Hubbry Logo
Comparison of birth control methodsComparison of birth control methodsMain
Open search
Comparison of birth control methods
Community hub
Comparison of birth control methods
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Comparison of birth control methods
Comparison of birth control methods
Comparison of birth control methods
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Effectiveness of contraceptive methods with respect to birth control. Only condoms are useful to prevent sexually transmitted infections.

There are many methods of birth control (or contraception) that vary in requirements, side effects, and effectiveness. As the technology, education, and awareness about contraception has evolved, new contraception methods have been theorized and put in application. Although no method of birth control is ideal for every user, some methods remain more effective, affordable or intrusive than others. Outlined here are the different types of barrier methods, hormonal methods, various methods including spermicides, emergency contraceptives, and surgical methods[1] and a comparison between them.

While many methods may prevent conception, only male and female condoms are effective in preventing sexually transmitted infections.

Methods

[edit]

Hormonal methods

[edit]

The IUD (intrauterine device) is a T-shaped device that is inserted into the uterus by a trained medical professional. There are two different types of IUDs: copper or hormonal.[1] The copper IUD (also known as a copper T intrauterine device) is a non-hormonal option of birth control. It is wrapped in copper which creates a toxic environment for sperm and eggs, thus preventing pregnancy.[2] The failure rate of a copper IUD is approximately 0.8% and can prevent pregnancy for up to 10 years. The hormonal IUD (also known as levonorgestrel intrauterine system or LNg IUD) releases a small amount of the hormone called progestin that can prevent pregnancy for 3–8 years with a failure rate of 0.1-0.4%.[1] IUDs can be removed by a trained medical professional at any time before the expiration date to allow for pregnancy.

Oral contraceptives are another option, these are commonly known as 'the pill'. These must be taken at the same time every day in order to be the most effective. There are two different options, there is a combined pill that contains both of the hormones estrogen and progestin, and a progestin-only pill. The failure rate of each of these oral contraceptives is 7%.[1]

Some choose to get an injection or a shot in order to prevent pregnancy. This is an option where a medical professional will inject the hormone progestin into a woman's arm or buttocks every 3 months to prevent pregnancy. The failure rate is 4%.[1]

Women can also get an implant into their upper arm that releases small amounts of hormones to prevent pregnancy. The implant is a thin rod-shaped device that contains the hormone progestin that is inserted into the upper arm and can prevent pregnancy for up to 3 years. The failure rate for this method is 0.1%.[1]

The patch is another simple option, it is a skin patch containing the hormones progestin and estrogen that is absorbed into the blood stream preventing pregnancy. The patch is typically worn on the lower abdomen and replaced once a week. The failure rate for this is 7%.[1]

The hormonal vaginal contraceptive ring is a ring that contains the hormones progestin and estrogen that a woman inserts into the vagina. It is replaced once a month and has a failure rate of 7%.[1]

Barrier methods

[edit]

The male condom is typically made of latex (but other materials are available, such as lambskin, if either partner has a latex allergy). The male condom is placed over the male's penis and prevents the sperm and semen from entering the partner's body. It can prevent pregnancy, and STIs such as, but not limited to, HIV if used appropriately. Male condoms are disposable (each condom can only be used once) and are easily accessible at local stores in most countries. Condoms have a failure rate of 2% when used correctly during every act of intercourse, and 13% when used 'typically', which includes cases where they are used inconsistently or incorrectly.[3][1]

The diaphragm or cervical cap is a small shallow cup-like cap that is inserted into the vagina with spermicide to cover the cervix and block sperm from entering the uterus. It is inserted before sexual intercourse and comes in different sizes. It needs to be fitted by a medical professional. It has a failure rate of 17%.[1]

A contraceptive sponge is another contraceptive method Like the diaphragm, the contraceptive sponge contains spermicide and is inserted into the vagina and placed over the cervix to prevent sperm from entering the uterus. The sponge must be kept in place 6 hours after sexual intercourse before it can be removed and discarded. The failure rate for women who have had a baby before is 27%; for those who have not had a baby, the failure rate is 14%.[1]

The female condom is worn by the woman; it is inserted into the vagina and prevents the sperm from entering her body. It can help prevent STIs and can be inserted up to 8 hours before intercourse. The failure rate is 21%.[1]

Other methods

[edit]

Spermicides come in various forms such as: gels, foams, creams, film, suppositories, or tablets. The spermicides create an environment in which sperm can no longer live. Though typically used in addition to the male condom, diaphragm, or cervical cap, they can also be used by themselves. They are put into the vagina no more than an hour before intercourse and kept inside the vagina for 6–8 hours after intercourse. The failure rate is 21%.[1]

In the fertility awareness-based method a woman who has a predictable and consistent menstrual cycle tracks the days that she is fertile. The typical woman has approximately 9 fertile days a month and either avoids intercourse on those days or uses an alternative birth control method for that period of time. The failure rate is between 2-23%.[1]

Lactational amenorrhea (LAM) is an option for women who have had a baby within the past 6 months and are breastfeeding. This method is only successful if it has been less than 6 months since the birth of the baby, they must be fully breastfeeding their baby, and not having any periods.[1] The method is almost as effective as an oral contraceptive if the 3 conditions are strictly followed.[4]

The 'pull out method' or coitus interruptus is a method where the male will remove his penis from the vagina before ejaculating; this prevents sperm from reaching the egg and can prevent pregnancy. This method has to be done correctly every time and is best if used in addition to other forms of birth control. It has a failure rate of approximately 22%.[5]

Emergency contraceptives

[edit]

A copper IUD can be used as an emergency contraceptive as long as it is inserted within 5 days after intercourse.[1]

There are two different types of emergency contraceptive pills, one contains levonorgestrel and can prevent pregnancy if taken within 3 days of intercourse. The other contains ulipristal acetate and can prevent pregnancy if taken within 5 days of intercourse. This option can be used if other birth control methods fail.[6]

Use of an emergency contraceptive should occur as soon as possible after unprotected sexual intercourse to reduce the chance of pregnancy.

Surgical methods

[edit]

Tubal ligation is also known as 'tying tubes'. This is the surgical process where medical professional closes or ties the fallopian tubes in order to prevent sperm from reaching the eggs. This is often done as an outpatient surgical procedure and is effective immediately after it is performed. The failure rate is 0.5%.[1]

A vasectomy is a minor surgical procedure where a doctor will cut the vas deferens and seal the ends to prevent sperm from reaching the penis and ultimately the egg. The method is usually successful after 12 weeks post-procedure or when the sperm count is zero. The failure rate is 0.15%.[1]

User dependence

[edit]

Different methods require different levels of diligence by users. Methods with little or nothing to do or remember, or that require a clinic visit less than once per year are said to be non-user dependent, forgettable, or top-tier methods.[7] Intrauterine methods, implants, and sterilization fall into this category.[7] For methods that are not user dependent, the actual and perfect-use failure rates are very similar.

Many hormonal methods of birth control, and LAM require a moderate level of thoughtfulness. For many hormonal methods, clinic visits must be made every three months to a year to renew the prescription. The pill must be taken every day, the patch must be reapplied weekly, or the ring must be replaced monthly. Injections are required every 12 weeks. The rules for LAM must be followed every day. Both LAM and hormonal methods provide a reduced level of protection against pregnancy if they are occasionally used incorrectly (rarely going longer than 4–6 hours between breastfeeds, a late pill or injection, or forgetting to replace a patch or ring on time). The actual failure rates for LAM and hormonal methods are somewhat higher than the perfect-use failure rates.[citation needed]

Higher levels of user commitment are required for other methods.[8] Barrier methods, coitus interruptus, and spermicides must be used at every act of intercourse. Fertility awareness-based methods may require daily tracking of the menstrual cycle. The actual failure rates for these methods may be much higher than the perfect-use failure rates.[9]

Side effects

[edit]

Different forms of birth control have different potential side effects. Not all, or even most, users will experience side effects from a method. The less effective the method, the greater the risk of pregnancy, and the side effects associated with pregnancy.

