RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Fecundability in relation to use of fertility awareness indicators in a North American preconception cohort study
Stanford, J. B., Willis, S. K., Hatch, E. E., Rothman, K. J., & Wise, L. A. (2019). Fecundability in relation to use of fertility awareness indicators in a North American preconception cohort study. Fertility and Sterility, 112(5), 892-899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.06.036
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the frequency of use of selected fertility awareness indicators and to assess their influence on fecundability.
DESIGN: Web-based prospective cohort study.
SETTING: Not applicable.
PATIENT(S): Female pregnancy planners, aged 21-45 years, attempting conception for ≤6 cycles at study entry.
INTERVENTION(S): None.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We ascertained time to pregnancy, in menstrual cycles, with bimonthly questionnaires. We estimated adjusted fecundability ratios (FRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) using proportional probabilities models, controlling for age, income, education, smoking, intercourse frequency, and other lifestyle and reproductive factors.
RESULT(S): A total of 5,688 women were analyzed, with a mean age of 29.9 years and mean time trying of 2.1 cycles at baseline; 30% had ever been pregnant. At baseline, 75% were using one or more fertility indicators (counting days or charting menstrual cycles [71%], measuring basal body temperature [BBT, 21%], monitoring cervical fluid [39%], using urine LH tests [32%], or feeling for changes in position of the cervix [12%]). Women using any fertility indicator at baseline had higher subsequent fecundability (adjusted FR 1.25, 95% CI 1.16-1.35) than those not using any fertility indicators. For each individual indicator, adjusted FRs ranged from 1.28-1.36, where 1.00 would indicate no relation with fecundability. The adjusted FR for women using a combination of charting days, cervical fluid, and urine LH was 1.48 (95% CI 1.31-1.67) relative to women using no fertility indicators.
CONCLUSION(S): In a North American preconception cohort study, use of fertility indicators indicating the fertile window was common, and was associated with greater fecundability.
