To assess physicians' knowledge and practices of modern methods of natural family planning.
Methods
A questionnaire was mailed to 840 physicians selected randomly from Missouri state licensing records for obstetrics-gynecology, family practice, general practice, and general internal medicine.
Results
The response rate was 65%. A total of 375 physicians (69% of respondents) saw women for reproductive issues. About half (46%) of physicians reported that they mentioned natural family planning to at least some women when discussing family planning issues. Observing vaginal discharge of cervical mucus was discussed by 40% of physicians in the context of avoiding pregnancy and by 36% of physicians in the context of helping a couple achieve pregnancy. Twenty-two percent of physicians estimated the best possible effectiveness of natural family planning to avoid pregnancy to be greater than 90%, and 35% estimated the actual effectiveness to avoid pregnancy to be greater than 70%. (The threshold rates of 90% best possible effectiveness and 70% actual effectiveness were chosen to be somewhat less than those reported in medical literature.) Physicians who gave higher estimates of effectiveness of natural family planning and physicians who were aware of an instructor in their community were more likely to provide women with relevant information about natural family planning.
Conclusion
Most physicians, especially those unaware of availability of instructors in their areas, underestimate the effectiveness of natural family planning and do not give information about modern methods to women.
Stanford physician knowledge natural family planning survey, physician attitudes natural family planning effectiveness, cervical mucus observation physician counseling family planning, NFP effectiveness physician underestimation survey, natural family planning physician education barriers, physician practices discussing fertility awareness methods, obstetrician gynecologist family planning counseling NFP, Missouri physician survey natural family planning awareness, NFP instructor availability physician referral patterns, modern natural family planning methods physician knowledge gaps
PMID 10546708 10546708 DOI 10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00388-9 10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00388-9
Cite this article
Stanford, J. B., Thurman, P. B., & Lemaire, J. C. (1999). Physicians' knowledge and practices regarding natural family planning. Obstetrics and gynecology, 94(5 Pt 1), 672-678. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00388-9
Stanford JB, Thurman PB, Lemaire JC. Physicians' knowledge and practices regarding natural family planning. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94(5 Pt 1):672-678. doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00388-9
Stanford, J. B., et al. "Physicians' knowledge and practices regarding natural family planning." Obstetrics and gynecology, vol. 94, no. 5 Pt 1, 1999, pp. 672-678.
Keywords
Family Planning Services, Female, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Humans, Physicians, Practice Patterns, Physicians'
Related articles
EndometriosisFertility OutcomesEndometriosis Surgery ClaimsReproductive Treatment Access
For many patients with endometriosis, laparoscopic surgery is the most effective treatment to alleviate severe chronic pelvic pain and improve quality of life. Because endometriosis is common among individuals with infertility, surgery is often considered alongside fertility evaluation and treatment to manage symptoms, identify disease pathology, and restore pelvic anatomy. In patients who desire pregnancy, the decision of whether and when to pursue surgery should be guided by clear medical indications and shared decision making between the patient and their obstetrician-gynecologist. In recent months, however, religious and political groups have sought to reframe this medical decision as an ideologic and moral one, advocating for endometriosis surgery in nearly all patients with infertility and claiming that this can eliminate the need for assisted reproductive technologies. This framework, known as restorative reproductive medicine (RRM), aligns with efforts to promote the "personhood" of fertilized eggs, restrict access to in in vitro fertilization (IVF), and advance endometriosis surgery and lifestyle modifications as "root-cause treatment leading to natural fertility." Recent editorials and issue briefs in the obstetrics and gynecology literature have discussed the serious ethical, medical, and policy implications of RRM, yet there remains an urgent need to address specifically the unfounded claims about endometriosis surgery and its purported advantages over assisted reproductive technology. This article examines the social context of this controversy and reviews the current evidence regarding the indications, benefits, and limitations of endometriosis surgery in the management of infertility. In contrast to RRM's assertions, no evidence supports the adoption of endometriosis surgery as a replacement for IVF or as a primary treatment for infertility. Rather, the role of surgery in fertility care is highly nuanced and depends on each patient's clinical presentation, reproductive goals, and personal priorities.
