PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9288343

Comparing a public and private sector NFP program: implications for NFP expansion.

S Girotto·A Zanichelli·G C Stevanella·G Fattorini·L Santi·D Chiossi·J Rötzer
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper synthesizes a six year collaboration between a natural family planning (NFP) non-governmental organization (NGO) and the National Health Service of the Emilia Romagna region in Italy. It also compares the public program experience with NFP services provided in the private sector in the adjacent region of Veneto. Midwives provided NFP services in government family health clinics while in the private sector NFP was taught by non-health laypersons in a church-based facility. The populations served by these two programs were different. Women in the public sector were slightly older and two-thirds were married. Forty percent of the clients had chosen to use NFP to achieve a pregnancy. The private sector client, recruited in part through premarriage counseling programs, was equally divided between married and single women, though the majority came for advice on avoiding or spacing pregnancies. In both regions NFP users were more highly educated than the general population.

Explore related subjects

ContraceptionEducational StatusFamily Planning ServicesFemaleGovernmentHumansItalyNatural Family Planning MethodsOvulation DetectionPregnancyPrivate SectorComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S Girotto, A Zanichelli, G C Stevanella, G Fattorini, L Santi, D Chiossi, J Rötzer. Comparing a public and private sector NFP program: implications for NFP expansion.. https://doi.org/10.1023/a%3A1006568324853

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Biphasic versus triphasic oral contraceptives for contraception.

BACKGROUND: Side effects caused by oral contraceptives discourage compliance with, and continuation of, oral contraceptives. A suggested disadvantage of biphasic compared to triphasic oral contraceptive pills is an increase in breakthrough bleeding. We conducted this systematic review to examine this potential disadvantage. OBJECTIVES: To compare biphasic with triphasic oral contraceptives in terms of efficacy, cycle control, and discontinuation due to side effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, LILACS and CENTRAL. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters. We also contacted the authors of relevant studies and pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the USA. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing any biphasic with any triphasic oral contraceptive when used to prevent pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We examined the studies found during the searches for possible inclusion and assessed methodological quality using Cochrane guidelines. We contacted the authors of included studies and of possibly randomized studies for supplemental information about the methods and outcomes. We entered the data into RevMan. We calculated Peto odds ratios for incidence of discontinuation due to medical reasons, intermenstrual bleeding, and absence of withdrawal bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: Only two trials of limited quality met our inclusion criteria. Larranaga 1978 compared two biphasic pills and one triphasic pill, each containing levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol. No important differences emerged, and the frequency of discontinuation due to medical problems was similar with all three pills. Percival-Smith 1990 compared a biphasic pill containing norethindrone (Ortho 10/11) with a triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel (Triphasil) and with another triphasic containing norethindrone (Ortho 7/7/7). The biphasic pill had inferior cycle control compared with the levonorgestrel triphasic. The odds ratio of cycles with intermenstrual bleeding was 1.7 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.2) for the biphasic compared with the triphasic levonorgestrel pill. The odds ratio of cycles without withdrawal bleeding was 6.5 (95% CI 3.1 to 13). In contrast, cycle control with the biphasic pill was comparable to that of the triphasic containing the same progestin (norethindrone). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is limited and the internal validity of these trials is questionable. Given the high losses to follow up, these reports may even be considered observational. Given that caveat, the biphasic pill containing norethindrone was associated with inferior cycle control compared with the triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel. The choice of progestin may be more important than the phasic regimen in determining bleeding patterns.

Contraception↗