Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Non-hormonal Contraception

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Female and Male Contraception

Part of the book series: Trends in Andrology and Sexual Medicine ((TASM))

  • 1315 Accesses

Abstract

Promotion of family planning and prevention of unintended (mistimed or unintended) pregnancy through guaranteed access to preferred contraceptive methods for women and couples assures the well-being and autonomy of women in particular and of families, communities, and society in general.

Although the production, promotion, and marketing of the more effective methods of contraception have traditionally taken the spotlight in contraception and family planning, it is undoubtedly interesting that especially young women have started to demonstrate an increasing interest in natural methods of contraception as well as a general “rejection” (or at least lack of interest) on invasive or hormonal methods (hormonophobia). At least in the USA, the trend is an increasing one (from 1.1% to 2.2%) with now almost 1.4 million women in 2014 (and an estimated projection of 2.5 million women in 2020) in this category (Kavanaugh and Jerman, Contraception 97:14–21, 2018).

Modern methods of contraception are in general highly effective (Mansour et al., Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 15:4–16, 2010; Amy and Thiery, Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 20:387–402, 2015). They include female and male sterilization, oral hormonal pills, the implant and similar devices, injectables, emergency contraception, intrauterine devices (IUD), progesterone-based IUDs, and barrier methods (male and female condoms and cervical cap). Traditional or natural methods of contraception, less effective in general, include rhythm (periodic abstinence), withdrawal and lactational amenorrhea, abstinence, breastfeeding, douching, or folk methods. This chapter will discuss methods that are not hormone-based and that are included in the barrier/spermicide or natural/traditional categories. A section of useful links to pictures, ready-to-use electronically printed materials, and counseling information is provided at the end of the chapter (Appendix 6.1).

