2005
DOI: 10.1783/1471189053629446
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Expanding family planning options: offering the Standard Days Method<SUP>™</SUP> to women in Istanbul

Abstract: Background This study introduced the Standard Days Method™ (SDM), a fertility awareness-based method of family planning, to couples in a region of Istanbul, Turkey who were using a method of low effectiveness or no family planning method. The objective was to determine potential demand for, and satisfaction with, the SDM.Methods A total of 657 couples were selected by systematic sampling and offered the SDM. Those accepting this method were interviewed 1 and 3 months after starting the SDM.Results Some 47% of … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
10
0
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
1
10
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Of those 36, 10 reported having experienced two or more menstrual cycles that fell outside the 26–32-day range. This finding is consistent with studies of SDM efficacy in Bolivia, Peru and The Philippines,6 Rwanda12 and Istanbul 13. A stringent, ongoing menstrual cycle monitoring protocol must be followed until the woman has two cycles that fall outside the 26–32-day range within a 1-year timeframe.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…Of those 36, 10 reported having experienced two or more menstrual cycles that fell outside the 26–32-day range. This finding is consistent with studies of SDM efficacy in Bolivia, Peru and The Philippines,6 Rwanda12 and Istanbul 13. A stringent, ongoing menstrual cycle monitoring protocol must be followed until the woman has two cycles that fall outside the 26–32-day range within a 1-year timeframe.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…Sinai says that we "ignored at least eight relevant articles" that oppose our views. Not one of the citations she provides opposes our findings, and six do not even contain information about effectiveness: four are studies already mentioned above [2][3][4][5]; two more by Lundgren et al do not measure effectiveness, one measures uptake of SDM in three sites [6], and one knowledge and attitudes [7]. One article [8] provides figures from intervention studies, not typical use (see also point 7 below).…”
mentioning
confidence: 70%
“…Hardee et al state "several studies show similar rates with typical use" but do not provide any evidence for this claim. Instead, they provide two irrelevant citations: Blair et al [2] report on a qualitative study; Kalaca et al [3] provide some information about pregnancies in their very small sample but do not report effectiveness, which the study was not designed to measure.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some programmes may decide to offer the SDM because it brings new couples to family planning, and provides a bridge to other modern family planning methods 1213. Other programmes may be reluctant to offer the method if they perceive that it will be used only for a short time, and therefore integration may not be worth the effort.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%