Priority 20 from the Contraception PSP
| UNCERTAINTY: How effective are 'natural family planning methods' (monitoring menstrual cycle, basal body temperature, cervical mucus), and do fertility apps and/or urine testing improve this? (JLA PSP Priority 20) | |
|---|---|
| Overall ranking | 20 |
| JLA question ID | 0049/20 |
| Explanatory note | The systematic review is based on traditional methods. More recent attention has focused on using apps, several papers review different app protocols. One ongoing study evaluating a specific app was identified. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02833922; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02833922 (Archived be WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6nDkr0e76). |
| Evidence |
Fertility awareness‐based methods for contraception David A Grimes, Maria F Gallo, Vera Halpern, Kavita Nanda, Kenneth F Schulz, Laureen M Lopez. October 2004 (updated 2012) Assessing the Efficacy of an App-Based Method of Family Planning: The Dot Study Protocol. Simmons RG, Shattuck DC, Jennings VH. JMIR Res Protoc. 2017 Jan 18;6(1):e5. doi: 10.2196/resprot.6886. |
| Health Research Classification System category | Reproductive Health and Childbirth |
| Extra information provided by this PSP | |
|---|---|
| Original uncertainty examples |
“Natural family planning and apps - how effective, which are best.” (Both) |
| Submitted by | Healthcare Professionals x 0~Patients x 1~Both x 1 |
| PSP information | |
|---|---|
| PSP unique ID | 0049 |
| PSP name | Contraception |
| Total number of uncertainties identified by this PSP. | 57 (To see a full list of all uncertainties identified, please see the detailed spreadsheet held on the JLA website) |
| Date of priority setting workshop | 21 April 2017 |