To assess the Pearl Index for risk of ectopic pregnancy in women using levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems (LNG-IUS) with hormonal reservoirs of 13.5 mg, 19.5 mg, or 52 mg. This was a retrospective cohort study. Women diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy in Stockholm County, Sweden, between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019, were identified through the electronic medical record system. The final analysis included 2,252 cases of ectopic pregnancy. Information on age, reproductive and medical history, as well as current use of contraception was retrieved. The time of intrauterine device (IUD) insertion before ectopic pregnancy and the numbers of sold LNG-IUS during the study period were used to calculate the incidence rate for ectopic pregnancy during use per 100 woman-years (Pearl Index). Among women with an ectopic pregnancy diagnosis, 105 presented with a known type of hormonal IUD in situ, of whom 94 were included in the calculations of the Pearl Index. The estimated Pearl Index for ectopic pregnancy was 0.136 (95% CI 0.106-0.176) for the LNG-IUS 13.5-mg, 0.037 (95% CI 0.021-0.067) for the LNG-IUS 19.5-mg, and 0.009 (95% CI 0.006-0.014) for the LNG-IUS 52-mg. With the 52-mg LNG-IUS as referent, the relative risk (RR) for ectopic pregnancy was higher during the first year for LNG 13.5-mg (RR 20.59, 95% CI 12.04-35.21), and for both 13.5-mg (RR 14.49, 95% CI 9.01-23.3) and 19.5-mg (RR 4.44, 95% CI 1.64-12.00) during the total study period. The absolute risk of ectopic pregnancy during the use of LNG-IUS at any doses was low. The results show that the lower the dose of the IUD, the higher the risk of an ectopic pregnancy. Higher-dose LNG-IUS should be considered when providing contraceptive counseling to a woman with known risk factors for ectopic pregnancy who are considering a hormonal IUD.
To assess whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is associated with changes in cycle or menses length in those receiving vaccination as compared with an unvaccinated cohort. We analyzed prospectively tracked menstrual cycle data using the application "Natural Cycles." We included U.S. residents aged 18-45 years with normal cycle lengths (24-38 days) for three consecutive cycles before the first vaccine dose followed by vaccine-dose cycles (cycles 4-6) or, if unvaccinated, six cycles over a similar time period. We calculated the mean within-individual change in cycle and menses length (three prevaccine cycles vs first- and second-dose cycles in the vaccinated cohort, and the first three cycles vs cycles four and five in the unvaccinated cohort). We used mixed-effects models to estimate the adjusted difference in change in cycle and menses length between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts. We included 3,959 individuals (vaccinated 2,403; unvaccinated 1,556). Most of the vaccinated cohort received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (55%) (Moderna 35%, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen 7%). Overall, COVID-19 vaccine was associated with a less than 1-day change in cycle length for both vaccine-dose cycles compared with prevaccine cycles (first dose 0.71 day-increase, 98.75% CI 0.47-0.94; second dose 0.91, 98.75% CI 0.63-1.19); unvaccinated individuals saw no significant change compared with three baseline cycles (cycle four 0.07, 98.75% CI -0.22 to 0.35; cycle five 0.12, 98.75% CI -0.15 to 0.39). In adjusted models, the difference in change in cycle length between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts was less than 1 day for both doses (difference first dose 0.64 days, 98.75% CI 0.27-1.01; second dose 0.79 days, 98.75% CI 0.40-1.18). Change in menses length was not associated with vaccination. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is associated with a small change in cycle length but not menses length.
Dunsmoor-Su R et al., 2021·Obstetrics and gynecology
The physiology of testosterone as a normal female hormone in reproductive years and beyond is poorly taught and understood. This has led to unregulated and dangerous prescribing practices by physicians and other health care professionals. There are data for safe use, and as women's health care practitioners, we owe it to our patients to follow these guidelines and practices, as well as advocate for more research and safer, regulated products to prescribe.