Fehring Richard J, Schneider Mary, Barron Mary Lee, Raviele Kathleen
Marquette University College of Nursing, P.O. Box 1881, Milwaukee, WI 52301-1881, USA.
J Reprod Med. 2009 Mar;54(3):165-70.
To determine if an electronic hormonal fertility monitor aided method (EHFM) of family planning is more effective than a cervical mucus only method (CMM) in helping couples to avoid pregnancy.
Six hundred twenty-eight women were taught how to avoid pregnancy with either the EHFM (n=313) or the CMM (n = 315). Both methods involved standardized group teaching and individual follow-up. All pregnancies were reviewed and classified by health professionals. Correct use and total unintended pregnancy rates over 12 months of use were determined by survival analysis. Comparisons of unintended pregnancies between the 2 methods were made by use of the Fisher exact test.
There were a total of 28 unintended pregnancies with the EFHM and 41 with the CMM. The 12-month correct use pregnancy rate of the monitor-aided method was 2.0%, and the total pregnancy rate was 12.0%. In comparison, the 12-month correct use pregnancy rate of the CMM was 3.0%, and the total pregnancy rate was 23.0%. There was a significant difference in total pregnancies between the 2 groups (p<0.05).
EFHM is more effective than CMM. Further research is needed to verify the results.
确定电子激素生育监测辅助的计划生育方法（EHFM）在帮助夫妇避免怀孕方面是否比仅依靠宫颈黏液的方法（CMM）更有效。
628名女性接受了如何使用EHFM（n = 313）或CMM（n = 315）避免怀孕的指导。两种方法都包括标准化的小组教学和个体随访。所有怀孕情况均由卫生专业人员进行审查和分类。通过生存分析确定12个月使用期内的正确使用情况和意外怀孕总发生率。使用Fisher精确检验对两种方法的意外怀孕情况进行比较。
使用EFHM发生意外怀孕的有28例，使用CMM的有41例。监测辅助方法的12个月正确使用怀孕率为2.０％，总怀孕率为12.０％。相比之下，CMM的12个月正确使用怀孕率为3.０％，总怀孕率为23.０％。两组的总怀孕率有显著差异（p<0.05）。
EHFM比CMM更有效。需要进一步研究以验证结果。
