Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Access
    • Archive
    • Supplements
      • The Challenge Initiative Platform
    • Topic Collections
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Publish a Supplement
    • Promote Your Article
    • Resources for Writing Journal Articles
  • About
    • About GHSP
    • Editorial Team
    • Advisory Board
    • FAQs
    • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Webinars
    • Local Voices Webinar
    • Connecting Creators and Users of Knowledge
    • Publishing About Programs in GHSP
  • Other Useful Sites
    • GH eLearning
    • GHJournal Search

User menu

  • My Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Global Health: Science and Practice
  • Other Useful Sites
    • GH eLearning
    • GHJournal Search
  • My Alerts

Global Health: Science and Practice

Dedicated to what works in global health programs

Advanced Search

  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Access
    • Archive
    • Supplements
    • Topic Collections
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Publish a Supplement
    • Promote Your Article
    • Resources for Writing Journal Articles
  • About
    • About GHSP
    • Editorial Team
    • Advisory Board
    • FAQs
    • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Webinars
    • Local Voices Webinar
    • Connecting Creators and Users of Knowledge
    • Publishing About Programs in GHSP
  • Alerts
  • Visit GHSP on Facebook
  • Follow GHSP on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Find GHSP on LinkedIn
TAKING EXCEPTION
Open Access

Response to Austad: Offering a Range of Methods, Including Fertility Awareness Methods, Facilitates Method Choice

Shawn Malarcher, Madeleine Short Fabic, Jeff Spieler, Ellen H Starbird, Clifton Kenon and Sandra Jordan
Global Health: Science and Practice June 2016, 4(2):346-349; https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-16-00115
Shawn Malarcher
aUnited States Agency for International Development, Office of Population and Reproductive Health, Washington, DC, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Madeleine Short Fabic
aUnited States Agency for International Development, Office of Population and Reproductive Health, Washington, DC, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeff Spieler
bIndependent Consultant, Washington, DC, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ellen H Starbird
aUnited States Agency for International Development, Office of Population and Reproductive Health, Washington, DC, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Clifton Kenon
aUnited States Agency for International Development, Office of Population and Reproductive Health, Washington, DC, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sandra Jordan
aUnited States Agency for International Development, Office of Population and Reproductive Health, Washington, DC, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
  • PDF
Loading

When selecting a contraceptive method, women and men consider various attributes in addition to effectiveness, such as side effects, return to fertility, level of medical intervention, and interference with sexual activity. Offering a range of methods, including fertility awareness methods that meet the standard to be considered modern, helps to address these considerations, facilitating method choice.

See related article by Austad.

We appreciate the “Taking Exception” article by Austad and colleagues1 and their critical review of the important issue of contraceptive classification first introduced in our March 2016 Global Health: Science and Practice (GHSP) article, “Fertility Awareness Methods: Distinctive Modern Contraceptives.”2 We support the authors’ assertion that contraceptive effectiveness is a crucial concern for family planning program managers and potential contraceptive users. We also agree that, as with all other contraceptives, fertility awareness methods (FAMs) have limitations that make them less appropriate for some women. We firmly disagree, however, with the idea that the contraceptive needs of all women and their partners can be met by a limited set of contraceptives prioritized according to one attribute—effectiveness. Once again, we assert that family planning programming should be based first and foremost on voluntary and informed contraceptive choice. We further argue our position by discussing a few points raised by Austad et al.

FAMS AS MODERN CONTRACEPTION NOT A NEW IDEA

Austad et al. refer to the concepts put forth in our original GHSP commentary as reclassifying the Standard Days Method (SDM) and Lactational Amenorrhea Method (LAM) from traditional to modern contraceptives. In fact, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has never considered these methods traditional. They are scientifically based and tested approaches that draw on traditional practices. LAM and SDM have been classified as modern methods for decades. Indeed, USAID has supported the Demographic and Health Surveys to collect and report data on LAM as a modern method since 1998 and on SDM since SDM programming began being taken to scale in the mid-2000s.

LAM and SDM have been classified as modern methods for decades.

MODERN/TRADITIONAL DICHOTOMY USED FOR PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING—NOT FOR COUNSELING

We agree with the authors that family planning clients should be given comprehensive and accurate information on contraceptive options, including method effectiveness rates and what those rates mean. We also acknowledge that the ability to provide accurate and comprehensive information remains a serious challenge for many programs. The classification of “modern” and “traditional” is, however, meaningless for the purposes of counseling. Counseling tools such as the World Health Organization’s “Decision-Making Tool”3 and the Population Council's “Balanced Counseling Strategy”4 make no reference to “modern” and “traditional.” Rather, these terms are used by program managers and decision makers to distinguish those methods that are supported by programs and those contraceptive users who are counted by indicators used for measuring progress toward national and international goals. By arguing that LAM, SDM, and the TwoDay Method (TDM) should be classified as “traditional” methods, Austad and colleagues are, in effect, arguing that these methods should not be supported by organized family planning programs. Recognizing these methods as “modern” increases the likelihood that FAMs will be included in programs, that counseling will include FAMs, and that clients will have the information to decide which method—whether FAMs or another method—can help them meet their fertility intentions.