Minimal or no side effects occur with coitus interruptus, fertility awareness-based, and LAM. Some forms of periodic abstinence encourage examination of the cervix; insertion of the fingers into the vagina to perform this examination may cause changes in the vaginal environment. Following the rules for LAM may delay a woman's first post-partum menstruation beyond what would be expected from different breastfeeding practices.[citation needed]

Barrier methods have a risk of allergic reactions. Users sensitive to latex may use barriers made of less allergenic materials - polyurethane condoms, or silicone diaphragms, for example. Barrier methods are also often combined with spermicides, which have possible side effects of genital irritation, vaginal infection, and urinary tract infection.[citation needed]

Sterilization procedures are generally considered to have a low risk of side effects, though some persons and organizations disagree.[10][11] Female sterilization is a more significant operation than vasectomy, and has greater risks; in industrialized nations, mortality is 4 per 100,000 tubal ligations, versus 0.1 per 100,000 vasectomies.[12]

After IUD insertion, users may experience irregular periods in the first 3–6 months with Mirena, and sometimes heavier periods and worse menstrual cramps with ParaGard. However, continuation rates are much higher with IUDs compared to non-long-acting methods.[13] A positive characteristic of IUDs is that fertility and the ability to become pregnant returns quickly once the IUD is removed.[14]

Because of their systemic nature, hormonal methods have the largest number of possible side effects.[15] Combined hormonal contraceptives contain estrogen and progestin hormones.[16] They can come in formulations such as pills, vaginal rings, and transdermal patches.[16] Most people who use combined hormonal contraception experience breakthrough bleeding within the first 3 months.[16] Other common side effects include headaches, breast tenderness, and changes in mood.[17] Side effects from hormonal contraceptives typically disappear over time (3-5 months) with consistent use.[17] Less common effects of combined hormonal contraceptives include increasing the risk of deep vein thrombosis to 2-10 per 10,000 women per year and venous thrombotic events (see venous thrombosis) to 7-10 per 10,000 women per year.[16]

Hormonal contraceptives can come in multiple forms including injectables. Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), a progestin-only injectable, has been found to cause amenorrhea (cessation of menstruation); however, the irregular bleeding pattern returns to normal over time.[16][17] DMPA has also been associated with weight gain.[17] Other side effects more commonly associated with progestin-only products include acne and hirsutism.[17] Compared to combined hormonal contraceptives, progestin-only contraceptives typically produce a more regular bleeding pattern.[16]

Sexually transmitted infection prevention

[edit]
Main article: Safe sex

Male and female condoms provide significant protection against sexually transmitted infections (STIs) when used consistently and correctly. They also provide some protection against cervical cancer.[18][19] Condoms are often recommended as an adjunct to more effective birth control methods (such as IUD) in situations where STI protection is also desired.[20]

Other barrier methods, such as diaphragms may provide limited protection against infections in the upper genital tract. Other methods provide little or no protection against sexually transmitted infections. [21]

Effectiveness

[edit]

Cost and cost-effectiveness

[edit]

Family planning is among the most cost-effective of all health interventions.[22] Costs of contraceptives include method costs (including supplies, office visits, training), cost of method failure (ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, induced abortion, birth, child care expenses) and cost of side effects.[23] Contraception saves money by reducing unintended pregnancies and reducing transmission of sexually transmitted infections. By comparison, in the US, method related costs vary from nothing to about $1,000 for a year or more for reversible contraception.

During the initial five years, vasectomy is comparable in cost to the IUD. Vasectomy is much less expensive and safer than tubal ligation. Since ecological breastfeeding and fertility awareness are behavioral they cost nothing or a small amount upfront for a thermometer or training. Fertility awareness based methods can be used throughout a woman's reproductive lifetime.[citation needed]

Not using contraceptives is the most expensive option. While in that case there are no method related costs, it has the highest failure rate, and thus the highest failure related costs. Even if one only considers medical costs relating to preconception care and birth, any method of contraception saves money compared to using no method.[citation needed]

The most effective and the most cost-effective methods are long-acting methods. Unfortunately these methods often have significant up-front costs, and requiring the user to pay a portion of these costs prevents some from using more effective methods.[24] Contraception saves money for the public health system and insurers.[25][relevant?]

Effectiveness calculation

[edit]

Failure rates may be calculated by either the Pearl Index or a life table method. A "perfect-use" rate is where all rules of the method are rigorously followed, and (if applicable) the method is used for every act of intercourse.

Actual failure rates are higher than perfect-use rates for a variety of reasons:

  • Mistakes on the part of those providing instructions on how to use the method.
  • Inconsistent use of the method
  • Mistakes on the part of the method's users.
  • Conscious user non-compliance with the method.
  • Insurance providers sometimes impede access to medications (e.g. require prescription refills monthly).[26]

For instance, someone using oral forms of hormonal birth control might be given incorrect information by a health care provider as to the frequency of intake, or for some reason does not take the pill one or several days, or not go to the pharmacy on time to renew the prescription, or the pharmacy might be unwilling to provide enough pills to cover an extended absence.

Effectiveness comparison

[edit]

The table below color codes the typical use and perfect use failure rates, where the failure rate is measured as the expected number of pregnancies per year per woman using the method:

Blue under 1% lower risk
Green up to 5%
Yellow up to 10%
Orange up to 20%
Red over 20% higher risk
Grey no data no data available

For example, a failure rate of 20% means that 20 of 100 women become pregnant during the first year of use. Note that the rate may go above 100% if all women, on average, become pregnant within less than a year. In the degenerated case of all women becoming pregnant instantly, the rate would be infinite.

In the user action required column, items that are non-user dependent (require action once per year or less) also have a blue background.

Some methods may be used simultaneously for higher effectiveness rates. For example, using condoms with spermicides the estimated perfect use failure rate would be comparable to the perfect use failure rate of the implant.[7] However, mathematically combining the rates to estimate the effectiveness of combined methods can be inaccurate, as the effectiveness of each method is not necessarily independent.[27]

If a method is known or suspected to have been ineffective, such as a condom breaking, or a method could not be used, as is the case for rape when user action is required for every act of intercourse, emergency contraception (ECP) may be taken 72 to 120 hours after sexual intercourse. Emergency contraception should be taken shortly before or as soon after intercourse as possible, as its efficacy decreases with increasing delay. Although ECP is considered an emergency measure, levonorgestrel ECP taken shortly before sexual intercourse may be used as a primary method for women who have sexual intercourse only a few times a year and want a hormonal method, but do not want to take hormones all the time.[28] The failure rate of repeated or regular use of LNG ECP is similar to the rate for those using a barrier method.[29]

Rate of pregnancy during the first year of use
Birth control method Brand/common name Typical-use failure rate (%) Perfect-use failure rate (%) Type Implementation User action required
Contraceptive implant Implanon/Nexplanon,[30] Jadelle,[31] the implant 0.05
(1 in 2000)		 0.05
(1 in 2000)		 Progestogen Subdermal implant 3-5 years
Vasectomy[30] Male sterilization 0.15
(1 in 666)		 0.1
(1 in 1000)		 Sterilization Surgical procedure Once
Combined injectable[32] Lunelle, Cyclofem 0.2
(1 in 500)		 0.2
(1 in 500)		 Estrogen & progestogen Injection Monthly
IUD with progestogen[30] Mirena, Skyla, Liletta 0.2
(1 in 500)		 0.2
(1 in 500)		 Intrauterine & progestogen Intrauterine 3-7 years
Essure (removed from markets)[33] Female sterilization 0.26
(1 in 384)		 0.26
(1 in 384)		 Sterilization Surgical procedure Once
Tubal ligation[30] Tube tying, female sterilization 0.5
(1 in 200)		 0.5
(1 in 200)		 Sterilization Surgical procedure Once
Bilateral salpingectomy[34] Tube removal, "bisalp" 0.75 (1 in 133) after 10 years[note 1] 0.75 after 10 years Sterilization Surgical procedure Once
IUD with copper[30] Paragard, Copper T, the coil 0.8
(1 in 125)		 0.6
(1 in 167)		 Intrauterine & copper Intrauterine 3 to 12+ years
Forschungsgruppe NFP symptothermal method, teaching sessions + application[30][35] Sensiplan by Arbeitsgruppe NFP (Malteser Germany gGmbh) 1.68
(1 of 60)		 0.43
(1 in 233)		 Behavioral Teaching sessions, observation, charting and evaluating a combination of fertility symptoms Three teaching sessions + daily application
LAM for 6 months only; not applicable if menstruation resumes[36][note 2] Ecological breastfeeding 2
(1 in 50)		 0.5
(1 in 200)		 Behavioral Breastfeeding Every few hours
2002[37] cervical cap and spermicide used by nulliparous (discontinued in 2008)[note 3][38][note 4] Lea's Shield 5
(1 in 20)		 no data Barrier & spermicide Vaginal insertion Every act of intercourse
MPA shot[39] Depo Provera, the shot 4
(1 in 25)		 0.2
(1 in 500)		 Progestogen Injection 12 weeks
Testosterone injection for male (unapproved, experimental method)[40] Testosterone Undecanoate 6.1
(1 in 16)		 1.1
(1 in 91)		 Testosterone Intramuscular Injection Every 4 weeks
1999 cervical cap and spermicide (replaced by second generation in 2003)[41] FemCap 7.6[failed verification] (estimated)
(1 in 13)		 no data Barrier & spermicide Vaginal insertion Every act of intercourse
Contraceptive patch[39] Ortho Evra, the patch 7
(1 in 14)		 0.3
(1 in 333)		 Estrogen & progestogen Transdermal patch Weekly
Combined oral contraceptive pill[42] The pill 7
(1 in 14)[43]		 0.3
(1 in 333)		 Estrogen & progestogen + placebo[44] Oral medication Daily
Ethinylestradiol/etonogestrel vaginal ring[39] NuvaRing, the ring 7
(1 in 14)		 0.3
(1 in 333)		 Estrogen & progestogen Vaginal insertion In place 3 weeks / 1 week break
Progestogen only pill[30] POP, minipill 9[43]
(1 in 11)		 0.3
(1 in 333)		 Progestogen + placebo[44] Oral medication Daily
Ormeloxifene[45] Saheli, Centron 9
(1 in 11)		 2
(1 in 50)		 SERM Oral medication Weekly
Emergency contraception pill Plan B One-Step® no data no data Levonorgestrel Oral medication Every act of intercourse
Standard Days Method[30] CycleBeads, iCycleBeads 12
(1 in 8.3)		 5
(1 in 20)		 Behavioral Counting days since menstruation Daily
Diaphragm and spermicide[30] 12
(1 in 6)		 6
(1 in 12)		 Barrier + spermicide Vaginal insertion Every act of intercourse
Plastic contraceptive sponge with spermicide used by nulliparous[39][note 4] Today sponge, the sponge 14
(1 in 7)		 9
(1 in 11)		 Barrier + spermicide Vaginal insertion Every act of intercourse
2002[37] cervical cap and spermicide used by parous (discontinued in 2008)[38][note 3][note 5] Lea's Shield 15
(1 in 6)		 no data Barrier & spermicide Vaginal insertion Every act of intercourse
1988 cervical cap and spermicide (discontinued in 2005) used by nulliparous[note 4] Prentif 16
(1 in 6.25)		 9
(1 in 11)		 Barrier & spermicide Vaginal insertion Every act of intercourse
External (male) latex condom[39] Condom 13
(1 in 7)		 2
(1 in 50)		 Barrier Placed on erect penis Every act of intercourse
Internal (female) condom[30] 21
(1 in 4.7)		 5
(1 in 20)		 Barrier Vaginal or anal insertion Every act of intercourse
Coitus interruptus[39] Withdrawal method, pulling out 20
(1 in 5)[46]		 4
(1 in 25)		 Behavioral Withdrawal Every act of intercourse
Symptoms-based fertility awareness ex. symptothermal and calendar-based methods[39][note 6][note 7] TwoDay method, Billings ovulation method, Creighton Model 24
(1 in 4)		 0.40–4
(1 in 25–250)		 Behavioral Observation and charting of basal body temperature, cervical mucus or cervical position Daily
Calendar-based methods[30] The rhythm method, Knaus-Ogino method, Standard Days method no data 5
(1 in 20)		 Behavioral Calendar-based Daily
Plastic contraceptive sponge with spermicide used by parous[39][note 5] Today sponge, the sponge 27
(1 in 3.7)		 20
(1 in 4)		 Barrier & spermicide Vaginal insertion Every act of intercourse
Spermicidal gel, suppository, or film[39] 21
(1 in 5)		 16
(1 in 6.25)		 Spermicide Vaginal insertion Every act of intercourse
1988 cervical cap and spermicide used by parous (discontinued in 2005)[note 5] Prentif 32
(1 in 3)		 26
(1 in 4)		 Barrier & spermicide Vaginal insertion Every act of intercourse
None (unprotected intercourse)[30] 85
(6 in 7)		 85
(6 in 7)		 Behavioral Discontinuing birth control N/A
Birth control method Brand/common name Typical-use failure rate (%) Perfect-use failure rate (%) Type Implementation User action required

