| Title |
Fertility awareness‐based methods for contraception
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004860.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David A Grimes, Maria F Gallo, Vera Halpern, Kavita Nanda, Kenneth F Schulz, Laureen M Lopez |
| Abstract |
"Fertility awareness-based methods" (FAB) of family planning "involve identification of the fertile days of the menstrual cycle, whether by observing fertility signs such as cervical secretions and basal body temperature, or by monitoring cycle days. FAB methods can be used in combination with abstinence or barrier methods during the fertile time" (WHO 2000). Several names have been used to describe this approach to contraception, including "rhythm," "natural family planning" and "periodic abstinence." Fertility awareness-based methods can be used with abstinence from sexual intercourse. Alternatively, they can be used with barrier contraceptives or withdrawal during presumed fertile times. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 178 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 29 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 11% |
| Researcher | 19 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 29 | 16% |
| Unknown | 56 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 20 | 11% |
| Unknown | 62 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,612,715
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,428
of 13,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,044
of 75,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,153 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 75,975 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.