Talk:Creighton Model FertilityCare System

message: Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article.  I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox information appears to be taken from the Billings page. When statistics for Creighton are added to the page, the box can be updated, however, for the meantime, it would be innaccurate to attribute the same information to both methods, so I am removing some of the info in the infobox. Wanfactor 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles 

message: Toni Weschler has recently been added to the see-also sections of a group of related articles.  I'm not sure this addition is appropriate; my reasoning is at Talk:Billings ovulation method#See also - Toni Weschler? Lyrl    Talk     C   03:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also - Toni Weschler 

message: Creighton Model, FertilityCare, CrMS, NaProTechnology -- I found these terms to be very confusing.  Following research, I expanded and moved up the History section in order to clarify these various terms surrounding usage of this method.  I have also created redirects from the terms to Creighton Model FertilityCare System.  Joie de Vivre 16:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: This article has been moved to :Category:Fertility tracking as part of a planned deletion of :Category:Periodic abstinence, :Category:Fertility awareness, and :Category:Natural family planning.  Please bring up any concerns at Category talk:Periodic abstinence.  If there are no objections within four days, these three categories will be tagged for speedy deletion. Lyrl    Talk     C   21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category move

message: Most people who subscribe to NFP in general and CrMS would find the link to birth control to be inflammatory and objectionable.  "Fertility awareness" is a great category for CrMS, but cross-linking to birth control is not, particularly with respect to such terms as "anal sex."  WikiBarrister 16:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be better to edit that navigation template to remove the explicit sexual acts.  Try bringing it up at Template talk:BirthControl. LyrlTalk     C   02:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to "Birth Control" inappropriate for this topic 

message: There may be a misinterpretation of the research in the article. This was mentioned about the effectiveness: "In clinical studies of the CrMS conducted at the Pope Paul VI Institute, researchers excluded most pregnancies from the typical-use rate calculation, on the grounds that they believed the affected couples had used the method to deliberately attempt pregnancy", referring to the paper by Fehring et al. (1) The authors are from Marquette University, not Pope Paul VI. (2) There is a subtle unsubstantiated presumption of dishonesty in that statement. The proper venue for doing that is during the peer review of the publication, or a counter-claim in another scientific publication that provides its superior data.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferson.tan (talk • contribs) 15:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning the Claim of Questionable Effectiveness Figures 

message: Is there information from several independent and objective sources (that are not related to any group promoting this particular method) regarding the effectiveness of this method in preventing pregnancy? Can you add urls?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Away1known (talk • contribs) 12:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness 

message: This article only references citations published by the creator of this method, and does not cite any "cons" to this method.  It reads exactly like other pro Creighton pieces found on the web.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.218.252 (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And what You want? Wizikj (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree, this article is more an advertisement than a encyclopaedia article. It is not neutral. Neither does it actually explain what the woman or the couple are supposed to do, only that CrMS teaches them to identify the rhythms. It should at least include a summary of what is thought. OxygenBlue (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

text: I am a user of the method and intend to teach it when I can take the class required. What information would you like to know?Jemadi1121 (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: so it was developed by a dr HILGERS, and based on an earlier BILLINGS method.  why the heck is it called CREIGHTON?!  66.105.218.48 (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr Hilgers has worked on a Creighton University, when he developed this method. More info . Wizikj (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  name? 

message: I think the terminology 'perfect use' and 'typical use' is non-standard. My understanding is that what is here called 'perfect use' is technically known as 'efficacy' and what is here called 'typical use' is technically called 'effectiveness'. (The Wikipedia page on efficacy seems to agree with me.)
 
"Efficacy measures patient benefit and short term harm in scientific, usually experimental, studies. Effectiveness, by contrast, is concerned with patient benefit and harm in everyday practice."  The Advanced Handbook in Evidence-Based Medicine, Edited by Stevens, et al. Sage Publications 2001.  Blaise (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Blaise, you are right about the terms efficacy and effectiveness.  However, with respect to birth control, perfect use and typical use is the standard.  It is also the terminiology used by ACOG (American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists).  Cogorno (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: How is this a source? As far as I can tell, the paper mentions that they make a distinction between those who have sex on fertile days to achieve pregnancy and those who have sex on those days because they misidentified the day as a fertile day. Obviously if the couple was intending to get pregnant then we should exclude them since they are not using the method to prevent a pregnancy. However, those couples who mistakenly identified a non-fertile day and mistakenly got pregnant were included. So I don't see the source of the problem. Phattonez (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for Effectiveness Dispute

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Creighton Model FertilityCare System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928094134/http://www.woomb.org/omrrca/BOMvCrMS.pdf to http://www.woomb.org/omrrca/BOMvCrMS.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: „Creighton Model FertilityCare System” it is the same as the „Creighton Model”? Wizikj (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the WikiData