Table notes

[edit]
  1. ^ No data for 1 year failure rates
  2. ^ The pregnancy rate applies until the user reaches six months postpartum, or until menstruation resumes, whichever comes first. If menstruation occurs earlier than six months postpartum, the method is no longer effective. For users for whom menstruation does not occur within the six months: after six months postpartum, the method becomes less effective.
  3. ^ a b In the effectiveness study of Lea's Shield, 84% of participants were parous. The unadjusted pregnancy rate in the six-month study was 8.7% among spermicide users and 12.9% among non-spermicide users. No pregnancies occurred among nulliparous users of the Lea's Shield. Assuming the effectiveness ratio of nulliparous to parous users is the same for the Lea's Shield as for the Prentif cervical cap and the Today contraceptive sponge, the unadjusted six-month pregnancy rate would be 2.2% for spermicide users and 2.9% for those who used the device without spermicide.[improper synthesis?]
  4. ^ a b c Nulliparous refers to those who have not given birth.
  5. ^ a b c Parous refers to those who have given birth.
  6. ^ No formal studies meet the standards of Contraceptive Technology for determining typical effectiveness. The typical effectiveness listed here is from the CDC's National Survey of Family Growth, which grouped symptoms-based methods together with calendar-based methods. See Fertility awareness#Effectiveness.
  7. ^ The term fertility awareness is sometimes used interchangeably with the term natural family planning (NFP), though NFP usually refers to use of periodic abstinence in accordance with Catholic beliefs.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Comparison of birth control methods

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Birth control methods, or contraceptives, comprise diverse reversible and permanent interventions that prevent by blocking , fertilization, implantation, or other reproductive mechanisms. Comparisons of these methods evaluate critical attributes including under perfect use (failure rates of 0.1% to 0.3% for methods like implants and intrauterine devices) and typical use (accounting for , with rates up to 9% for oral pills and 13% for condoms), alongside health risks, adherence requirements, economic costs, and (STI) prevention. Hormonal contraceptives, dominant in usage, provide high and ancillary benefits such as cycle regulation but entail risks like venous (7-10 events per 10,000 woman-years for combined formulations) and, for progestin-only long-acting options, a 24-26% elevated risk. Non-hormonal alternatives, including intrauterine devices and barrier methods, avoid endocrine disruption but may involve heavier bleeding or lower typical , with male condoms alone offering reliable STI protection. Permanent sterilization achieves failure rates under 0.5% but sacrifices reversibility, underscoring trade-offs central to method selection informed by empirical outcomes over promotional narratives.

Overview

Definition and Principles

Birth control methods, collectively termed , refer to any intentional intervention—whether behavioral, mechanical, chemical, hormonal, or surgical—employed to prevent by disrupting the biological processes required for conception and . These processes include in the reproductive cycle, the transport and of , the fertilization of an ovum, and the subsequent implantation of a fertilized in the uterine lining. Contraceptive efficacy depends on the method's ability to reliably target one or more of these stages, with variations arising from physiological differences, user compliance, and environmental factors. The core principles underlying contraceptive action derive from the sequential nature of , where interruption at any vulnerable point can avert . Hormonal contraceptives, such as combined estrogen-progestin formulations, primarily inhibit by suppressing the mid-cycle (LH) surge and thickening cervical to hinder penetration; progestin-only methods similarly emphasize alteration and endometrial thinning, though suppression is less consistent. Barrier methods, including condoms or diaphragms, mechanically obstruct sperm-egg interaction, while spermicides introduce chemical agents to immobilize or kill spermatozoa. Intrauterine devices (IUDs) operate via localized effects: copper-bearing types generate an inflammatory response toxic to gametes, impairing fertilization, whereas levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs combine progestin-induced cervical changes with endometrial modifications that may inhibit implantation if fertilization occurs. Permanent sterilization methods, such as in females or in males, achieve contraception through irreversible anatomical disruption—severing or occluding the fallopian tubes or , respectively—preventing gamete union entirely. Fertility-awareness-based behavioral methods, by contrast, leverage empirical tracking of indicators (e.g., , cervical mucus consistency) to identify and abstain from intercourse during the fertile window, typically days 8 through 19 of a 28-day cycle. Across all categories, a key principle is that only dual-method use involving condoms provides dual protection against and sexually transmitted infections, as non-barrier approaches lack antimicrobial properties. Selection of methods in comparative contexts prioritizes alignment with individual health profiles, reproductive goals, and adherence capacity, informed by clinical guidelines emphasizing voluntary informed choice.

Historical Development

Early methods of contraception date back to ancient civilizations, with evidence of behavioral techniques such as referenced in the Bible's , where practiced withdrawal to avoid procreation. Around 1850 B.C., Egyptian women used pessaries made from leaves mixed with or dates, inserted as vaginal suppositories to block sperm, leveraging the spermicidal properties of fermented acacia gum. In and from approximately 3000 B.C., barrier methods included penile sheaths of cloth or animal intestines, primarily for disease prevention but also contraception, while plants like were harvested to extinction for their effects. These rudimentary approaches relied on empirical observation rather than scientific validation, with limited efficacy documented through historical texts but no controlled studies. During the medieval period and , contraception evolved modestly, incorporating herbal concoctions, prolonged to suppress , and early barrier devices. In first-century , women applied rock salt soaked in oil or mixtures of and as spermicides. By the , linen sheaths lined with chemicals served as primitive condoms in , as described in Gabriele Falloppio's 1564 treatise, though adoption remained sporadic due to religious prohibitions and material unreliability. Sponges soaked in vinegar or lemon juice emerged as female barriers, echoing ancient practices but with inconsistent absorption and retention issues. The 19th century marked industrialization's influence, with Charles Goodyear's 1839 of rubber enabling durable condoms and diaphragms by the , shifting from fragile animal membranes to mass-producible synthetics. In 1823, prototypes of the diaphragm and were developed in and the U.S., using or rubber to cover the , though fitting required medical expertise unavailable to most. Legal barriers persisted, as the U.S. Comstock Act of 1873 criminalized contraceptive distribution, stifling innovation until advocacy by figures like in the early 20th century. The 20th century introduced hormonal and long-acting methods, transforming efficacy and accessibility. Intrauterine devices (IUDs) gained traction post-World War I, with inert models like the Graefenberg ring in the 1920s, though infection risks prompted refinements. The birth control pill, developed by Gregory Pincus and John Rock, underwent trials in the 1950s using progesterone synthesis from 1930s research; the FDA approved Enovid in 1960, reaching 1.2 million U.S. users within two years and enabling precise cycle control via combined estrogen-progestin formulations. By 1965, the pill became the leading method, followed by condoms and sterilization, coinciding with Supreme Court rulings like legalizing access. Subsequent advancements included progestin-only pills in the 1970s and subdermal implants like Norplant in 1990, prioritizing reversibility and user independence over earlier permanent options like , routine since the 1880s.