As its name implies, non-hormonal contraception category of contraceptive methods groups all those methods of contraception that do not rely on any hormonal compounds or hormonal molecules associated with the method to produce their contraceptive effect. However, this definition includes methods such as surgical sterilization and some intrauterine devices that will be covered elsewhere in this book. This chapter will include natural/traditional methods, barrier methods, and spermicides.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Evans WD, Ulasevich A, Hatheway M, Deperthes B. Systematic review of peer-reviewed literature on global condom promotion programs. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(7):2262.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Amy J-J, Thiery M. The condom: a turbulent history. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2015;20:387–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Youssef H. The history of the condom. J R Soc Med. 1993;86:226–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Gossman W, Shaeffer AD, McNabb DM. Condoms. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hassoun D. Natural family planning methods and barrier: CNGOF contraception guidelines. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2018;46:873–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Beksinska M, Wong R, Smit J. Male and female condoms: their key role in pregnancy and STI/HIV prevention. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;66:55–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Marfatia YS, Pandya I, Mehta K. Condoms: past, present, and future. Indian J Sex Transm Dis. 2015;36:133–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Raidoo S, Kaneshiro B. Contraception counseling for adolescents. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2017;29:310–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Maksut JL, Eaton LA. Female condoms=missed opportunities: lessons learned from promotion-centered interventions. Womens Health Issues. 2015;25:366–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Beksinska M, Greener R, Kleinschmidt I, Pillay L, Maphumulo V, Smit J. A randomised non-inferiority crossover controlled trial of the functional performance and safety of new female condoms: an evaluation of the velvet, Cupid2 and FC2. Contraception. 2015;92:261–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bounds W. Female condoms. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 1997;2:113–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Beksinska M, Smit J, Greener R, Piaggio G, Joanis C. The female condom learning curve: patterns of female condom failure over 20 uses. Contraception. 2015;91:85–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Edouard L. The renaissance of barrier methods. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2012;38:131–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mauck CK, Weiner DH, Creinin MD, Archer DF, Schwartz JL, Pymar HC, Ballagh SA, Henry DM, Callahan MM. FemCap with removal strap: ease of removal, safety and acceptability. Contraception. 2006;73:59–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lech MM. Spermicides 2002: an overview. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2002;7:173–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Nelson AL. An overview of properties of Amphora (Acidform) contraceptive vaginal gel. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2018;17:935–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Raymond EG, Trussell J, Weaver MA, Reeves MF. Estimating contraceptive efficacy: the case of spermicides. Contraception. 2013;87:134–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Steiner MJ, Hertz-Picciotto I, Schulz KF, Sangi-Haghpeykar H, Earle BB, Trussell J. Measuring true contraceptive efficacy. A randomized approach—condom vs. spermicide vs. no method. Contraception. 1998;58:375–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kuyoh MA, Toroitich-Ruto C, Grimes DA, Schulz KF, Gallo MF. Sponge versus diaphragm for contraception: a Cochrane review. Contraception. 2003;67:15–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Han L, Taub R, Jensen JT. Cervical mucus and contraception: what we know and what we don’t. Contraception. 2017;96:310–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sung S, Abramovitz A. Natural family planning. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Klaus H. Natural family planning: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1982;37:128–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bradley SEK, Polis CB, Bankole A, Croft T. Global contraceptive failure rates: who is most at risk? Stud Fam Plan. 2019;50:3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Polis CB, Jones RK. Multiple contraceptive method use and prevalence of fertility awareness based method use in the United States, 2013-2015. Contraception. 2018;98:188–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Duane M, Contreras A, Jensen ET, White A. The performance of fertility awareness-based method apps marketed to avoid pregnancy. J Am Board Fam Med. 2016;29:508–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Grimes DA, Gallo MF, Grigorieva V, Nanda K, Schulz KF. Fertility awareness-based methods for contraception: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Contraception. 2005;72:85–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Peragallo Urrutia R, Polis CB, Jensen ET, Greene ME, Kennedy E, Stanford JB. Effectiveness of fertility awareness-based methods for pregnancy prevention: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:591–604.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ferreira-Poblete A. The probability of cjonception on different days of the cycle with respect to ovulation: an overview. Adv Contracept. 1997;13:83–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Daunter B, Counsilman C. Cervical mucus: its structure and possible biological functions. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1980;10:141–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Gross BA. Natural family planning indicators of ovulation. Clin Reprod Fertil. 1987;5:91–117.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Su H-W, Yi Y-C, Wei T-Y, Chang T-C, Cheng C-M. Detection of ovulation, a review of currently available methods. Bioeng Transl Med. 2017;2:238–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Johnson S, Marriott L, Zinaman M. Can apps and calendar methods predict ovulation with accuracy? Curr Med Res Opin. 2018;34:1–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Nilsson A, Ahlborg T, Bernhardsson S. Use of non-medical contraceptive methods: a survey of women in western Sweden. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2019;23:400–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Marston CA, Church K. Does the evidence support global promotion of the abstinence-based standard days method® of contraception? Contraception. 2016;93:492–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. A prospective multicentre trial of the ovulation method of natural family planning. III. Characteristics of the menstrual cycle and of the fertile phase. Fertil Steril. 1983;40:773–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Royston P. Identifying the fertile phase of the human menstrual cycle. Stat Med. 1991;10:221–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Siegler SL, Siegler AM. Evaluation of the basal body temperature; an analysis of 1012 basal body temperature recordings. Fertil Steril. 1951;2:287–301.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Steward K, Raja A. Physiology, ovulation, basal body temperature. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bauman JE. Basal body temperature: unreliable method of ovulation detection. Fertil Steril. 1981;36:729–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Fong KL, Ho DH, Benjamin RS, Yang F, Sickler J, Brown NS, Bodey GP. A radioimmunoassay for 5-methyltetrahydrohomofolate. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1981;218:344–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Shilaih M, Goodale BM, Falco L, Kübler F, De Clerck V, Leeners B. Modern fertility awareness methods: wrist wearables capture the changes of temperature associated with the menstrual cycle. Biosci Rep. 2017;38:BSR20171279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Pyper C. Natural family planning. Low failure rate with symptothermal method. BMJ. 1993;307:1359–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Soler F, Barranco-Castillo E. The symptothermal (double check) method: an efficient natural method of family planning. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2010;15:379–80; author reply 381.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Geerling JH. Natural family planning. Am Fam Physician. 1995;52:1749–56, 1759.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Danis PG, Kurz SA, Covert LM. Medical students’ knowledge of fertility awareness-based methods of family planning. Front Med (Lausanne). 2017;4:65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Rousseau F, Da Silva Godineau SM, De Casabianca C, Begue C, Tessier-Cazeneuve C, Legendre G. State of knowledge on smartphone applications concerning contraception: a systematic review. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2019;48:83–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bouchard TP, Genuis SJ. Personal fertility monitors for contraception. Can Med Assoc J. 2011;183:73–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bonnar J, Flynn A, Freundl G, Kirkman R, Royston R, Snowden R. Personal hormone monitoring for contraception. Br J Fam Plann. 1999;24:128–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Pennoni F, Barbato M, Del Zoppo S. A latent markov model with covariates to study unobserved heterogeneity among fertility patterns of couples employing natural family planning methods. Front Public Health. 2017;5:186.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Regidor P-A, Kaczmarczyk M, Schiweck E, Goeckenjan-Festag M, Alexander H. Identification and prediction of the fertile window with a new web-based medical device using a vaginal biosensor for measuring the circadian and circamensual core body temperature. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2017;34:1–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Berglund Scherwitzl E, Gemzell Danielsson K, Sellberg JA, Scherwitzl R. Fertility awareness-based mobile application for contraception. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016;21:234–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Goodale BM, Shilaih M, Falco L, Dammeier F, Hamvas G, Leeners B. Wearable sensors reveal menses-driven changes in physiology and enable prediction of the fertile window: observational study. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21:e13404.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Simmons RG, Shattuck DC, Jennings VH. Assessing the efficacy of an app-based method of family planning: the dot study protocol. JMIR Res Protoc. 2017;6:e5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Moglia ML, Nguyen HV, Chyjek K, Chen KT, Castaño PM. Evaluation of smartphone menstrual cycle tracking applications using an adapted APPLICATIONS scoring system. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:1153–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Freis A, Freundl-Schütt T, Wallwiener L-M, Baur S, Strowitzki T, Freundl G, Frank-Herrmann P. Plausibility of menstrual cycle apps claiming to support conception. Front Public Health. 2018;6:98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Zwingerman R, Chaikof M, Jones C. A critical appraisal of fertility and menstrual tracking apps for the iPhone. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2020;42(5):583–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Gambier-Ross K, McLernon DJ, Morgan HM. A mixed methods exploratory study of women’s relationships with and uses of fertility tracking apps. Digit Health. 2018;4:2055207618785077.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Berglund Scherwitzl E, Lindén Hirschberg A, Scherwitzl R. Identification and prediction of the fertile window using NaturalCycles. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2015;20:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Berglund Scherwitzl E, Lundberg O, Kopp Kallner H, Gemzell Danielsson K, Trussell J, Scherwitzl R. Perfect-use and typical-use Pearl Index of a contraceptive mobile app. Contraception. 2017;96:420–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2004;70:89–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Kleinschmidt TK, Bull JR, Lavorini V, Rowland SP, Pearson JT, Berglund Scherwitzl E, Scherwitzl R, Gemzell Danielsson K. Advantages of determining the fertile window with the individualised natural cycles algorithm over calendar-based methods. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2019;24:457–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Correction. Typical use effectiveness of Natural Cycles: postmarket surveillance study investigating the impact of previous contraceptive choice on the risk of unintended pregnancy. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026474corr1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Kennedy KI, Visness CM. Contraceptive efficacy of lactational amenorrhoea. Lancet. 1992;339:227–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Van der Wijden C, Manion C. Lactational amenorrhoea method for family planning. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;10:CD001329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Short RV, Lewis PR, Renfree MB, Shaw G. Contraceptive effects of extended lactational amenorrhoea: beyond the Bellagio Consensus. Lancet. 1991;337:715–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Sipsma HL, Bradley EH, Chen PG. Lactational amenorrhea method as a contraceptive strategy in Niger. Matern Child Health J. 2013;17:654–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Dev R, Kohler P, Feder M, Unger JA, Woods NF, Drake AL. A systematic review and meta-analysis of postpartum contraceptive use among women in low- and middle-income countries. Reprod Health. 2019;16:154.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, UAE

