The Standard Days Method (SDM) is a method of family planning that assumes ovulation to be close to the midpoint of the menstrual cycle; fertility falls between days 8 and 19; and is most effective for cycle lengths between twenty-six and thirty-two days. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the assumptions of the SDM with a new data set of 714 menstrual cycles produced by 131 women (mean age twenty-nine) who tracked their fertility with an electronic fertility monitor that measured urinary estrogen and luteinizing hormone (LH). The LH peak was used to estimate the day of ovulation (EDO) and the six-day fertile window. Results indicated the majority (80 percent) of menstrual cycles had EDOs within three days of the midpoint of the cycle (86 percent with cycle lengths between twenty-six and thirty-two days). Approximately 22.5 percent (172) of the cycles had fertile window days outside of days 8 to 19, 10.2 percent (78) before, and 12.1 percent (92) after. However, there is a low probability of pregnancy when women experience short cycles and the early days of the fertile window are outside of days 8 through 19. We concluded assumptions of the SDM outside of the fertile window with long cycles could be problematic. However, the SDM is valid for women who have most cycles within the twenty-six to thirty-two day range.
Standard Days Method efficacy, SDM family planning evaluation, fertility awareness method statistics, calendar-based family planning, CycleBeads contraception, fixed fertile window method, family planning method effectiveness, natural contraception efficacy, cycle day fertility window, SDM typical use effectiveness
PMID 30082989 30082989 DOI 10.1179/002436312804827064 10.1179/002436312804827064
Cite this article
Schneider, M., & Fehring, R. J. (2012). Descriptive Statistical Evaluation of the Standard Days Method of Family Planning. The Linacre Quarterly, 79(4), 460-473. https://doi.org/10.1179/002436312804827064
Schneider M, Fehring RJ. Descriptive Statistical Evaluation of the Standard Days Method of Family Planning. Linacre Q. 2012;79(4):460-473. doi:10.1179/002436312804827064
Schneider, M., and R. J. Fehring. "Descriptive Statistical Evaluation of the Standard Days Method of Family Planning." The Linacre Quarterly, vol. 79, no. 4, 2012, pp. 460-473.
Related articles
Fertility AwarenessResearch Methodology
Open Access
To examine transient environmental exposures and their relationship with human fecundity, exposure assessment should occur optimally at the time of conception in both members of the couple. We performed an observational, prospective cohort study with biomonitoring in both members of a heterosexual couple trying to conceive. Couples collected urine, saliva, and semen specimens for up to two menstrual cycles on days corresponding to the time windows of fertilization, implantation, and early pregnancy, identified based on the woman's observations of her cervical fluid. Three hundred nine eligible couples were screened between 2011 and 2015, of which 183 enrolled. Eleven couples (6.0 %) withdrew or were lost to follow up. The most successful and cost effective recruiting strategies were word of mouth (40 % of participating couples), posters and flyers (37 %), and targeted Facebook advertising (13 %) with an overall investment of $37.35 spent on recruitment per couple. Both men and women collected ≥97.2 % of requested saliva samples, and men collected ≥89.9 % of requested semen samples. Within the periovulatory days (±3 days), there was at least one urine specimen collected by women in 97.1 % of cycles, and at least one by men in 91.7 % of cycles. Daily compliance with periovulatory urine specimens ranged from 66.5 to 92.4 % for women and from 55.7 to 75.0 % for men. Compliance was ≥88 % for questionnaire completion at specified time points. Couples planning to conceive can be recruited successfully for periconceptional monitoring, and will comply with intensive study protocols involving home collection of biospecimens and questionnaire data.
Menstrual CycleFertility AwarenessResearch Methodology
Open Access
To assess the amount of variability in ovarian follicular growth rate and maximum follicular diameter related to different centers, women and cycles of the same women in a multicenter observational study of follicular growth. Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study from eight centers in Europe. There were 533 ultrasound examinations in 282 cycles of 107 women with normal fertility. A random effects model with center, woman and cycle as hierarchical units of variation was used to analyze mean follicular diameter on days preceding ovulation. Follicular growth did not differ by center. There was homogenous growth across women and cycles, and the maximum follicular diameter before ovulation varied substantially across cycles but not across women. Many (about 40%) women had small maximum follicular diameter on the day before ovulation (<19 mm). Pre-ovulatory cycle length was not related to maximum follicular diameter. In normal fecundity, there is a substantial variation in maximum follicular diameter from cycle to cycle based on variation in the duration of follicular development, but the variation could not be explained by different characteristics of different women. Explanation of variation in follicular growth has to be found on the cycle level.
Fertility AwarenessResearch Methodology
Open Access
Although there has been growing concern about the effects of environmental exposures on human fertility, standard epidemiologic study designs may not collect sufficient data to identify subtle effects while properly adjusting for confounding. In particular, results from conventional time to pregnancy studies can be driven by the many sources of bias inherent in these studies. By prospectively collecting detailed records of menstrual bleeding, occurrences of intercourse, and a marker of ovulation day in each menstrual cycle, precise information on exposure effects can be obtained, adjusting for many of the primary sources of bias. This article provides an overview of the different types of study designs, focusing on the data required, the practical advantages and disadvantages of each design, and the statistical methods required to take full advantage of the available data. We conclude that detailed prospective studies allowing inferences on day-specific probabilities of conception should be considered as the gold standard for studying the effects of environmental exposures on fertility.
The uses of cervical mucus and basal body temperature as indicators of return to fertility postpartum have resulted in high unintended pregnancy rates. In 2013, a study found that when women used urine hormone signs in a postpartum/breastfeeding protocol this resulted in fewer pregnancies. To improve the original protocol's effectiveness, (1) women were to increase the number of days tested with the Clearblue Fertility Monitor, (2) an optional second luteinizing hormone test could be done in the evening, and (3) instructions were given to manage the beginning of the fertile window for the first six cycles postpartum. The purpose of this study was to determine the correct and typical use effectiveness rates to avoid pregnancy in women who used a revised postpartum/breastfeeding protocol. A cohort review of an established data set from 207 postpartum breastfeeding women who used the protocol to avoid pregnancy was completed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Total pregnancy rates that included correct and incorrect use pregnancies were eighteen per one hundred women over twelve cycles of use. For the pregnancies that met a priori criteria, the correct use pregnancy rates were two per one hundred over twelve months and twelve cycles of use and typical use rates were four per one hundred women at twelve cycles of use. The protocol had fewer unplanned pregnancies than the original, however, the cost of the method increased.