The modern/traditional contraceptive classification system is useful only for program managers and decision makers—not for the purposes of counseling clients.

MEDICAL INTERVENTION FACILITATES, BUT NOT REQUIRED FOR, PREGNANCY PREVENTION

Austad and colleagues support the definition for modern contraception put forth by Hubacher and Trussell: “technological advances designed to overcome biology” that “enable couples to have sexual intercourse at any mutually desired time.”5 This definition argues that averting pregnancy requires medical intervention, specifically in the form of a “technology.” USAID has supported technological advances in contraceptive development for decades and has contributed to the development of some of the most effective methods on the market, including implants and intrauterine devices (IUDs). At the same time, we recognize that there will always be some women who are unwilling or unable to use devices or drugs. Our work to support the development of scientifically based, effective means to meet the needs of men and women who prefer nonmedical ways of regulating their fertility led to the development of LAM, SDM, and TDM. The proposal by Hubacher and Trussell, and supported by Austad et al., means, in effect, that approaches used by men and women who prefer contraception based on a nonmedical intervention could never be recognized as “modern” contraception and, as argued earlier, that these methods would be left out of programming and actively discouraged by providers. These women and men would never be counted as “contraceptive users” by international standards and their choice would never be supported by programming efforts.

FAMS SHOULD BE OFFERED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A BROAD METHOD MIX

All counseling should start by identifying and attempting to meet the needs of the individual client. Studies show that a woman is more likely to continue using a method when she is able to access her preferred method, even if that method is not the most effective method available.6 Austad et al. imply that USAID is suggesting prioritizing FAM over other contraceptives. In fact, USAID consistently and resolutely promotes and supports provision of method choice, which includes long-acting reversible contraception, permanent methods, post-coital methods, barrier methods, and fertility awareness methods.

Women are more likely to continue using contraception when they can use their preferred methods, even if those methods are not the most effective ones.

SIDE EFFECTS ARE REAL AND A COMMON CAUSE OF DISCONTINUATION

Austad and colleagues dismiss women’s concerns about contraceptive side effects noting, “… research shows that the absolute effectiveness of a method for pregnancy prevention is the most important factor cited by end users when choosing a method, even over other considerations such as side effects.” This statement does not accurately capture the conclusions of the work cited. In Snow et al. (1997),7 the conclusions of the evidence review on users’ perspectives on fertility regulation were captured as:

  • Contraceptive users lack complete information about both methods and services.

  • Women’s and men’s needs and preferences for contraception change over time and vary with the person’s stage of life.

  • Universally, women and men would like a method that is safe and effective, but it is not clear what these concepts mean. Side effects and health concerns (particularly with respect to hormonal methods) and method failure (particularly with respect to barrier methods and periodic abstinence) are the major reasons why women discontinue or do not use contraception.

  • Individual perspectives and preferences vary widely and defy generalisation.

  • The limited range of methods available in many developing countries necessarily limits people’s perceptions and preferences.

  • Research on people’s reactions to a hypothetical method does not usually yield information predictive of subsequent use or behaviour with the method.

  • There is a particular lack of information about the perspectives of men, adolescents, women having an abortion, especially repeat abortion, and women in the post-partum period.

The influence of method-related side effects experienced by women is real. Castel and Askew (2015) found that 38% of women with an unmet need for modern contraception discontinued using a modern contraceptive in the past.8 They also note that one-third of women who start using a modern contraceptive method will stop using it in the first year, and over half before 2 years. Method-related concerns are one of the most common reasons for discontinuation. Women reporting method-related reasons for not using a modern method account for about two-thirds of unmet need in sub-Saharan Africa (67%) and South Central Asia (71%), and for 79% of unmet need in Southeast Asia.9

Effectiveness is one important attribute users consider when selecting a contraceptive method. There are, however, many other aspects that women and men prioritize when choosing a contraceptive method, such as side effects, return to fertility, level of medical intervention, and effect on sexual activity (Table). Offering a range of methods, including FAMs, helps to address these considerations, facilitating method choice.

Effectiveness is only one important attribute among many that users consider when selecting a contraceptive method.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE Ways to Classify Commonly Used Contraceptives for Consideration by Countries and Family Planning Programs

Notes

Competing Interests: None declared.