Categories of Methods

Hormonal Methods

Hormonal methods deliver synthetic versions of , progestin, or both to prevent by primarily inhibiting through disruption of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis, thickening cervical mucus to impede penetration, and thinning the endometrial lining to reduce implantation likelihood. These methods require consistent use for optimal efficacy, with combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) containing ethinyl and a progestin, while progestin-only options avoid estrogen to minimize certain vascular risks. Noncontraceptive benefits include reduced risks of ovarian and endometrial cancers, lighter menstrual bleeding, and alleviation of conditions like and , though these derive from long-term use data spanning decades of observational studies. Combined hormonal methods encompass oral contraceptive pills (taken daily), patches (changed weekly), and vaginal rings (inserted for monthly). Oral pills, the most common, involve 21-24 active hormone days followed by or hormone-free intervals to allow withdrawal bleeding. Patches adhere to the skin, providing steady absorption but potentially higher exposure in some users due to first-pass avoidance. Vaginal rings release hormones locally, yielding similar with lower systemic levels compared to pills in pharmacokinetic studies. Progestin-only pills (mini-pills) must be taken within a three-hour window daily to maintain , primarily acting via changes rather than consistent suppression. Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) injections, administered every 12-13 weeks intramuscularly or subcutaneously, provide progestin-only contraception with near-complete inhibition after the first dose. Effectiveness varies by adherence: perfect use failure rates are 0.3% for CHCs (pills, patch, ring) and 0.1-0.4% for DMPA, meaning fewer than 1 per 100 women annually, while progestin-only pills approach 0.4% perfect use but higher if timing errors occur. Typical use, accounting for missed doses or delays, yields 7% failure for CHCs and progestin-only pills (7-9 pregnancies per 100 women yearly) and 4% for DMPA due to fewer user actions required. These rates stem from prospective cohort data like the CDC's Selected Practice Recommendations, emphasizing user-dependent factors such as gastrointestinal upset affecting absorption.
MethodHormonesAdministration FrequencyPerfect Use Failure Rate (%)Typical Use Failure Rate (%)Key AdvantagesCommon Adverse Effects
Combined Oral Pills + ProgestinDaily0.37Cycle regulation, reduction, breast tenderness, VTE risk (3-9/10,000 women-years)
Transdermal Patch + ProgestinWeekly0.37Weekly convenienceSkin irritation, similar VTE risk to pills
Vaginal Ring + ProgestinMonthly (3 weeks in)0.37Lower systemic estrogen, VTE risk
Progestin-Only PillsProgestin onlyDaily (strict timing)0.47-9No estrogen risksIrregular , less suppression
DMPA InjectionProgestin onlyEvery 12-13 weeks0.24No daily adherence (avg. 2-3 kg/year), delayed return (up to 18 months)
Estrogen-containing methods carry a causal of venous thromboembolism (VTE), with incidence 3-9 cases per 10,000 women-years versus 1-5 in non-users, attributable to procoagulant effects confirmed in dose-response studies and genetic factor interactions. Progestin-only methods lack this elevation but may cause loss with prolonged DMPA use (reversible post-discontinuation per DEXA scans) and irregular bleeding in 20-50% of users initially. Some cohort data indicate potential mood alterations or depression risk with hormonal use, particularly in adolescents, though remains debated amid by indication and varying formulations. Contraindications include over age 35 for CHCs due to cardiovascular , per WHO and CDC eligibility criteria updated through 2024.

Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives

Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) encompass intrauterine devices (IUDs) and subdermal implants that deliver contraception for several years without daily user compliance, achieving typical-use failure rates below 1% annually, comparable to female sterilization. These methods include copper IUDs, which exert spermicidal effects through ion release creating a hostile uterine environment; levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems (LNG-IUDs), which primarily thicken cervical mucus and thin the endometrium while sometimes suppressing ovulation; and the etonogestrel subdermal implant, which inhibits ovulation via steady progestin release. LARCs demonstrate superior efficacy over short-acting methods like oral contraceptives, with a large prospective cohort study reporting IUD failure at 0.27 per 100 participant-years versus 4.55 for pills, patch, or ring. Their user-independent design minimizes errors, though insertion requires a trained provider and carries minor procedural risks such as uterine perforation (1 in 1,000) or expulsion (2-10% in first year, higher in nulliparous women). Copper IUDs, exemplified by Paragard, provide non-hormonal contraception for up to 10-12 years by inducing inflammation and impairing sperm function, with no impact on future fertility upon removal. Effectiveness remains near-perfect, with failure rates under 1%, but common side effects include increased menstrual bleeding and cramping, which may lead to discontinuation in 5-15% of users within the first year; these effects often attenuate over time per longitudinal data from over 2,700 users showing reduced complaints after 24 months. LNG-IUDs, such as Mirena (lasting 5-8 years) or Kyleena (5 years), reduce menstrual blood loss by 90% in many users via localized progestin, offering non-contraceptive benefits like treatment for heavy bleeding, though initial irregular spotting occurs in up to 20%. A meta-analysis of randomized trials found LNG-IUDs associated with lower discontinuation for pain or bleeding compared to copper IUDs, but with potential for amenorrhea in 20-50% after one year. The (Nexplanon), inserted under the skin of the upper arm, delivers progestin for 3-5 years, yielding a 0.05% typical-use —the lowest among reversible methods—and rapid return to post-removal. Menstrual changes dominate side effects, with unpredictable bleeding prompting 10-20% discontinuation; systematic reviews report rates of 6-62% for bleeding-related cessation, alongside (average 2-3 kg in first year), , and headaches in 5-15%. Rare complications include migration or breakage during removal (1-2%), but no evidence links LARCs to beyond baseline hormonal risks or long-term impairment.
MethodDuration (years)Typical-Use Failure RatePrimary MechanismKey Side Effects
(e.g., Paragard)10-12<1%Spermicidal inflammationHeavier bleeding, dysmenorrhea
LNG-IUD (e.g., Mirena)5-8<1%Mucus thickening, endometrial atrophySpotting, amenorrhea, ovarian cysts
Etonogestrel Implant (Nexplanon)3-50.05%Ovulation suppressionIrregular bleeding, weight gain, acne
Across LARCs, efficacy holds regardless of age or parity, though adolescents face higher expulsion risks with IUDs (up to 10%), mitigated by experienced insertion. None protect against sexually transmitted infections, necessitating concurrent barrier use. Discontinuation often stems from bleeding patterns rather than inefficacy, with continuation rates exceeding 80% at one year in motivated users.

Barrier Methods

Barrier methods prevent pregnancy primarily by creating a mechanical or chemical obstacle that blocks sperm from reaching the ovum, often requiring insertion or application shortly before intercourse. These include male condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps, vaginal sponges, and spermicides, which may be used alone or in combination to enhance efficacy. Unlike hormonal methods, barriers do not alter endogenous hormone levels or require ongoing medical supervision, but their success depends on correct and consistent application each time. Effectiveness rates distinguish between perfect use (consistent, correct application) and typical use (accounting for errors or inconsistencies). Male condoms exhibit 98% effectiveness with perfect use (2% failure rate) but drop to 87% with typical use (13% failure). Female condoms achieve 95% perfect use effectiveness (5% failure) versus 79% typical (21% failure). Diaphragms, used with spermicide, reach 94% perfect (6% failure) but 88% typical (12% failure). Cervical caps vary by parity: 86% perfect for nulliparous women (14% failure) and 71% for parous (29% failure), with typical use failures around 20-30%. Contraceptive sponges yield 76-88% perfect effectiveness (12-24% failure, higher in parous women) and 12-24% typical failure. Spermicides alone provide 82% perfect (18% failure) but only 72% typical (28% failure) effectiveness. These figures derive from prospective cohort studies tracking unintended pregnancies over one year among users.
MethodPerfect Use Failure Rate (%)Typical Use Failure Rate (%)
Male Condom213
Female Condom521
Diaphragm612
Cervical Cap (nulliparous)14~20-30
Cervical Cap (parous)29~30-40
Sponge (nulliparous)912
Sponge (parous)2024
Spermicide1828
Data compiled from U.S. cohort studies; rates reflect pregnancies per 100 women over one year. Among barrier methods, only male and female condoms demonstrably reduce transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV, when used correctly and consistently, due to their coverage of genital surfaces exposed to fluids. Latex or polyurethane variants provide this protection, with evidence from randomized trials showing substantial risk reduction for HIV (up to 80-90% with perfect use) and other pathogens like chlamydia and gonorrhea. Other barriers, such as diaphragms or sponges, offer negligible STI protection, as they do not cover the penile shaft or external genitalia. Spermicides containing nonoxynol-9 (N-9) were historically promoted for dual protection but clinical trials indicate they disrupt mucosal barriers, potentially increasing HIV acquisition risk by 50% with frequent use in high-prevalence settings; current guidelines advise against relying on N-9 for STI prevention. Health risks are generally low and localized compared to systemic methods. Common issues include allergic reactions to latex (affecting 1-6% of users, mitigated by non-latex alternatives) or spermicide components, leading to irritation or vaginitis. Diaphragms and cervical caps correlate with a 2-3-fold increased risk of urinary tract infections due to mechanical pressure on the urethra and altered vaginal pH. Sponges carry a rare toxic shock syndrome risk if retained beyond 30 hours. No method induces long-term fertility impairment, and all are reversible upon discontinuation. User errors, such as slippage or improper fit, contribute disproportionately to failures in typical use scenarios.

