Logo Logo
Switch Language to German

Freundl-Schütt, T.; Wallwiener, L.-M. and Freundl, G. (2016): Methoden der natürlichen Familienplanung. Die Spreu vom Weizen trennen. In: Gynakologische Endokrinologie, Vol. 14, No. 2: pp. 84-92

Full text not available from 'Open Access LMU'.


Background. There are numerous natural family planning methods (FAM), which differ considerably in efficacy, practicability and acceptance by the user. Aim. Aspects crucial for assessing the usefulness of a FAM are presented, thus, facilitating the identification of the most appropriate contraceptive method. Materials and methods. Results of our studies (Natural Family Planning) in the last 20 years and peer-reviewed scientific publications, concerning efficacy and acceptance, were evaluated. The data are predominantly derived from prospective cohort studies of several European and American databases and from a World Health Organization (WHO) database. Results. With modern FAM, users monitor changes in their body during their current cycle. Therefore, they must no longer depend on a regular cycle. The old calendar methods are obsolete, at least in the European context. Information on contraceptive efficacy, acceptance and the probability of conception within the fertile phase permit the correct evaluation of a FAM. It was found that many FAM methods do not meet the standards required for effective and sensible family planning. Conclusions. Of the different FAM, the Sensiplan method is the only one that is currently recommended because it has been scientifically validated and can be assigned to the category of a very effective FAM (method-related efficacy of Sensiplan 0.4 pregnancies/100 women-years). For developing countries and communities with other cultural backgrounds, more scientific research must be performed regarding efficacy and acceptance of FAM.

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item