    Juan M. Acuna

Authors
  1. Juan M. Acuna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan M. Acuna .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical and Surgical Science, University of Bologna, Clinic of Gynecology and Physiopathology of Reproduction, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Maria Cristina Meriggiola

  2. Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

    Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson

Appendix 6.1

Appendix 6.1

Internet-Based Resources as of May 30, 2020.

These are specialty sites that contain information on statistics, epidemiology, resources, and other websites and services on natural contraception as well as other methods for contraception. This list of selected sites does not intend to be a comprehensive list but more a list of trusted institutions for further expansion into more internet-based searches for contraception resources.

  1. 1.

    Contraception page, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Reproductive Health. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/index.htm.

  2. 2.

    National Institutes of Health, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Contraception Resources. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/contraception/more_information/resources.

  3. 3.

    European Contraception Atlas. https://www.contraceptioninfo.eu/.

  4. 4.

    World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/family_planning/en/.

  5. 5.

    Guttmacher Institute. https://www.guttmacher.org/.

  6. 6.

    Medicine Net. https://www.medicinenet.com/natural_methods_of_birth_control/article.htm.

  7. 7.

    New Zealand Family Planning. https://www.familyplanning.org.nz/advice/contraception/contraception-methods.

  8. 8.

    EngenderHealth. https://www.engenderhealth.org/our-work/family-planning/index/.

  9. 9.

    Everyday Health. https://www.everydayhealth.com/birth-control/resource-center/.

  10. 10.

    Family Planning Association—UK. https://www.fpa.org.uk/professionals/resources/leaflet-and-booklet-downloads.

  11. 11.

    Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). https://www.hhs.gov/opa/pregnancy-prevention/birth-control-methods/lam/index.html.

  12. 12.

    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/health-and-social-care-delivery/contraception.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Acuna, J.M. (2021). Non-hormonal Contraception. In: Meriggiola, M.C., Gemzell-Danielsson, K. (eds) Female and Male Contraception. Trends in Andrology and Sexual Medicine. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70932-7_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70932-7_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-70931-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-70932-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation