Can NFP be taught in two short, easy lessons? Simplified NFP for isolated and/or busy couples

Researchers used life table rates from study and comparison groups from rural and urban areas of Cagayan de Oro City, the Philippines to test a simplified method of teaching natural family planning (NFP) defined by calendar, mucus, and cervix indicators. This method included a 6 page booklet, 2 30-minute training sessions, and a question and answer period. Fear of side effects from other contraceptive methods was the leading reason for using NFP (79.4% urban, 85.8% rural). Religious motivation and fear of side effects followed for urban couples, but the percentage was low (14.6%). In rural areas, religious motivation place 3rd (4.1%) preceded by other reasons (6.9%). User error resulted in low accidental pregnancy rates (.8%). Method failure was responsible for higher failure rates than user error, but they were still relatively low (3.4% total). In rural areas, the reason for failure was unclear in 2.6% of couples, but it was only .9% among urban couples. Rural couples who used NFP to space births (spacers) had 2 times the failure rate of those rural couples who used NFP to limit births (limiters) [69% vs. 31%]. Urban spacers had a higher failure rate than urban limiters, but the difference was smaller than it was for rural couples (54.8% vs. 45.2%). Lactation did not have a clear effect on failure rates. For example, in urban areas, partially lactating women had a lower failure rate than nonlactating women (41.9% vs. 58.1%), but in rural areas, lactation had the opposite effect (63.6% for lactating women and 36.4% for nonlactating women). Risk taking resulted in more 6 month pregnancy rates among urban couples than rural couples (12.3% vs. 8.2%). At the end of 6 months, 67.5% of all couples still used the new simplified NFP method (70.3% rural vs. 64.7% urban). Therefore the new simplified NFP method was an effective method for spacing or limiting births.