Behavioral and Natural Methods

Behavioral methods of contraception rely on actions taken during sexual activity to prevent sperm from reaching the egg, without the use of devices, hormones, or substances. The primary example is coitus interruptus, or withdrawal, in which the male partner withdraws the penis from the vagina prior to ejaculation to avoid depositing semen in or near the vulva. This method requires precise timing and control, as pre-ejaculate fluid may contain viable sperm, contributing to unintended pregnancies even with correct execution. Natural methods, often termed fertility awareness-based methods (FABMs), involve tracking physiological signs of the menstrual cycle to identify fertile windows and abstaining from intercourse or using barriers during those periods. Common variants include the calendar method (tracking cycle length), basal body temperature (BBT) monitoring for post-ovulatory temperature rise, cervical mucus observation for changes indicating estrogen peaks, and the sympto-thermal method combining multiple indicators. The lactational amenorrhea method (LAM) leverages breastfeeding-induced suppression of ovulation, effective only if the woman is fully or nearly fully breastfeeding, amenorrheic, and within six months postpartum. Effectiveness varies significantly between perfect use (consistent and correct application) and typical use (accounting for human error and inconsistent adherence). For withdrawal, perfect-use failure rates are approximately 4% in the first year, while typical-use rates reach 18-22%, reflecting challenges in timing and pre-ejaculate risks. FABMs show perfect-use failure rates of 0.4-5% depending on the variant, with sympto-thermal methods achieving lower rates (e.g., 1.8% unintended pregnancies over 13 cycles in trained users), but typical-use rates range widely from 2-23% due to irregular cycles, poor tracking, or non-adherence. LAM yields 98-99% effectiveness with strict adherence to criteria, but protection drops sharply after six months or with supplemental feeding. Studies on FABMs often suffer from low to moderate quality, small sample sizes, and selection bias toward motivated users, potentially overstating real-world efficacy. These methods offer advantages such as zero cost, no medical side effects, immediate reversibility, and alignment with preferences against hormonal or invasive interventions. However, they demand high user discipline, cycle regularity, and partner cooperation; they provide no protection against sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and withdrawal exposes partners to STI risks via pre-ejaculate or skin contact. Effectiveness improves with formal instruction, as untrained users face higher failure due to misinterpretation of signs.
MethodPerfect-Use Failure Rate (%)Typical-Use Failure Rate (%)Key Limitations
Withdrawal418-22Timing errors, pre-ejaculate sperm
Sympto-Thermal FABM0.4-21.4-23Requires daily tracking, training needed
LAM<1 (at 6 months)2Limited to postpartum breastfeeding period

Permanent Methods

Permanent methods of contraception involve surgical procedures designed to induce sterility, preventing fertilization by blocking the transport of gametes. These include female sterilization, which interrupts the fallopian tubes, and male sterilization via vasectomy, which severs the vas deferens. Both are intended as irreversible options for individuals or couples certain about avoiding future pregnancies, with effectiveness rates exceeding 99% after procedural confirmation, though failures can occur due to recanalization or procedural errors. Female sterilization encompasses tubal ligation, where the fallopian tubes are occluded, clipped, cut, or sealed—often laparoscopically—and salpingectomy, involving partial or complete removal of the tubes. Tubal ligation can be performed postpartum, via minilaparotomy, or hysteroscopically without abdominal incision, but salpingectomy has gained favor since the 2010s for its dual benefit of contraception and substantial reduction in ovarian cancer risk, estimated at 42-65% for bilateral procedures. Risks for female methods are higher than vasectomy, including anesthesia complications, bleeding, infection, and organ injury, with a case-fatality rate of approximately 4-8 per 100,000 procedures; ectopic pregnancies account for many failures, occurring in up to 7 per 1,000 cases. Real-world failure rates for tubal sterilization range from 2.9% to 5.2%. Salpingectomy slightly prolongs operative time (by 5-15 minutes) but shows comparable safety to ligation in blood loss and complications. Vasectomy, a minimally invasive outpatient procedure under local anesthesia, involves accessing the vas deferens through a small scrotal incision or no-scalpel technique, then cutting or cauterizing it to prevent sperm passage; post-procedure semen analysis confirms azoospermia after 10-20 ejaculations. It carries lower risks, primarily hematoma, infection, or chronic pain (in 1-2% of cases), with major complication rates 20 times lower than bilateral tubal ligation (BTL). Effectiveness reaches 99.9% post-confirmation, with failures rare (0.05-0.15%) and typically due to early unprotected intercourse before clearance.
AspectTubal Ligation/SalpingectomyVasectomy
Effectiveness>99%; failure risk 3-5% (real-world), often ectopic>99.9% post-confirmation; failure 0.05-0.15%
Procedure Time30-60 minutes; general anesthesia common15-30 minutes; local anesthesia
ComplicationsMajor risks 20x higher than vasectomy; includes bowel/bladder injuryLow; sperm granuloma, post-vasectomy pain syndrome (1-2%)
Cost3x higher due to hospitalization/anesthesiaLower; office-based
ReversibilityPossible via reanastomosis (success 40-80%, declining with time); IVF often neededVasovasostomy success 70-95% if recent; declines after 10 years
Neither method protects against sexually transmitted infections, and regret rates are higher in younger patients (up to 20% under age 30), underscoring counseling on permanence. Vasectomy is often recommended first for couples due to simplicity and lower morbidity, with female procedures reserved when male cooperation is unavailable.

Emergency Methods

Emergency contraception encompasses methods employed after unprotected sexual intercourse or contraceptive failure to prevent pregnancy, primarily by interfering with ovulation, fertilization, or early implantation processes. These methods do not terminate established pregnancies and offer no protection against sexually transmitted infections. The principal options include oral progestin-based pills, selective progesterone receptor modulators, and copper intrauterine devices, with emerging evidence supporting levonorgestrel intrauterine devices as well. Effectiveness diminishes with delayed use, underscoring the need for prompt administration. Levonorgestrel (LNG) emergency contraceptive pills, such as those containing 1.5 mg LNG, are widely available over-the-counter for individuals aged 17 and older in the United States and reduce pregnancy risk by 75-89% when taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse, with efficacy dropping thereafter up to 120 hours. Ulipristal acetate (UPA), a 30 mg selective progesterone receptor modulator available by prescription, demonstrates superior efficacy to LNG, preventing 85% of expected pregnancies when used within 120 hours, with a relative risk of pregnancy 0.59 times that of LNG. Both oral agents primarily delay or inhibit ovulation but do not reliably disrupt implantation once it occurs. Copper intrauterine devices (Cu-IUDs), inserted by a clinician within 120 hours, achieve over 99% effectiveness in preventing pregnancy and can remain in place for long-term contraception. They impair sperm motility, fertilization, and potentially pre-implantation embryo development through inflammatory responses induced by copper ions. A 2021 randomized trial established that the 52 mg levonorgestrel intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) is noninferior to the Cu-IUD for emergency use, with pregnancy rates below 0.3% in both arms, while offering non-contraceptive benefits like reduced heavy menstrual bleeding. Common side effects of oral methods include nausea (14-23% for LNG, less for UPA), vomiting, fatigue, headache, and transient menstrual disruptions, with vomiting within 2-3 hours potentially necessitating a repeat dose for LNG. Cu-IUD insertion may cause cramping, spotting, or rare complications like perforation (1/1,000) or infection (<1%), though these risks are comparable to interval insertion. Access barriers persist for IUDs due to required medical procedures, contrasting with the convenience of pills, though efficacy data favor intrauterine options for those without contraindications.
MethodOptimal TimingPregnancy Prevention RatePrimary MechanismKey Considerations
LNG PillsWithin 72 hours75-89% delay/inhibitionOTC availability; BMI >30 reduces efficacy
UPA PillsWithin 120 hours~85% delay/inhibitionPrescription; interacts with progestins
Cu-IUDWithin 120 hours>99%/fertilization impairment; possible anti-implantationOngoing contraception; clinician insertion required
LNG-IUDWithin 120 hours~99% (noninferior to Cu-IUD) delay; endometrial effectsReduces bleeding; emerging for EC use

Effectiveness

Perfect vs. Typical Use

Perfect use refers to the correct and consistent application of a contraceptive method every time it is used, yielding the lowest observed rates in clinical or theoretical scenarios. Typical use, by contrast, captures real-world performance, accounting for common errors such as inconsistent timing, incorrect insertion, or occasional non-use, which result in substantially higher rates for user-dependent methods. These metrics, expressed as the percentage of women experiencing within the first year of use, underscore the role of adherence in overall effectiveness; (LARCs) like implants and intrauterine devices show minimal disparity between perfect and typical use due to their provider-dependence and low maintenance requirements. Failure rates derive from aggregated data, including U.S. National Surveys of Family Growth adjusted for underreporting and estimates from contraceptive studies; perfect use rates often approximate theoretical from controlled trials, while typical use incorporates behavioral variability. The following table summarizes first-year failure rates for select methods, adapted from standard compilations:
MethodTypical Use Failure Rate (%)Perfect Use Failure Rate (%)
(e.g., Nexplanon)0.050.05
(IUD) - Hormonal (e.g., Mirena)0.20.2
IUD - Copper (e.g., ParaGard)0.80.6
Depo-Provera (injection)60.2
90.3
Male Condom182
Withdrawal224
Fertility Awareness Methods240.4–5 (varies by subtype)
No Method8585
Data reflect U.S. populations and are adapted from Trussell's Contraceptive Technology (20th ed., 2011), as presented in CDC guidelines; rates for LARCs remain low under typical use due to inherent reliability post-insertion, whereas hormonal pills and barriers exhibit 20- to 60-fold increases from imperfect adherence. Permanent methods like sterilization show negligible differences, with typical rates near 0.1–0.5% attributable to rare procedural failures rather than user error.

