两种计划生育生育意识方法的队列比较。

Cohort comparison of two fertility awareness methods of family planning.

作者信息

Fehring Richard J, Schneider Mary, Barron Mary Lee, Raviele Kathleen

机构信息

Marquette University College of Nursing, P.O. Box 1881, Milwaukee, WI 52301-1881, USA.

出版信息

J Reprod Med. 2009 Mar;54(3):165-70.

PMID:19370902

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

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.

STUDY DESIGN

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSION

EFHM is more effective than CMM. Further research is needed to verify the results.

摘要

目的

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。

研究设计

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。