Does the evidence support global promotion of the calendar-based Standard Days Method® of contraception?

Marston, Cicely; Church, Kathryn

doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2016.01.006

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There was a great mix up and uncertainty on how many and which days were considered safe if anyone was to rely on them. There is scanty literature on the reliability of safe days as the main SRH tool compared to modern ones (47). It is not surprising that even the current study's participants were not aware of what safe days are and, therefore, should be trusted carefully since it can be a betrayal and relies heavily on the person's menstrual cycle that is sometimes unpredictable (47).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Barriers to Sexual and Reproductive Health Information among University Students in Uganda: A qualitative study

Nuwamanya

Qureshi

Pemunta

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: University students are one of the most vulnerable groups to sexual and reproductive health (SRH) threats, yet they often have limited access to SRH tools, services and information. This study explored university students’ perceptions of SRH, their source of SRH information and how they authenticated such information in Uganda. Methods: Data were collected from 40 students of Kyambogo university—20 males and 20 females through 4 gender-classified Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). Atlas ti 8 software was used to analyse the data and generate themes from interview transcripts.Results: Many students perceived SRH to be about sexual intercourse and its related consequences. Perceived risky behaviours included mainly having multiple sexual partners. The students identified the reduced sexual sensitivity, struggle to bear children in the future, as the myths and misconceptions about different SRH goods and services in addition to the uncertainty over safe days. The various sources of SRH information included Google, social media, health centres, friends, parents and government and non-government organizations. The main barriers to accessing SRH information included lack of finances, inadequate or few medical personnel, and service provider bias. Many of them authenticated the SRH information from the internet through their friends. Conclusion: New approaches and interventions should target both students and their parents, as this multifaceted approach will reduce the societal stigma, bias, ignorance, negative attitudes, and exposure to risky sexual behaviours among such youth populations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Barriers to Sexual and Reproductive Health Information among University Students in Uganda: A qualitative study

Nuwamanya

Qureshi

Pemunta

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This proved challenging as some family planning/reproductive health commentators argued against promoting the SDM in family planning programming, stating that there wasn't sufficient evidence on the efficacy of the SDM to merit its promotion as a modern method of family planning. 44 This debate and skepticism of the method affected the level of investment in the SDM among family planning donors and implementing partners and buy-in at the national and community level in LMICs. Even within the countries targeted for national scale-up by IRH, barriers to its continued implementation remained.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation and Scale-Up of the Standard Days Method of Family Planning: A Landscape Analysis

Weis¹,

Festin

2020

Glob Health Sci Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pilot introductions of the Standard Days Method (SDM) of family planning demonstrated its potential to meet unmet contraceptive needs in key populations, strengthen male involvement, and increase overall contraceptive uptake. Few countries had implemented national scale-up due to barriers, such as competing resource priorities and uneven stakeholder engagement. Demand-side user barriers, including insufficient fertility awareness knowledge, were also constraints. Policy makers should determine the SDM's added value to the contraceptive method mix and identify potential barriers to its implementation. ABSTRACTThe Standard Days Method (SDM), a modern fertility awareness-based family planning method, has been introduced in 30 countries since its development in 2001. It is still unclear to what extent the SDM was mainstreamed within the family planning method mix, particularly in low-and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, where the SDM had been introduced by donors and implementing partners. This review of implementation science publications on the SDM in LMICs first looked at community pilot studies of the SDM to determine the acceptability of the method; correct use and efficacy rates; demographics of users; and changes to contraceptive prevalence rates and family planning behaviors, especially among men and couples. Then, we examined the status of the SDM in the 16 countries that had attempted to scale up the method within national family planning protocols, training, and service delivery. At the community level, evidence demonstrated a high level of acceptability of the method; efficacy rates comparable to the initial clinical trials; diversity in demographic characteristics of users, including first-time or recently discontinued users of family planning; increased male engagement in family planning; and improved couple's communication. Nationally, few countries had scaled up the SDM due to uneven stakeholder engagement, lackluster political will, and competing resource priorities. Results of this review could help policy makers determine the added value of the SDM in the contraceptive method mix and identify potential barriers to its implementation moving forward.

show abstract

“…A woman should not use this method if she has two or more menstrual cycles which are less than 26 days or more than 32 days in one year. the pregnancy rate is 12% for typical use while the pregnancy rate is 4.6% in correct use (the effectivity of the method in correct use is 95.4% while it is 88% in typical use) [14][15][16][17].…”

Section: Standard Days Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Natural and traditional family planning methods

Gümüşsoy¹

2019

Int Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural family planning refers to the planning of sexual intercourse according to the desire of pregnancy by observing some symptoms occurring in women in the fertile and infertile periods of the menstrual cycle. These family planning methods have advantages, disadvantages, and applying rules. They are effective when properly applied and their rules are followed. Recently, new methods have been added to the previously known methods using electronic equipment. Health care providers should respect the choice of couples' natural family planning methodology, be aware of the options of natural family planning methods, and provide appropriate resources/advice for the correct use of the method chosen by a woman or couple.

show abstract

Does the evidence support global promotion of the calendar-based Standard Days Method® of contraception?

Cited by 13 publications

References 14 publications

Barriers to Sexual and Reproductive Health Information among University Students in Uganda: A qualitative study

Barriers to Sexual and Reproductive Health Information among University Students in Uganda: A qualitative study

Implementation and Scale-Up of the Standard Days Method of Family Planning: A Landscape Analysis

Natural and traditional family planning methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About