Métodos de regulación natural de la fertilidad

Los métodos naturales son adaptables a cualquier condición sociocultural, nivel de educación y económico y etapa de la vida reproductiva femenina. Estudios indican que el 95% de las mujeres reconocen los signos de fertilidad.[1]

Los métodos naturales tienen una efectividad de entre el 95% hasta 99.7% para evitar embarazos, con uso correcto.[2]

Datos en Estados Unidos[3],[4] y Alemania, indican que del 20 al 47% de las mujeres tienen interés en usar un método natural moderno.[5]

El collar del ciclo,[6],[7] es un método natural moderno, que tiene una efectividad del 95%[8] para evitar embarazos, es 100% natural y su costo es 300 pesos (12mil pesos chilenos)

Algunos métodos naturales modernos son el Lady comp [9] (efectividad del 98%), el Persona[10] (efectividad del 94%), [11] el Clearblue [12],[13] (efectividad del 99.4%) [14],[15],[16] y el Ovacue [17],[18],[19], (efectividad del 98%),[20] entre otros.


Referencias:

[1] Ryder B, Campbell H. Natural family planning in the 1990s.Lancet 1995; 346(8969):233-4.

[2] Freundl G, Sivin I, Batár I. State-of-the-art of non-hormonal methods of contraception: IV. Natural family planning. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2010; 15(2):113-23.

[3] Stanford JB, Lemaire JC, Thurman PB. Women's interest in natural family planning. J Fam Pract 1998; 46(1):65-71.

[4] Stanford JB, Lemaire JC, Fox A. Interest in natural family planning among female family practice patients. Fam Pract Res J 1994; 14(3):237-49.

[5] Mikolajczyk RT, Stanford JB, Rauchfuss M. Factors influencing the choice to use modern natural family planning. Contraception 2003; 67:253–58.

[6] http://www.cyclebeads.com/

[7] Wilcox AJ, Weinberg CR, Baird DD. Post-ovulatory ageing of the human oocyte and embryo failure. Human Reproduction 1998; 13(2):394-97.

[8] Arevalo M, Jennings V, Sinai I. Efficacy of a new method of family planning : the Standard Days Method. Contraception 2002; 65;333-38.

[9] https://shop.valley-electronics.ch/de/?cat=1

[10] Janssen CJ, van Lunsen RH. Profile and opinions of the female Persona user in The Netherlands. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2000; 5(2):141-6.

[11] Guida M, Bramante S, Acunzo G, Pellicano M, Cirillo D, Nappi C. Diagnosis of fertility with a personal hormonal evaluation test. Minerva Ginecol 2003; 55(2): 167-73.

[12] http://www.persona.com.mx/clearblue/nosotros.htm

[13] http://www.swissprecisiondiagnostics.com/home.php

[14] Fehring RJ, Schneider M, Lee Barron M, Raviele K. Cohort comparison of two fertility awareness methods of family planning. J Reprod Med 2009; 54:165-70.

[141] Fehring RJ, Schneider M, Lee Barron M. Efficacy of the Marquette Method of natural family planning. Am J Matern Child Nurs 2008; 33(6):348-54.

[15] http://nfp.marquette.edu/efficacy.php

[16] Moreno JE, Khan-Dawood FS, Goldzieher JW. Natural family planning: suitability of the Cue Method for defining the time of ovulation. Contraception 1997; 55:233-37.

[17] Fehring RJ, Schneider M , Raviele K , Lee Barron M. Efficacy of cervical mucus observations plus electronic hormonal fertility monitoring as a method of natural family planning. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2007.

[18] Fehring RJ. A comparison of the Ovulation Method with the Cue Ovulation Predictor in determining the fertile period. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 1996; 8(10):461-66.

[19] Fehring RJ, Schneider M, Lee Barron M, Raviele K. Cohort comparison of two fertility awareness methods of family planning. J Reprod Med 2009; 54:165-70.

[20] Fehring RJ, Schneider M, Lee Barron M, Raviele K. Cohort comparison of two fertility awareness methods of family planning. J Reprod Med 2009; 54:165-70.

Fuente: sexoseguro.mx