Peer Reviewed

Cite this article as: Malarcher S, Fabic MS, Spieler J, Starbird EH, Kenon C, Jordan S. Response to Austad: offering a range of methods, including fertility awareness methods, facilitates method choice. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2016;4(2):346-349. http://dx.doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-16-00115

  • Received: 2016 Apr 8.
  • Accepted: 2016 May 27.
  • Published: 2016 Jun 20.
  • © Malarcher et al.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly cited. To view a copy of the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. When linking to this article, please use the following permanent link: http://dx.doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-16-00115.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Austad K,
    2. Chary A,
    3. Colom A,
    4. Barillas R,
    5. Luna D,
    6. Menjívar C,
    7. et al.
    Fertility awareness methods are not modern contraceptives: defining contraception to reflect our priorities. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2016;4(2):342–345. doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-16-00044
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Malarcher S,
    2. Spieler J,
    3. Fabic MS,
    4. Jordan S,
    5. Starbird EH,
    6. Kenon C
    . Fertility awareness methods: distinctive modern contraceptives. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2016;4(1):13–15. doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-15-00297. pmid:27016540
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    World Health Organization (WHO), Department of Reproductive Health and Research. Decision-making tool for family planning clients and providers: a resource for high-quality counselling. Geneva: WHO; 2005. Available from: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/family_planning/9241593229index/en/
  4. ↵
    1. Leon FR,
    2. Vernon R,
    3. Martin A,
    4. Bruce L
    . The balanced counseling strategy: a toolkit for family planning service providers. New York: Population Council; 2008. Available from: http://www.popcouncil.org/research/the-balanced-counseling-strategy-a-toolkit-for-family-planning-service3
  5. ↵
    1. Hubacher D,
    2. Trussell J
    . A definition of modern contraceptive methods. Contraception. 2015;92(5):420–421. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2015.08.008. pmid:26276245
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Pariani S,
    2. Heer DM,
    3. Arsdol MDV
    . Does choice make a difference to contraceptive use? Evidence from east Java. Stud Fam Plann. 1991;22(6):384–390. doi:10.2307/1966452. pmid:1792678
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Ravindran TKS,
    2. Berer M,
    3. Cottingham J
    1. Snow R,
    2. García S,
    3. Kureshy N,
    4. Sadana R,
    5. Singh S,
    6. Becerra-Valdivia M,
    7. et al.
    Attributes of contraceptive technology: women’s preferences in seven countries. In: Ravindran TKS, Berer M, Cottingham J, editors. Beyond acceptability: users’ perspectives on contraception. London: Reproductive Health Matters for the World Health Organization; 1997. Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/0953121003.pdf
  8. ↵
    1. Castle S,
    2. Askew I
    . Contraceptive discontinuation: reasons, challenges, and solutions. New York: Population Council; 2015. Co-published by Family Planning 2020 (FP2020). Available from: http://ec2-54-210-230-186.compute-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/FP2020_ContraceptiveDiscontinuation_SinglePage_Revise_02.15.16.pdf
  9. ↵
    1. Darroch JE,
    2. Sedgh G,
    3. Ball H
    . Contraceptive technologies: responding to women’s needs. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2011. Available from: https://www.guttmacher.org/report/contraceptive-technologies-responding-womens-needs
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Global Health: Science and Practice: 4 (2)
Global Health: Science and Practice
Vol. 4, No. 2
June 20, 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Global Health: Science and Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Response to Austad: Offering a Range of Methods, Including Fertility Awareness Methods, Facilitates Method Choice
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Global Health: Science and Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Global Health: Science and Practice web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Response to Austad: Offering a Range of Methods, Including Fertility Awareness Methods, Facilitates Method Choice
Shawn Malarcher, Madeleine Short Fabic, Jeff Spieler, Ellen H Starbird, Clifton Kenon, Sandra Jordan
Global Health: Science and Practice Jun 2016, 4 (2) 346-349; DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-16-00115

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Response to Austad: Offering a Range of Methods, Including Fertility Awareness Methods, Facilitates Method Choice
Shawn Malarcher, Madeleine Short Fabic, Jeff Spieler, Ellen H Starbird, Clifton Kenon, Sandra Jordan
Global Health: Science and Practice Jun 2016, 4 (2) 346-349; DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-16-00115
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Jump to section

  • Article
    • FAMS AS MODERN CONTRACEPTION NOT A NEW IDEA
    • MODERN/TRADITIONAL DICHOTOMY USED FOR PROGRAM PLANNING AND REPORTING—NOT FOR COUNSELING
    • MEDICAL INTERVENTION FACILITATES, BUT NOT REQUIRED FOR, PREGNANCY PREVENTION
    • FAMS SHOULD BE OFFERED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A BROAD METHOD MIX
    • SIDE EFFECTS ARE REAL AND A COMMON CAUSE OF DISCONTINUATION
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Fertility Awareness Methods Are Not Modern Contraceptives: Defining Contraception to Reflect Our Priorities
  • A False Dichotomy: RCTs and Their Contributions to Evidence-Based Public Health
Show more TAKING EXCEPTION

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Health Topics
    • Family Planning and Reproductive Health
US AIDJohns Hopkins Center for Communication ProgramsUniversity of Alberta

Follow Us On

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Advance Access Articles
  • Past Issues
  • Topic Collections
  • Most Read Articles
  • Supplements

More Information

  • Submit a Paper
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Instructions for Reviewers
  • GH Journals Database

About

  • About GHSP
  • Advisory Board
  • FAQs
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© 2023 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. ISSN: 2169-575X

Powered by HighWire