Clinical trial NCT00843336: Comparison of Two Internet Supported Natural Family Planning Methods
Official title: Randomized Comparison of Two Internet Supported Natural Family Planning Methods
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: COMPLETED
Phase: PHASE3
Conditions: Pregnancy
Keywords: fertility monitoring
contraception
Lead sponsor: Marquette University
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2009-02-13
Enrollment: 358
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Maximum age (years): 42
Standard ages: ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: yes
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Primary purpose: PREVENTION

Brief summary: The purpose of this research study is to compare the effectiveness of two natural family planning (NFP) methods that are provided over the internet by the Marquette University Institute for Natural Family Planning. One of the NFP methods is the use of a hand held electronic hormonal fertility monitor. The other method involves the self-observation of cervical mucus to track fertility. Both of the methods will involve placing information about fertility into an online charting system that automatically displays the days of fertility and infertility. The investigators are also interested in the influence of mutual motivation by the woman and her partner in using these methods to avoid pregnancy. The investigators hypothesize that there will be lower unintended pregnancy rates among those couples who use the electronic hormonal fertility monitor and among those couples who have a strong motivation to avoid pregnancy.

Detailed description: The Office of Population Affairs (OPA) of the Department of Human Development recently submitted a call for proposals for research on methods of natural family planning (NFP). The department chairs of OPA have recognized that relatively few women in the United States use natural methods of family planning, especially in the Title X Family Planning programs and clinics. They wanted researchers to develop studies to help increase the use and the efficacy of these methods, and, furthermore, wanted to understand why the methods are not used more. Reasons why only about 0.2% of US women use natural methods of birth control are they are often difficult to use, they are relatively ineffective, and there is a lack of access to properly trained NFP teachers. At Marquette University we have developed simple methods of NFP that utilize an electronic fertility monitor that measures female reproductive hormones, self cervical mucus monitoring that estimates the fertile window, and a simple fertility formula to help estimate the beginning and end of the fertile window. We also have developed a Web site that offers easy access to information on NFP, electronic charting, and professional nurses with specialization in teaching NFP.

The specific purpose of our study is to determine the efficacy, satisfaction, ease of use, and motivation in using an internet based NFP method that utilizes an electronic hormonal fertility monitor plus a simple fertility formula (i.e., EHFM-NFP) within an online professional-nurse supported system. Since there are few studies that compare methods of NFP, another aim of this study is to compare an internet based EFHM-NFP method with an internet based traditional cervical mucus monitoring (CMM) NFP method - both methods were developed at Marquette University. Please note that we have 3 published efficacy studies of the Marquette Method.

The specific research questions that will be asked are:

1. What are the 3, 6, and 12-month unintended pregnancy rates of an internet-provided EHFM-aided NFP method?
2. What are the 3, 6, and 12-month unintended pregnancy rates of an internet-provided CMM-only NFP method?
3. What is the satisfaction, ease of use, and mutual motivation of an internet-based NFP method (either EFHM or CMM) over a 12-month time period, i.e., after 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of use?

Eligibility criteria: For Female participants

Inclusion Criteria:

* be between the age of 18 and 42
* be in a sexually active committed relationship with a man
* have a menstrual cycle range of 21-42 days

Exclusion Criteria:

* have not used Depo (injectable) contraception for the past 6 months
* have not used oral or patch hormonal contraception for the past 3 months
* have not breast-fed baby for at least three months
* have no known fertility problems
* not be using medications that interfere with fertility
* not smoke cigarettes; and
* not be pregnant.

For Male Participants

Inclusion criteria:

* be between the ages of 18 and 50
* be in a sexually active committed relationship with his lone woman partner.

Exclusion criteria:

* have no known fertility problems

Primary outcomes:
measure: Unintended Pregnancies
timeFrame: 1, 3, 6, and 12 months
Secondary outcomes:
measure: user satisfaction, ease of use, mutual motivation
timeFrame: 1, 3, 6 and 12 months; mutual motivation monthly
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Milwaukee
country: United States
facility: Marquette University College of Nursing
state: Wisconsin
city: Milwaukee
country: United States
facility: Marquette University
state: Wisconsin
Study officials:
affiliation: Marquette University College of Nursing
name: Richard J Fehring, PhD
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References:
citation: Fehring RJ, Schneider M, Barron ML. Efficacy of the Marquette Method of natural family planning. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2008 Nov-Dec;33(6):348-54. doi: 10.1097/01.NMC.0000341254.80426.32.
citation: Fehring RJ, Schneider M, Raviele K, Barron ML. Efficacy of cervical mucus observations plus electronic hormonal fertility monitoring as a method of natural family planning. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2007 Mar-Apr;36(2):152-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2007.000129.x.
citation: Fehring RJ, Schneider M, Barron ML, Raviele K. Cohort comparison of two fertility awareness methods of family planning. J Reprod Med. 2009 Mar;54(3):165-70.
citation: Fehring RJ, Schneider M, Raviele K, Rodriguez D, Pruszynski J. Randomized comparison of two Internet-supported fertility-awareness-based methods of family planning. Contraception. 2013 Jul;88(1):24-30. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.10.010. Epub 2012 Nov 12.