评估基于生育意识的计划生育方法的怀孕率:正确使用避免怀孕率、方法相关怀孕率和总怀孕率的模拟比较

Joseph B. Stanford, Marguerite Duane, Rebecca Simmons
{"title":"评估基于生育意识的计划生育方法的怀孕率:正确使用避免怀孕率、方法相关怀孕率和总怀孕率的模拟比较","authors":"Joseph B. Stanford, Marguerite Duane, Rebecca Simmons","doi":"10.1177/00243639231212440","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Fertility awareness-based methods (FABMs), also known as natural family planning (NFP), enable couples to identify the days of the menstrual cycle when intercourse may result in pregnancy (“fertile days”), and to avoid intercourse on fertile days if they wish to avoid pregnancy. Thus, these methods are fully dependent on user behavior for effectiveness to avoid pregnancy. For couples and clinicians considering the use of an FABM, one important metric to consider is the highest expected effectiveness (lowest possible pregnancy rate) during the correct use of the method to avoid pregnancy. To assess this, most studies of FABMs have reported a method-related pregnancy rate (a cumulative proportion), which is calculated based on all cycles (or months) in the study. In contrast, the correct use to avoid pregnancy rate (also a cumulative proportion) has the denominator of cycles with the correct use of the FABM to avoid pregnancy. The relationship between these measures has not been evaluated quantitatively. We conducted a series of simulations demonstrating that the method-related pregnancy rate is artificially decreased in direct proportion to the proportion of cycles with intermediate use (any use other than correct use to avoid or targeted use to conceive), which also increases the total pregnancy rate. Thus, as the total pregnancy rate rises (related to intermediate use), the method-related pregnancy rate falls artificially while the correct use pregnancy rate remains constant. For practical application, we propose the core elements needed to assess correct use cycles in FABM studies. Summary Fertility awareness-based methods (FABMs) can be used by couples to avoid pregnancy, by avoiding intercourse on fertile days. Users want to know what the highest effectiveness (lowest pregnancy rate) would be if they use an FABM correctly and consistently to avoid pregnancy. In this simulation study, we compare two different measures: (1) the method-related pregnancy rate; and (2) the correct use pregnancy rate. We show that the method-related pregnancy rate is biased too low if some users in the study are not using the method consistently to avoid pregnancy, while the correct use pregnancy rate obtains an accurate estimate. In FABM studies, the method-related pregnancy rate is biased too low, but the correct use pregnancy rate is unbiased.","PeriodicalId":505854,"journal":{"name":"The Linacre Quarterly","volume":"18 4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Pregnancy Rates in Fertility Awareness-Based Methods for Family Planning: Simulated Comparison of Correct Use to Avoid, Method-Related, and Total Pregnancy Rates\",\"authors\":\"Joseph B. Stanford, Marguerite Duane, Rebecca Simmons\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00243639231212440\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Fertility awareness-based methods (FABMs), also known as natural family planning (NFP), enable couples to identify the days of the menstrual cycle when intercourse may result in pregnancy (“fertile days”), and to avoid intercourse on fertile days if they wish to avoid pregnancy. Thus, these methods are fully dependent on user behavior for effectiveness to avoid pregnancy. For couples and clinicians considering the use of an FABM, one important metric to consider is the highest expected effectiveness (lowest possible pregnancy rate) during the correct use of the method to avoid pregnancy. To assess this, most studies of FABMs have reported a method-related pregnancy rate (a cumulative proportion), which is calculated based on all cycles (or months) in the study. In contrast, the correct use to avoid pregnancy rate (also a cumulative proportion) has the denominator of cycles with the correct use of the FABM to avoid pregnancy. The relationship between these measures has not been evaluated quantitatively. We conducted a series of simulations demonstrating that the method-related pregnancy rate is artificially decreased in direct proportion to the proportion of cycles with intermediate use (any use other than correct use to avoid or targeted use to conceive), which also increases the total pregnancy rate. Thus, as the total pregnancy rate rises (related to intermediate use), the method-related pregnancy rate falls artificially while the correct use pregnancy rate remains constant. For