Calculation and Influencing Factors

Contraceptive effectiveness is primarily calculated using the , which quantifies the number of unintended pregnancies per 100 woman-years of use, derived from the formula: (number of pregnancies × 1200) / total months of exposure among participants. This method assumes constant hazard rates and multiplies by 1200 to standardize to an annual rate for 100 women, though it does not account for varying exposure times or censoring due to dropouts. An alternative approach employs life-table analysis or Kaplan-Meier survival curves, which better handle time-dependent events by estimating cumulative failure probabilities over time, adjusting for withdrawals and providing confidence intervals. These calculations distinguish between perfect use (error-free application) and typical use (incorporating real-world inconsistencies), with data often drawn from clinical trials, cohort studies, or national surveys like the U.S. National Survey of Family Growth. Several factors influence reported effectiveness rates beyond inherent method properties. User adherence is paramount for methods requiring consistent action, such as oral contraceptives, where inconsistent intake elevates typical-use failure from under 1% in perfect use to 7-9% annually due to missed doses. Demographic variables like age affect outcomes, with adolescents experiencing higher failure rates across user-dependent methods owing to irregular use patterns, whereas (LARCs) like intrauterine devices maintain low rates (0.1-0.8%) irrespective of age. (BMI) impacts hormonal methods, with combined oral contraceptives showing reduced efficacy in women with BMI over 30, potentially doubling failure risks via altered . Additional influences include coital frequency, which inversely correlates with failure in barrier methods due to more opportunities for errors, and variations, where higher in younger users inflates observed rates. The timing of intercourse relative to the menstrual cycle affects baseline pregnancy risk, but most methods operate independently of cycle phase. Hormonal methods, such as combination oral contraceptives, maintain effectiveness over 99% with perfect use throughout the cycle, including the fertile window, by primarily preventing ovulation and eliminating egg release. Barrier methods are unaffected by cycle phase, as they physically block sperm from reaching the egg regardless of timing. In contrast, fertility awareness methods are unreliable during the fertile window, as they depend on abstinence or alternative protection during that period. Drug interactions, such as enzyme-inducing medications reducing progestin levels in hormonal contraceptives, and behavioral factors like alcohol or substance use impairing judgment, further modulate . For barrier methods, concurrent sexually transmitted infections can compromise integrity, while methods' rates depend on promptness post-coitus. These elements underscore that typical-use estimates integrate multiple real-world confounders, often derived from observational data prone to underreporting of perfect adherence. Combining multiple independent contraceptive methods reduces the overall typical-use failure rate multiplicatively. For example, using birth control pills (~7% failure), condoms (~13% failure), and withdrawal (~20% failure) together yields an approximate combined failure rate of 0.07 × 0.13 × 0.20 = 0.00182, or 0.18% per year. Adding emergency contraception such as Plan B (levonorgestrel), taken promptly after unprotected sex or suspected failure, further reduces any residual pregnancy risk by 75–89%, resulting in a total risk that is negligible or approaching zero with correct use. This approach provides substantially greater protection than relying on any single method.

Comparative Effectiveness

Contraceptive effectiveness is quantified by failure rates, representing the percentage of women experiencing within the first year of use, often derived from the (pregnancies per 100 woman-years of exposure). Perfect use rates reflect consistent and correct application under ideal conditions, while typical use incorporates real-world inconsistencies such as missed doses or improper timing. Methods are categorized by reliability: (LARCs) and sterilization yield the lowest rates, under 1% even in typical use, due to minimal user involvement after insertion. Short-acting hormonal options like pills, patches, and rings achieve near-perfect efficacy with flawless adherence but see typical failures rise to 6-9% from non-compliance. Barrier methods (e.g., condoms) and withdrawal show moderate perfect use performance but substantial typical use failures (13-22%), attributable to application errors and inconsistent deployment. Behavioral methods, including fertility awareness-based approaches, exhibit high variability, with typical failures up to 24%, stemming from challenges in accurately tracking cycles.
MethodTypical Use Failure Rate (%)Perfect Use Failure Rate (%)
No contraception8585
Spermicides2818
Fertility awareness-based methods240.4-24 (varies by subtype)
Withdrawal224
215
Male condom182
Diaphragm126
Sponge (parous women)36 (parous)/12 (nulliparous)24 (parous)/9 (nulliparous)
Combined/progestin-only pill, patch, or ring90.3
Depo-Provera (injectable)60.2
0.80.6
LNG IUD0.20.2
0.050.05
Female sterilization0.50.5
Male sterilization0.150.1
Data adapted from U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates, incorporating clinical trials and population surveys adjusted for underreporting. These figures underscore that user-independent methods maintain efficacy closest to perfect use levels, while dependence on daily or per-act actions amplifies discrepancies in typical scenarios. Factors such as age, , and concurrent use can modulate rates, though LARCs remain robust across subgroups.

Health and Safety

Risks and Side Effects

Hormonal contraceptives, including combined oral pills, progestin-only pills, implants, and injections, are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), with combined methods conferring approximately 7 to 10 events per 10,000 women-years. High-quality evidence from umbrella reviews indicates that links to broader cardiovascular events, certain cancers, or other major adverse outcomes lack strong support, though individual variability in response persists. Common side effects encompass irregular bleeding, , mood alterations, and amenorrhea, with reports varying by formulation and user; for instance, progestin-dominant methods more frequently disrupt menstrual patterns. Long-acting reversible contraceptives like intrauterine systems (LNG-IUDs) and subdermal implants carry procedural risks including for IUDs at rates of 1 to 3 per 1,000 insertions, elevated postpartum or during . Expulsion occurs in under 5% of cases within the first year, while infection risk, such as , remains below 1% absent preexisting conditions. Implants may cause irregular spotting or amenorrhea in up to 20-30% of users initially, diminishing over time, without the VTE elevation seen in systemic hormonal methods. Barrier methods, such as diaphragms, cervical caps, and spermicides, pose minimal systemic risks but increase (UTI) incidence due to mechanical pressure or chemical irritation, particularly with diaphragm-spermicide combinations. allergies affect a subset of users, manifesting as local irritation or , while spermicides can disrupt , heightening susceptibility to infections like or acquisition with frequent use. Permanent methods exhibit procedure-specific complications: incurs major risks 20 times higher than , including bleeding, , or organ injury at rates up to 24.5% for vaginal approaches, with a 10-year of 1.85%. complications, such as or , occur in 1-2% of cases, with post-procedure resolving spontaneously in most, and regret rates around 7%. Behavioral and natural methods, including and withdrawal, introduce no pharmacological or device-related side effects, relying instead on adherence; from method failure represents the primary risk without direct impacts. Emergency contraception via or yields transient effects like nausea (13-23%), headache, abdominal pain, and menstrual disruption, resolving without long-term sequelae; no causal ties to or elevation exist beyond baseline risks.
Method CategoryKey Risks/Side EffectsIncidence/Rate
Hormonal (Combined)VTE, mood changes, irregular bleeding7-10/10,000 women-years for VTE
IUDs, expulsion, PID1-3/1,000 for ; <1% PID
Barriers (Diaphragm/)UTI, allergies, vaginal irritationIncreased UTI risk; variable allergy rates
Surgical complications (bleeding, infection)Up to 24.5% overall; 1.85% 10-year failure
, infection, post-vasectomy pain1-2% complications
Natural/BehavioralNone direct; risk from failureNo incidence data for side effects
Emergency (LNG/Ulipristal), , menstrual changes13-23% ; self-limiting

STI Prevention

Only barrier methods among common contraceptives provide meaningful protection against sexually transmitted infections (STIs) by physically blocking the exchange of bodily fluids or direct contact with infected areas. Male latex or polyurethane condoms, when used correctly and consistently, reduce the risk of transmission by approximately 80-95% and lower acquisition of and in men by 50-90%, according to systematic reviews of clinical and epidemiological data. They offer moderate protection against but limited efficacy against skin-to-skin transmitted infections like human papillomavirus (HPV) and (HSV), where exposure outside the covered area remains possible, with effectiveness estimates around 30-70% for HPV based on observational studies. Female condoms provide comparable STI protection to male condoms for fluid-transmitted pathogens, with evidence from randomized trials showing similar reductions in incidence when used as a dual barrier strategy. Other barrier methods, such as diaphragms, cervical caps, or sponges combined with , offer inferior STI protection due to incomplete coverage of the vaginal or penile area and lack of external sheath, with no high-quality evidence demonstrating significant risk reduction beyond prevention. alone, including , do not prevent STIs and may disrupt vaginal mucosa, potentially increasing susceptibility to and other infections in frequent users. Hormonal contraceptives (pills, patches, rings, injections), (IUDs, implants), and permanent methods (, ) provide no barrier to STI transmission, as they target , fertilization, or implantation without affecting exchange. Some observational studies suggest progestin-based methods may alter cervical mucus or , potentially facilitating bacterial STI acquisition like or , though causality remains unestablished and risk varies by method and . Behavioral methods like or withdrawal offer no STI protection, relying solely on timing or incomplete barriers that fail to prevent fluid or contact transmission. Dual-method use—combining non-barrier contraception with condoms—is recommended by authorities for individuals seeking both and STI prevention, as single-method hormonal or intrauterine approaches address only the former.

