| OCR Text |
Show Table 3. Characteristics associated with respondents' interest in using Natural Family Planning (NFP). Characteristic Women No. Women: Likely to Use NFP to Try for Pregnancy, % Women: Likely to Use NFP to Men No. Men: Likely to Use NFP to Try for Men: Likely to Use NFP to Avoid Avoid Pregnancy, % Pregnancy, % Pregnancy, % Responding sample 305 56.4 29.6 177 57.6 40.4 <30 181 65.2 ** 33.1 118 67.8 ** 43.2 >30 116 44.4 25.0 54 35.2 31.8 Currently trying for pregnancy Yes 32 90.9 ** 28.1 26 84.6* 53.8 No 272 52.5 29.8 53.0 38.2 Mav desire future pregnancy Yes 204 64.4** 27.9 113 68.1 ** 39.5 No 73 27.4 27.4 29 20.7 27.6 Woman currently pregnant Yes 32 72.7 53.1* 30 70.0 60.0 No 271 54.6 26.9 147 55.1 36.5 Previous use of anv method of NFP to achieve Drefinancv ft Yes 99 69.3 ** 34.3 70 65.7 39.9 No 205 50.0 27.3 107 52.3 60.1 Previous use of anv method of NFP to avoid pregnancy $ Yes 76 63.6 51.3 ** 50 56.0 54.0 No 228 53.9 22.4 127 58.3 35.2 Currently using NFP § Yes 24 70.8 58.3* 24 58.3 66.7* No 155 67.3 28.4 153 57.7 36.4 P < .01 **P<.001 t Male responses were not obtained for age, so men were categorized based on their female partners' age. tt Includes calendar (87 women), basal body temperature (44 women), mucus observation (39 women), sympto-thermal (3 women), and other (5 women). Some women had used more than one NFP method. Male responses were not obtained for previous use of NFP, so men were categorized based on their female partners' responses. $ Includes calendar rhythm (66 women), basal body temperature (15 women), mucus method (23 women), sympto-thermal (1 woman), and other (6 women). Some women had used more than one NFP method. Male responses were not obtained for previous use of NFP, so men were categorized based on their female partners' responses. § Includes calendar rhythm (19 couples), basal body temperature (7 couples), mucus method (7 couples), and sympto-thermal (2 couples). Some couples were using more than one NFP method, often concurrently with a contraceptive method. Female responses were not obtained for current use of NFP, so women were categorized based on their male partners' responses, accounting for the lower number of women analyzed with regard to this variable.___________________ spectively in the Utah Census (U.S Bureau of the Census, 1993). With regard to religious affiliation, our sample was comparable to the overall Utah population (for example. 70.1% Latter-day Saint, 8.2% Catholic, and 1.2% Methodist for females in our sample, vs.. 69.2%, 6.0% and 1.2% respectively for both sexes in the State of Utah) (Kosmin & Lachman, 1993). It appears that our sample is somewhat biased towards more educated women, and to a lesser extent, towards more affluent and white women. Further, our sample excludes those women who do not speak English. Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility of an undetected association between these factors and the potential to use NFP. Although our data were collected in 1994, we do not think it is likely that there has been any substantial change in the issues addressed in this study to the present time. CONCLUSION Many couples in Utah who are not currently using NFP report that they are likely to do so in the future, either to avoid pregnancy or to conceive, regardless of socioeconomic, ethnic, or religious background. Potential for future use is strongly associated with previous use of methods of NFP to avoid pregnancy or to conceive, interest is highest for use to conceive, a use of NFP that is not assessed in national surveys. Couples in Utah deserve access to modern methods of NFP. One essential element to assure access is to increase cooperation between physicians and qualified teachers of modern NFP methods (Stanford, Thurman & Lemaire 1999). REFERENCES Freundl, G., Frank, P., Bauer, S., & Doring, G. (1988). Demographic study on the family planning behavior of the German population: the importance of natural methods. International Journal of Fertility, 33, 54-58. Geerling, J. H. (1995). Natural family planning. American Familv Physician, 52, 1749-1756. Hilgers, T. W., & Stanford, J. B. (1998). Creighton-Model NaProEduca-tion Technology for Avoiding Pregnancy. Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 43, 495-502. Howard, M. P., & Stanford, J. B. (1999). Pregnancy probabilities during use of the Creighton Model Fertility Care System. Archives of Family Medicine, 8, 391-402. Kambic, R. T. (1991). Natural family planning use-effectiveness and continuation. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 165, 2046-2048. Klaus, H. (1982). Natural family planning: a review. Obstetrical and Gynecolical Survey, 37, 128-150. Kosmin, B., & Lachman, S. (1993). One nation under God. Religion in contemporary American society. New York: Harmony Books. Oddens, B. J. (1999). Women's satisfaction with birth control: a population survey of physical and psychological effects of oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices, condoms, natural family planning, and sterilization among 1466 women. Contraception, 59, 277-286. Sharma, R. K. (1990 ). Psychosocial factors in natural family planning: an overview, hi J. T. Queenan & V. H. Jennings & J. M. Spieler & H. von Hertzen (Eds.), Natural family planning: current knowledge and new strategies for the 1990s - Proceedings of a conference, Part II, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, December 10-14, 1990 (pp. 115-117 ). Washington, DC Georgetown University Institute for International Studies in Natural Family Planning, the United States Agency for International Development, and the World Health Organization. 44 Utah's Health: An Annual Review Volume LX |
