OCR Text |
Show Table 2: Family Planning Methods Used by Respondents* Men, Currently Using**, % (n=181) Oral Contraceptives N.A. 74.1 29.3 Condom N.A. 74.8 42.0 Spermicide N.A. 30.6 8.3 Diaphragm N.A. 12.3 3.3 Intrauterine Device N.A. 9.8 3.9 Depo-Provera N.A. 5.7 2.8 Norplant N.A. 2.5 1.7 Withdrawal N.A. 27.8 9.9 Calendar 27.4 20.8 10.5 Basal Body Temperature 13.9 4.7 3.9 Mucus Observation 12.3 7.3 3.9 Sympto-Thermal 0.9 0.3 1.1 Any method of Natural Family Planningt 32.5 24.6 33.3* N.A. = not applicable *Percentages total to more than 100% because many women reported that they had used more than one method, and many men reported current use of more than one method. The number of methods ever used ranged from 0 to 10 (mode 3), and the number of methods currently used ranged from 0 to 7 (mode 1). ** Men reporting current use of NFP methods were not asked to specify whether the use was to avoid or to achieve pregnancy. f Includes calendar, basal body temperature, mucus observation, sympto-thermal, and other. $ Of the 24 (13.3%) of men and partners currently using any method of NFP, 16 reported they were also currently using one or more other non-NFP methods, most com- monly condoms (14 couples)._______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ use of NFP to conceive, possibly desiring future pregnancy, and lower number of previous live births. In Missouri women, the only factor associated positively with potential use of NFP to avoid pregnancy was previous use of any method of NFP to avoid pregnancy (Stanford, Lemaire & Thurman, 1998). About half (48%) of those who received mailed questionnaires responded to this study. If all of the non-responding women are assumed to be unlikely to use NFP, and if the proportion of potentially fertile women among the non-responders is the same as among the responders, then about 14.8% of potentially fertile women ages 18-50 are potential users to avoid pregnancy, and 28.2% are potential users of NFP to conceive. This is the first study to examine the potential use of NFP among male partners. It is possible that the process of having women give the questionnaire to their male partner selected for men who were more likely to be potential users of NFP. However, the overall response rate among male partners of the women was high (87%), so that even if all the non-responding male partners are assumed to be unlikely to use NFP, 50% of male partners were potential users of NFP to conceive, and 35% were potential users NFP to avoid pregnancy, rates nearly identical to the women who responded. This is not necessarily an indicator of the level of potential use among all men in the general population, but rather of men in stable heterosexual relationships in Utah (predominantly married). Factors associated with potential use were also similar between women and men. For some factors, the lower numbers of men studied yielded correlations that were not statistically significant, despite being very similar to the correlations noted among women (see Table 3). The most prominent advantage of NFP for both men and women was that it was "natural," and the most prominent disadvantage was the perception that it is not reliable enough. However, more men than women indicated concerns about the required abstinence for NFP (14.9% of men versus 6.6% of women). Such concerns are also probably reflected in the responses about inhibiting spontaneity (9.4% of men versus 9.8% of women). We asked women to report all methods of family planning they or their partner had ever used, and men to report methods that were currently being used by the couple. We took this parsimonious approach to keep the questionnaires brief. There were few inconsistencies in couples' responses, suggesting that this approach was reasonable. There were some couples who were reportedly currently us- ing NFP, but did not identify themselves as potential users in the future (see Table 3). Some of this is accounted for because some couples reported they were likely to use modern NFP to conceive but not to avoid pregnancy, and visa versa. However, after eliminating these cases, there remained 6 couples (25% of those currently using NFP) who reported they were currently using NFP but not likely to use in the future. In these 6 couples, there was concurrent use of one or more other family planning methods including condoms (4 couples), spermicide (1 couple), withdrawal (2 couples), and oral contraceptives (1 couple). Similarly, the proportion of couples currently using NFP (13.3%) was higher than that reported for the United States as a whole (less than 3%) (Trussell & Kowal, 1998). However, of these 24 couples, 16 reported concurrent use of one or more non-NFP contraceptive methods, leaving 8 (3.3%) who reported use of NFP alone. National surveys may not fully identify concurrent use of NFP with other family planning methods. Further, national surveys do not ask about the use of natural family planning methods for the purpose of conceiving. We analyzed our results for all women (not just those with male partners who responded) in order to compare with the Missouri sample, and for greater statistical power. However, there were few differences between all potentially fertile women and potentially fertile women with male partners. The demographic characteristics of the 181 female partners of the men were essentially identical to those for the 317 women, except for marital status, which was the same as that reported for the men in Table 1 (Data not shown). Similarly, the past family planning use and potential for future use of NFP were virtually identical for the two groups of women, except that the 181 women with partners reported a higher likelihood of future use NFP to conceive (67% compared to 56% for the 317 women reported in Table 3). While our sample is population-based, it excludes women who do not have a driver's license. To evaluate the effects of this selection strategy we made the following comparisons from our entire sample (including women who have been sterilized or who were otherwise not fertile) with statistics available for the State of Utah: 94.6% White, 2.3% Hispanic, 0.7% Native American, and 0.2% African American in our sample vs.. 93.9%, 4.8%, 1.4% and 0.6% respectively for persons of both sexes and all ages in the Utah Census; 22.0% of households in our sample with income over $50,000 per year, vs.. 19.9% of households of all ages in the Utah Census; for women ages 25-34, 98.1% high school graduates and 32.6% college graduates in our sample vs.. 89.0% and 18.1% re- Utah's Health: An Annual Review Volume DC 43 |