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.
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.