Non-Contraceptive Effects

Hormonal contraceptives, including combined oral pills, progestin-only methods, implants, and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices (LNG-IUDs), offer several non-contraceptive health benefits supported by epidemiological data. Long-term use reduces the risk of by approximately 30-50%, with a dose-response relationship where longer duration correlates with greater protection; this effect persists for years after discontinuation. Similarly, endometrial cancer risk decreases by 50% or more among users, attributed to the thinning of the uterine lining that inhibits atypical cell proliferation. incidence is lowered by about 18-19% in ever-users compared to never-users, based on meta-analyses of cohort studies. LNG-IUDs specifically alleviate (menorrhagia) and in up to 70-90% of users by reducing endometrial growth, often leading to amenorrhea in long-term use. These methods also demonstrate benefits in managing conditions like acne vulgaris and (PCOS) symptoms through androgen suppression and cycle regularization, though evidence varies by formulation and individual response. However, risks include a modest increase in incidence during use ( 1.2-1.24), which normalizes post-discontinuation, potentially due to hormonal stimulation of estrogen-sensitive tissues. Combined hormonal methods elevate venous risk 3-4 fold over baseline (absolute risk 5-12 per 10,000 woman-years in users aged 15-49), with higher incidence for those with prothrombotic factors. Ischemic stroke risk rises slightly ( 1.7), concentrated in smokers or those with . Bone mineral density may decrease with progestin-dominant methods like depot medroxyprogesterone, increasing risk in young users, though oral combined pills often preserve or enhance it. Copper intrauterine devices (Cu-IUDs) lack systemic hormonal effects but can exacerbate menstrual symptoms, increasing bleeding volume by 30-50% and cramping intensity in many users, leading to higher risk in susceptible populations. Unlike LNG-IUDs, Cu-IUDs do not reduce endometrial or rates and may induce local via ion release, though long-term data show no overall oncogenic effect. Barrier methods such as condoms, diaphragms, and cervical caps have negligible systemic health impacts beyond mechanical irritation or allergic reactions in <5% of users, including latex sensitivity or -related vaginal discomfort. use with diaphragms elevates risk via altered , but absolute incidence remains low ( ~1.5-2). No significant associations exist with cancer risks or endocrine disruption. Female sterilization (tubal ligation) confers a protective effect against , reducing risk by ~37-40% independently of parity or oral contraceptive history, possibly via interruption of carcinogenic pathways from the fallopian tubes. It does not alter menstrual patterns or long-term but carries surgical risks like (<1%) or in 5-20% of younger users. Male shows no hormonal, oncogenic, or cardiovascular effects, with post-procedure parameters normalizing risks minimally via reversal, though autoimmune responses are rare and unsubstantiated. Natural family planning methods, relying on , impose no physiological side effects or health risks, as they involve no interventions. Users often gain enhanced knowledge, aiding early detection of ovulatory disorders or perimenopause, though depends on adherence without causal impacts on endocrine function.

Practical Considerations

User Dependence

User dependence measures the extent to which a contraceptive method's effectiveness hinges on consistent, correct adherence by the user, such as remembering doses or applying barriers properly each time. High user dependence correlates with greater gaps between perfect-use (consistent and correct application) and typical-use (real-world inconsistencies) failure rates, as human factors like forgetfulness, misuse, or irregular behavior introduce errors. Low-dependence methods minimize these risks by requiring little to no ongoing user input after initial setup. Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), including and hormonal intrauterine devices (IUDs) and subdermal implants, exhibit minimal user dependence; once inserted by a provider, they provide protection for 3-12 years without daily or per-act requirements. Typical-use failure rates for IUDs range from 0.1% to 0.8% annually, closely matching perfect-use rates, as compliance issues rarely affect efficacy. Implants show even lower rates, at 0.05% typical use. Similarly, female sterilization () and vasectomy for males entail no post-procedure dependence, with failure rates under 0.5% over 10 years. These methods' reliability stems from their mechanical or sustained-release mechanisms, independent of user memory or motivation. Short-acting hormonal methods, such as combined oral contraceptives, progestin-only pills, patches, and vaginal rings, demand high user dependence through daily or weekly administration. Perfect-use failure for oral contraceptives is 0.3%, but typical use climbs to 7% due to missed doses, which disrupt hormonal suppression of . Patches and rings fare similarly, with typical rates of 7-9%, as adherence falters from skin irritation, displacement, or forgetting replacements. Injectable depot (DMPA) requires quarterly clinic visits, yielding typical failure of 4-6%, lower than dailies but still elevated by access barriers or delays. Barrier methods like condoms, diaphragms, and cervical caps impose per-intercourse dependence, necessitating correct placement, storage, and lubricant use to prevent slippage or breakage. Male condoms have a 2% perfect-use failure but 13% typical, driven by inconsistent application or breakage from improper handling. Spermicides alone show 18% typical failure, exacerbated by timing errors. Behavioral methods, including (tracking cycles via temperature, cervical mucus, or apps) and withdrawal, exhibit the highest user dependence, relying on precise cycle knowledge or timing control. typical failure spans 2-23%, versus 0.4-5% perfect, as irregular cycles or misinterpretation lead to unprotected intercourse during fertile windows. Withdrawal's typical rate reaches 20%, from exposure or incomplete execution. Lactational amenorrhea method (LAM) demands strict exclusivity, with rapid efficacy decline if patterns lapse. Factors amplifying user dependence include (e.g., daily routines), partner cooperation, and socioeconomic barriers like pill access; studies show lower-income users face higher typical failures in dependent methods due to these. Reducing dependence via LARCs has been linked to fewer unintended pregnancies, as it circumvents compliance variability. Providers often counsel on matching methods to users' lifestyles, prioritizing low-dependence options for those with adherence challenges.

Cost and Accessibility

The costs of birth control methods in the United States vary widely depending on the type, insurance coverage, and provider, ranging from under $50 annually for over-the-counter barrier methods to over $1,000 upfront for (LARCs) like intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants, though the latter often prove more economical over time due to their duration of efficacy. Under the (ACA), most private plans and are required to cover FDA-approved contraceptives without copayments or deductibles for women, leading to zero out-of-pocket costs for many users; however, this does not apply universally to short-term plans, employer exemptions, or uninsured individuals, who may face full prices or rely on sliding-scale fees at clinics. Accessibility is influenced by regulatory requirements, with barrier methods like male condoms and spermicides available over-the-counter (OTC) at pharmacies or stores without restrictions, costing about $42 and $84 per year, respectively, for typical use. Hormonal oral contraceptives have seen expanded access since 2023 with FDA approval of the progestin-only pill Opill as the first daily OTC option, priced at around $340 annually without insurance, potentially reducing barriers for those avoiding clinic visits or prescriptions. In contrast, methods requiring insertion or administration, such as IUDs ($0–$1,300 upfront), implants ($0–$1,300), and injections ($0–$600 per year), necessitate healthcare provider involvement, limiting availability in underserved areas—over 19 million women live in "contraceptive deserts" lacking nearby clinics offering a full range of options.
MethodAnnual Cost (Without Insurance)Accessibility Notes
Male Condoms$42OTC at pharmacies/stores
Oral Pills$240–$600Prescription or OTC (progestin-only)
IUD/Implant$1,300 (upfront, lasts 3–12 years)Requires clinic insertion
Injection (Shot)$600Clinic administration every 3 months
Vaginal Ring/Patch$87–$1,800Prescription; self-applied
$6,000 (total, amortized ~$430/year)Surgical procedure
Permanent sterilization procedures, such as for women (around $6,000 without insurance), involve surgical risks and recovery, further restricting access to those with confirmed long-term intentions and provider approval. Publicly funded clinics, including those operated by organizations like , provide reduced-cost or free services based on income, serving as a key avenue for low-income or uninsured users, though wait times and geographic limitations persist. Overall, while insurance mitigates costs for many, disparities in access remain pronounced for uninsured populations and rural residents, with OTC expansions addressing some gaps but not substituting for procedural methods.

