Contraceptive Failure in the United States: An Update

This report provides an update of the authors' previous estimates of first-year probabilities of contraceptive failure for all methods of contraception. Estimates are provided of failure during typical use (which includes both incorrect and inconsistent use) and during perfect use (correct use...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Studies in family planning 1990-01, Vol.21 (1), p.51-54
Main Authors: Trussell, James, Hatcher, Robert A., Cates, Willard, Stewart, Felicia Hance, Kost, Kathryn
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Birth Control
Clinical Trials as Topic
Coitus
Contraception
Contraceptive Agents
Contraceptive Devices
Contraceptive sponges
Estimation
Estimation methods
Failure
Family planning
Female
Fertility
Humans
Intrauterine devices
Models, Statistical
Natural Family Planning Methods
Periodic abstinence
Population
Pregnancy
Pregnancy, Unwanted - statistics & numerical data
Spermicides
United States
United States of America
Vaginal diaphragms
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This report provides an update of the authors' previous estimates of first-year probabilities of contraceptive failure for all methods of contraception. Estimates are provided of failure during typical use (which includes both incorrect and inconsistent use) and during perfect use (correct use at every act of intercourse). The difference between these two probabilities provides a measure of how forgiving of imperfect use each method is. These revisions are prompted by recent studies that provide the first estimates of failure during perfect use for periodic abstinence and the cervical cap, by more complete evaluations of implants, and by the appearance of the Copper T 380A and disappearance of other IUDs from the US market. Also provided is a more complete explanation of how the previous estimate of the probability of becoming pregnant while relying solely on chance should be interpreted, and this estimate is revised slightly downward.
ISSN:0039-3665
1728-4465
DOI:10.2307/1966591