ArticleThe Linacre quarterly2022
Multisite Effectiveness Study of the Marquette Method of Natural Family Planning Program.
Article in The Linacre quarterly, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Comparison of Two Hormonal Fertility Monitoring Systems for Ovulation Detection: A Pilot Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Trial
- Review
- Current Ovulation and Luteal Phase Tracking Methods and Technologies for Fertility and Family Planning: A Review.Seminars in reproductive medicine · 2024Review
- Survey Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative Menstrual Cycle Tracking Technologies.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of a Postpartum Breastfeeding Protocol for Avoiding Pregnancy.The Linacre quarterly · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Women of reproductive age need reliable and effective family planning methods to manage their fertility. Natural family planning (NFP) methods or fertility awareness-based methods (FABMs) have been increasingly used by women due to their health benefits. Nevertheless, effectiveness of these natural methods remains inconsistent, and these methods are difficult for healthcare providers to implement in their clinical practice. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Marquette Model NFP system to avoid pregnancy for women at multiple teaching sites using twelve months of retrospectively collected teaching data. Survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier) was used to determine typical unintended pregnancy rates for a total of 1,221 women. There were forty-two unintended pregnancies which provided a typical use unintended pregnancy rate of 6.7 per 100 women over twelve months of use. Eleven of the forty-two unintended pregnancies were associated with correct use of the method. The total unintended pregnancy rate over twelve months of use was 2.8 per 100 for women with regular cycles, 8.0 per 100 women for the postpartum and breastfeeding women, and 4.3 per 100 for women with irregular menstrual cycles. The Marquette Model system of NFP was effective when provided by health professionals who completed the Marquette Model NFP teacher training program. Summary: This study involved determining whether healthcare professionals at ten sites across the United States and Canada trained to provide the Marquette Method NFP services can replicate the effectiveness demonstrated in previous studies of the method. We found a high level of effectiveness (i.e., very low pregnancy rates) in using the Marquette Method among women from various regions across North America with diverse reproductive backgrounds and in particular when using hormonal fertility marker. Healthcare providers who have been trained to teach NFP can successfully incorporate NFP services in their practice and assist their clients in choosing appropriate family planning methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.