practical application, we propose the core elements needed to assess correct use cycles in FABM studies. Summary Fertility awareness-based methods (FABMs) can be used by couples to avoid pregnancy, by avoiding intercourse on fertile days. Users want to know what the highest effectiveness (lowest pregnancy rate) would be if they use an FABM correctly and consistently to avoid pregnancy. In this simulation study, we compare two different measures: (1) the method-related pregnancy rate; and (2) the correct use pregnancy rate. We show that the method-related pregnancy rate is biased too low if some users in the study are not using the method consistently to avoid pregnancy, while the correct use pregnancy rate obtains an accurate estimate. In FABM studies, the method-related pregnancy rate is biased too low, but the correct use pregnancy rate is unbiased.\",\"PeriodicalId\":505854,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Linacre Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"18 4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Linacre Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00243639231212440\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Linacre Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00243639231212440","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以生育意识为基础的方法(FABMs),也被称为自然计划生育(NFP),使夫妇能够确定月经周期中性交可能导致怀孕的日子("受孕日"),并在希望避免怀孕的情况下避免在受孕日性交。因此,这些方法的避孕效果完全取决于使用者的行为。对于考虑使用 FABM 的夫妇和临床医生来说,需要考虑的一个重要指标是正确使用该方法避孕时的最高预期效果(可能的最低怀孕率)。为了评估这一点,大多数 FABMs 研究都报告了与方法相关的怀孕率(累积比例),该比例是根据研究中的所有周期(或月份)计算得出的。相比之下,正确使用 FABM 避免怀孕率(也是累积比例)的分母是正确使用 FABM 避免怀孕的周期。这些指标之间的关系尚未得到定量评估。我们进行了一系列模拟,结果表明,与方法相关的妊娠率被人为地降低,与中间使用(除正确使用避孕或有针对性地使用受孕外的任何使用)周期的比例成正比,这也增加了总妊娠率。因此,随着总妊娠率的上升(与中间使用有关),与方法相关的妊娠率会人为地下降,而正确使用的妊娠率保持不变。为便于实际应用,我们提出了在 FABM 研究中评估正确使用周期所需的核心要素。摘要 基于生育意识的方法(FABMs)可被夫妇用来避免怀孕,方法是避免在可孕日性交。用户希望知道,如果他们正确、持续地使用 FABM 来避孕,最高的有效性(最低的怀孕率)会是多少。在这项模拟研究中,我们比较了两种不同的衡量标准:(1) 方法相关怀孕率;(2) 正确使用怀孕率。我们发现,如果研究中的一些用户没有坚持使用该方法避孕,那么方法相关怀孕率就会偏低,而正确使用怀孕率则能获得准确的估计值。在 FABM 研究中,与方法相关的怀孕率偏低,但正确使用怀孕率是无偏的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating Pregnancy Rates in Fertility Awareness-Based Methods for Family Planning: Simulated Comparison of Correct Use to Avoid, Method-Related, and Total Pregnancy Rates
Fertility awareness-based methods (FABMs), also known as natural family planning (NFP), enable couples to identify the days of the menstrual cycle when intercourse may result in pregnancy (“fertile days”), and to avoid intercourse on fertile days if they wish to avoid pregnancy. Thus, these methods are fully dependent on user behavior for effectiveness to avoid pregnancy. For couples and clinicians considering the use of an FABM, one important metric to consider is the highest expected effectiveness (lowest possible pregnancy rate) during the correct use of the method to avoid pregnancy. To assess this, most studies of FABMs have reported a method-related pregnancy rate (a cumulative proportion), which is calculated based on all cycles (or months) in the study. In contrast, the correct use to avoid pregnancy rate (also a cumulative proportion) has the denominator of cycles with the correct use of the FABM to avoid pregnancy. The relationship between these measures has not been evaluated quantitatively. We conducted a series of simulations demonstrating that the method-related pregnancy rate is artificially decreased in direct proportion to the proportion of cycles with intermediate use (any use other than correct use to avoid or targeted use to conceive), which also increases the total pregnancy rate. Thus, as the total pregnancy rate rises (related to intermediate use), the method-related pregnancy rate falls artificially while the correct use pregnancy rate remains constant. For practical application, we propose the core elements needed to assess correct use cycles in FABM studies. Summary Fertility awareness-based methods (FABMs) can be used by couples to avoid pregnancy, by avoiding intercourse on fertile days. Users want to know what the highest effectiveness (lowest pregnancy rate) would be if they use an FABM correctly and consistently to avoid pregnancy. In this simulation study, we compare two different measures: (1) the method-related pregnancy rate; and (2) the correct use pregnancy rate. We show that the method-related pregnancy rate is biased too low if some users in the study are not using the method consistently to avoid pregnancy, while the correct use pregnancy rate obtains an accurate estimate. In FABM studies, the method-related pregnancy rate is biased too low, but the correct use pregnancy rate is unbiased.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信