Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Division of Public Health, Office of Cooperative Reproductive Health, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Fertil Steril. 2019 Nov;112(5):892-899. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.06.036.
To quantify the frequency of use of selected fertility awareness indicators and to assess their influence on fecundability.
Web-based prospective cohort study.
Not applicable.
PATIENT(S): Female pregnancy planners, aged 21-45 years, attempting conception for ≤6 cycles at study entry.
INTERVENTION(S): None.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We ascertained time to pregnancy, in menstrual cycles, with bimonthly questionnaires. We estimated adjusted fecundability ratios (FRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) using proportional probabilities models, controlling for age, income, education, smoking, intercourse frequency, and other lifestyle and reproductive factors.
RESULT(S): A total of 5,688 women were analyzed, with a mean age of 29.9 years and mean time trying of 2.1 cycles at baseline; 30% had ever been pregnant. At baseline, 75% were using one or more fertility indicators (counting days or charting menstrual cycles [71%], measuring basal body temperature [BBT, 21%], monitoring cervical fluid [39%], using urine LH tests [32%], or feeling for changes in position of the cervix [12%]). Women using any fertility indicator at baseline had higher subsequent fecundability (adjusted FR 1.25, 95% CI 1.16-1.35) than those not using any fertility indicators. For each individual indicator, adjusted FRs ranged from 1.28-1.36, where 1.00 would indicate no relation with fecundability. The adjusted FR for women using a combination of charting days, cervical fluid, and urine LH was 1.48 (95% CI 1.31-1.67) relative to women using no fertility indicators.
CONCLUSION(S): In a North American preconception cohort study, use of fertility indicators indicating the fertile window was common, and was associated with greater fecundability.
量化选定生育意识指标的使用频率,并评估其对生育能力的影响。
基于网络的前瞻性队列研究。
不适用。
年龄在 21-45 岁的女性妊娠计划者,在研究开始时尝试怀孕的周期数≤6 个。
无。
我们通过双月问卷确定了每个月经周期的妊娠时间。我们使用比例概率模型估计了调整后的生育能力比(FR)及其置信区间(CI),控制了年龄、收入、教育、吸烟、性交频率和其他生活方式和生殖因素。
共分析了 5688 名女性,平均年龄为 29.9 岁,基线时尝试怀孕的平均时间为 2.1 个周期;30%的人曾怀孕过。在基线时,75%的人使用了一种或多种生育指标(数日子或记录月经周期[71%]、测量基础体温[BBT,21%]、监测宫颈分泌物[39%]、使用尿 LH 测试[32%]或感觉宫颈位置变化[12%])。与不使用任何生育指标的女性相比,基线时使用任何生育指标的女性随后的生育能力更高(调整后的 FR 为 1.25,95%CI 为 1.16-1.35)。对于每个单独的指标,调整后的 FR 范围在 1.28-1.36 之间,其中 1.00 表示与生育能力没有关系。与不使用任何生育指标的女性相比,使用记录日子、宫颈分泌物和尿 LH 的组合的女性调整后的 FR 为 1.48(95%CI 为 1.31-1.67)。
在一项北美的孕前队列研究中,使用表示生育窗口的生育意识指标很常见,并且与更高的生育能力相关。