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.
physician knowledge natural family planning survey, nurse education natural family planning medical school, Fehring RJ natural family planning healthcare providers, barriers to NFP promotion by healthcare professionals, perinatal providers attitudes toward natural family planning, NFP training medical nursing education curriculum, physician reluctance to recommend natural family planning, natural family planning effectiveness perceptions clinicians, healthcare provider NFP certification and counseling, survey physicians nurses contraception natural methods knowledge
DOI 10.1080/20508549.1995.11878322 10.1080/20508549.1995.11878322
Cite this article
Fehring, R. J. (1995). Physician and Nurses’ Knowledge and Use of Natural Family Planning. The Linacre Quarterly, 62(4), 22-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/20508549.1995.11878322
Fehring RJ. Physician and Nurses’ Knowledge and Use of Natural Family Planning. Linacre Q. 1995;62(4):22-28. doi:10.1080/20508549.1995.11878322
Fehring, R. J. "Physician and Nurses’ Knowledge and Use of Natural Family Planning." The Linacre Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 4, 1995, pp. 22-28.
Related articles
Fertility AwarenessEvidence ReviewHormone Monitoring and AppsPostpartum and Perimenopause
A one-day meeting was held as a pre-conference to the Catholic Medical Association Annual Educational event in 2024. A panel of eighteen physicians, scientists, and researchers involved in NFP work was convened to review the available (i) evidence for effectiveness of NFP methods to postpone and achieve pregnancy, (ii) evidence for effectiveness in the postpartum and perimenopause transition periods, (iii) evaluate the current state of technology in NFP (specifically app and quantitative hormone monitoring), and (iv) evidence examining the impact of NFP on marital relations. In each topical area, the panel worked to reach a consensus opinion on the currently available evidence and identified priorities for further research. Results from these discussions and a set of priorities for further work are presented here.
An expert panel was convened to review the current evidence supporting use of NFP in various settings, utilization of new technology, and the impact of NFP on marital dynamics. Results from these discussions and a set of priorities for further work are presented here.
Fertility awareness-based methods (FABMs), also known as natural family planning (NFP), enable couples to identify the days of the menstrual cycle when intercourse may result in pregnancy ("fertile days"), and to avoid intercourse on fertile days if they wish to avoid pregnancy. Thus, these methods are fully dependent on user behavior for effectiveness to avoid pregnancy. For couples and clinicians considering the use of an FABM, one important metric to consider is the highest expected effectiveness (lowest possible pregnancy rate) during the correct use of the method to avoid pregnancy. To assess this, most studies of FABMs have reported a method-related pregnancy rate (a cumulative proportion), which is calculated based on all cycles (or months) in the study. In contrast, the correct use to avoid pregnancy rate (also a cumulative proportion) has the denominator of cycles with the correct use of the FABM to avoid pregnancy. The relationship between these measures has not been evaluated quantitatively. We conducted a series of simulations demonstrating that the method-related pregnancy rate is artificially decreased in direct proportion to the proportion of cycles with intermediate use (any use other than correct use to avoid or targeted use to conceive), which also increases the total pregnancy rate. Thus, as the total pregnancy rate rises (related to intermediate use), the method-related pregnancy rate falls artificially while the correct use pregnancy rate remains constant. For practical application, we propose the core elements needed to assess correct use cycles in FABM studies.
Fertility awareness-based methods (FABMs) can be used by couples to avoid pregnancy, by avoiding intercourse on fertile days. Users want to know what the highest effectiveness (lowest pregnancy rate) would be if they use an FABM correctly and consistently to avoid pregnancy. In this simulation study, we (1) the method-related pregnancy rate; and (2) the correct use pregnancy rate. We show that the method-related pregnancy rate is biased too low if some users in the study are not using the method consistently to avoid pregnancy, while the correct use pregnancy rate obtains an accurate estimate. In FABM studies, the method-related pregnancy rate is biased too low, but the correct use pregnancy rate is unbiased.
The uses of cervical mucus and basal body temperature as indicators of return to fertility postpartum have resulted in high unintended pregnancy rates. In 2013, a study found that when women used urine hormone signs in a postpartum/breastfeeding protocol this resulted in fewer pregnancies. To improve the original protocol's effectiveness, (1) women were to increase the number of days tested with the Clearblue Fertility Monitor, (2) an optional second luteinizing hormone test could be done in the evening, and (3) instructions were given to manage the beginning of the fertile window for the first six cycles postpartum. The purpose of this study was to determine the correct and typical use effectiveness rates to avoid pregnancy in women who used a revised postpartum/breastfeeding protocol. A cohort review of an established data set from 207 postpartum breastfeeding women who used the protocol to avoid pregnancy was completed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Total pregnancy rates that included correct and incorrect use pregnancies were eighteen per one hundred women over twelve cycles of use. For the pregnancies that met a priori criteria, the correct use pregnancy rates were two per one hundred over twelve months and twelve cycles of use and typical use rates were four per one hundred women at twelve cycles of use. The protocol had fewer unplanned pregnancies than the original, however, the cost of the method increased.
This pilot qualitative case study was able to elicit rich data enabling a description of how women went through the journey of achieving pregnancy using fertility awareness-based methods. Findings underscore that women preferred using natural ways to detect ovulation and would recommend other women to do so, but with healthcare providers' guidance. The findings of this case study can serve as a starting point to provide a framework to understand women's experiences of enduring trial and error with multiple fertility awareness-based methods before discovering their effective method. Findings emphasize the importance for healthcare providers to guide women in using fertility awareness-based methods.