. The McLaughlin survey focused on comparative descriptions of IVF and RRM. Pearson’s Chi-Square tests of independence were used to assess differences in response distributions across demographic subgroups and between survey items of interest. Findings: Overall, there was strong consistency of responses to items that were similar in the two surveys. Approximately 80% supported IVF initially, although both surveys found respondents to have limited knowledge about IVF procedures. In contrast, 33% supported RRM initially, with 43% having never heard of RRM. After learning more about the characteristics of RRM and IVF approaches, as presented within the surveys, preference shifted toward approaches consistent with RRM (e.g., 69% preference for an approach for natural fertilization in a woman’s body vs. 17% for fertilization in a lab). Respondents prioritized baby health (74%) over cost (13%) and time to conceive (6%). Many IVF patients were concerned about undiagnosed health issues and being rushed into IVF. Overall, 70% wanted treatments that addressed underlying causes; nearly half were unaware of any medical risks of IVF. Stated support for IVF declined by 10% overall after presentation of medical risks, questions about the creation and use of embryos and genetic testing, and arguments to support government oversight of IVF. Both surveys showed strong support for patient access to full information about treatments and treatment processes. While IVF is widely accepted, these national survey data suggest preferences for fertility treatments that prioritize diagnosis and restoration of natural reproductive health, which is the focus of restorative reproductive medicine. Comprehensive assessment, restoration of healthy function, transparency regarding treatment processes, and sensitivity to ethical concerns in patient care reflect important public values. Greater awareness and public education, improved consent, more research, and ongoing surveys are needed to inform public health strategies and meet patient needs in fertility care.