Creighton Model FertilityCare System

Creighton Model / FertilityCare
Background
Type Behavioral
First use 1980
Failure rates (first year)
Perfect use 0.5%[1]
Typical use 3.2%[1]
Usage
Reversibility Immediate
User reminders Accurate instruction & daily charting are key.
Advantages and disadvantages
STI protection No
Period advantages Prediction
Weight gain No
Benefits Low direct cost;
no side effects;
in accord with Catholic teachings;
may be used to aid pregnancy achievement

The Creighton Model FertilityCare System (Creighton Model, FertilityCare, CrMS) is a form of natural family planning which involves identifying the fertile period during a woman's menstrual cycle. The Creighton Model was developed by Dr Thomas Hilgers, the founder and director of the Pope Paul VI Institute. This model, like the Billings ovulation method, is based on observations of cervical mucus to track fertility. Creighton can be used for both avoiding pregnancy and achieving pregnancy.

Conceptual basis

Hilgers describes the Creighton Model as being based on "a standardized modification of the Billings ovulation method", which was developed by John and Evelyn Billings in the 1960s.[2] The Billingses issued a paper refuting the claim that the CrMS represents a standardization of the BOM.[3] They are two different methods and should not be seen as interchangeable.

Effectiveness

For avoiding pregnancy, the perfect-use failure rate of Creighton was 0.5%, which means that for each year that 1,000 couples using this method perfectly, that there are 5 unintended pregnancies. The typical-use failure rate, representing the fraction of couples using this method that actually had an unintended pregnancy, is reported as 3.2%.[1][4]

For achieving pregnancy, no large clinical trials have been performed comparing ART and NaProTechnology. Only observational one-arm studies have been published so far.[5][6] In the larger of these two studies, 75% of couples trying to conceive received additional hormonal stimulation such as clomiphene.[5]

Criticism

Some believe that the Creighton system should not be pushed on the public due to its religious origins. Others do not understand the need for periodic abstinence when other forms of birth control are readily available and just as effective.

Critics of the 1998 meta-analysis state that most of the patients in the study were well educated, and that the numbers obtained in the study cannot be applied to the general public.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Hilgers, TW; Stanford, JB (1998). "Creighton Model NaProEducation Technology for avoiding pregnancy. Use effectiveness.". The Journal of Reproductive Medicine. 43 (6): 495–502. PMID 9653695.
  2. ↑ Creighton Model
  3. ↑ Some Clarifications Concerning NaProTECHNOLOGY and the Billings Ovulation Method
  4. ↑ http://www.jabfm.org/content/22/2/147.long
  5. 1 2 Stanford, J. B.; Parnell, T. A.; Boyle, P. C. (2008). "Outcomes From Treatment of Infertility With Natural Procreative Technology in an Irish General Practice". The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine. 21 (5): 375–84. PMID 18772291. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2008.05.070239.
  6. ↑ Tham, Elizabeth; Schliep, Karen; Stanford, Joseph (2012). "Natural procreative technology for infertility and recurrent miscarriage: outcomes in a Canadian family practice". Canadian Family Physician. 58 (5): e267–74. PMC 3352813 Freely accessible. PMID 22734170.

Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.