Reversibility and Fertility Impacts

Most birth control methods, excluding sterilization, are designed to be reversible, with typically returning after discontinuation or removal, though the timeline varies by method and individual factors such as age and duration of use. A of rates post-discontinuation found an overall pooled rate of 83.1% within 12 months across reversible methods, indicating no long-term impairment in most cases. However, certain long-acting injectables exhibit a notable delay in fertility restoration due to prolonged hormonal effects. Short-acting hormonal methods, such as combined oral contraceptives, allow for rapid return to , with approximately half of users conceiving within three months of cessation and most within 12 months. Barrier methods like condoms and diaphragms, as well as , impose no hormonal interference, enabling immediate resumption of upon discontinuation. (LARCs), including intrauterine devices (IUDs) and subdermal implants, also demonstrate prompt recovery; for copper or hormonal IUDs, conception rates reach 71-96% within 12 months post-removal, often within one month, with no evidence of enduring effects. Implant users similarly experience short delays, averaging two to three months. In contrast, depot (Depo-Provera) injections are associated with a median delay of nine to ten months from the last dose before conception, attributable to sustained progestin levels suppressing . Factors like older age exacerbate this delay, and counseling on this prolonged effect is recommended prior to initiation. Sterilization procedures, such as in women or in men, are intended as permanent and carry lower reversibility; surgical reversal of yields pregnancy rates of 40-80%, influenced by patient age, tubal length, and ligation technique, but success diminishes with time since procedure. Vasectomy reversal similarly varies, with patency rates up to 90% but live birth rates often below 50% due to antisperm antibodies and other complications. These outcomes underscore sterilization's role for those certain against future childbearing, as reversal is neither guaranteed nor cost-effective compared to alternatives like fertilization.
Method CategoryReversibilityTypical Time to Fertility Return
Barrier/NaturalFully reversibleImmediate
Oral HormonalFully reversible1-3 months (median)
IUD/ImplantFully reversible1 month (often immediate)
Injectable (Depo-Provera)Fully reversible9-10 months median
SterilizationLow success on Variable; 40-80% post-

Controversies

Medical and Scientific Debates

Scientific debates surrounding hormonal contraceptives center on their association with elevated breast cancer risk. A 2023 meta-analysis of observational studies found that ever-users of hormonal contraception face a 33% higher odds of breast cancer (pooled OR = 1.33; 95% CI = 1.19-1.49), with risks persisting up to 10 years post-discontinuation. Similarly, a UK nested case-control study reported a 20-30% relative increase in breast cancer incidence among current or recent users of combined oral contraceptives, attributing this to progestogen exposure. While absolute risks remain low given baseline incidence rates in reproductive-age women, critics argue that long-term population-level data may underestimate cumulative effects, particularly amid rising progestin-only method use. Countervailing evidence highlights protective effects against ovarian and endometrial cancers, with risk reductions persisting for decades after cessation, though debates persist on whether these benefits offset breast cancer elevations in high-risk cohorts. Intrauterine devices (IUDs), both hormonal and copper-based, spark contention over infection risks and mechanisms of action. Early concerns linked IUDs to , but contemporary analyses indicate this risk is confined to the first 20 days post-insertion and primarily affects women with preexisting sexually transmitted infections, with overall PID incidence below 1% in screened users. Rare complications like (1-2 per 1,000 insertions) and expulsion (2-10%) fuel ongoing scrutiny, particularly for nulliparous women, where insertion challenges may amplify adverse events. A separate questions whether post-fertilization effects classify certain IUDs as abortifacients; surveys reveal 17-39% of physicians view IUDs or levonorgestrel-releasing systems as potentially disrupting implantation, challenging claims of purely preventive mechanisms. Long-term hormonal method impacts extend to skeletal, neurological, and psychological domains. Depot (Depo-Provera) is associated with reversible density loss, prompting FDA warnings for adolescents and long-term users due to fracture risk elevations. Emerging research links oral contraceptives to altered brain structure and function, including reduced cortical thickness and gray matter volume, potentially influencing mood and , though causality remains correlative. Patient-reported side effects like depression and often clash with clinical dismissal, as evidenced by discord in provider-patient discussions, where empirical symptom validation lags behind anecdotal prevalence. These debates underscore tensions between short-term efficacy and protracted health trade-offs, with calls for personalized risk stratification over generalized endorsements.

Ethical and Societal Critiques

Critiques of birth control methods often center on their perceived violation of natural moral order, particularly from religious perspectives. The , in the 1968 encyclical , condemns artificial contraception as intrinsically immoral because it deliberately separates the unitive and procreative purposes of marital sex, rendering the act disordered regardless of intent. This view holds that such methods foster a "contraceptive mentality" that prioritizes pleasure over responsibility, potentially eroding mutual respect between spouses and encouraging or of partners. Philosophically, opponents argue that methods like hormonal contraceptives or intrauterine devices, which may prevent implantation of a fertilized , raise ethical concerns if human life begins at conception, effectively making them abortifacients in failure cases. Societally, widespread adoption of birth control has been linked to declining fertility rates, contributing to demographic imbalances in developed nations. Peer-reviewed analyses indicate that the rapid increase in contraceptive pill use during the 1970s coincided with sharp fertility drops, such as from 2.1 to below replacement levels (2.1 children per woman) in many European countries by the 1980s, exacerbating aging populations and straining pension systems. Critics contend this enables delayed childbearing and smaller families, correlating with higher rates of involuntary childlessness; for instance, studies show that women sterilizing at younger ages (under 30) experience regret rates up to 20-25% later in life, often tied to unfulfilled desires for children. Such trends are argued to undermine traditional family structures by decoupling sex from reproduction, promoting individualism over communal obligations and potentially increasing reliance on immigration or policy interventions to offset labor shortages. While some data suggest low overall regret among childless adults post-sterilization (around 5-10%), critiques highlight selection biases in surveys and underreported long-term dissatisfaction amid cultural pressures for career prioritization.

References

  1. https://www.cdc.gov/contraception/about/index.html
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7533104/
  3. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2787541
  4. https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/117/5/1046/7951389
  5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK536949/
  6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10561657/
  7. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/11427-birth-control-options
  8. https://www.cdc.gov/contraception/hcp/usspr/permanent-contraception.html
  9. https://www.cdc.gov/contraception/hcp/usspr/standard-days-method.html
  10. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/family-planning-contraception
  11. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-timeline/
  12. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-birth-control-pill/
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10615352/
  14. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/2613/9611/6275/History_of_BC_Methods.pdf
  15. https://ki.se/en/research/popular-science-and-dialogue/spotlight-on/spotlight-on-womens-health/timeline-contraceptives
  16. https://www.healthcentral.com/slideshow/birth-control-evolution
  17. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/history-oral-contraception/2000-06
  18. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4847a1.htm
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10790348/
  20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430882/
  21. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/mmwr/mec/summary.html
  22. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/mmwr/spr/summary.html
  23. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-effectiveness-united-states
  24. https://www.dovepress.com/hormonal-contraceptive-use-and-affective-disorders-an-updated-review-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-OAJC
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3662967/
  26. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-bulletin/articles/2017/11/long-acting-reversible-contraception-implants-and-intrauterine-devices
  27. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1110855
  28. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/drugs/17741-paragard-copper-iud
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2702765/
  30. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370%2824%2900505-4/fulltext
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7788930/
  32. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/contraception-etonogestrel-implant
  33. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/146/2/e2020007252/36888/Long-Acting-Reversible-Contraception-Specific
  34. https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/barrier-methods-of-birth-control-spermicide-condom-sponge-diaphragm-and-cervical-cap
  35. https://www.who.int/teams/global-hiv-hepatitis-and-stis-programmes/stis/prevention/condoms
  36. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5118a1.htm
  37. https://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/clinical-primary.htm
  38. https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/women-s-health-issues/family-planning/barrier-contraceptives
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4254803/
  40. https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/fertility-awareness-based-methods-of-family-planning
  41. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30095777/
  42. https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/22/5/1310/2914315
  43. https://postpartumfp.srhr.org/methods/lactational-amenorrhea-method/
  44. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr59e0528a12.htm
  45. https://www.vasectomy.org.au/faqs/vasectomy-vs-tubal-ligation/
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6419963/
  47. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37683548/
  48. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7081321/
  49. https://fcmc.org/no-scalpel-vasectomy-vs-tubular-ligation/
  50. https://www.reproductiveaccess.org/resource/contraceptive-pearl-how-effective-is-tubal-sterilization/
  51. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28232128/
  52. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10596397/
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10029365/
  54. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470377/
  55. https://healthcare.utah.edu/the-scope/health-library/all/2020/03/vasectomy-or-tubal-ligation-what-best-option-you-and-your
  56. https://draustenslade.com/blog/vasectomy-vs-tubal-ligation
  57. https://www.cdc.gov/contraception/hcp/usmec/permanent-contraception.html
  58. https://www.uchealth.org/today/vasectomy-vs-tubal-ligation-understanding-permanent-birth-control-options/
  59. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/emergency-contraception
  60. https://www.cdc.gov/contraception/hcp/usspr/emergency-contraception.html
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4216625/
  62. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2020/0601/p651.html
  63. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2022141
  64. https://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824%2823%2900011-2/fulltext
  65. https://www.cdc.gov/contraception/hcp/usmec/emergency-contraception.html
  66. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6304a5.htm
  67. https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/birth-control-failure-rates-pearl-index-explained-3554953/
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3795840/
  69. https://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824%2823%2900234-2/fulltext
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3638209/
  71. https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2809%2900688-7/fulltext
  72. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/combination-birth-control-pills/about/pac-20385282
  73. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/17900-rhythm-method
  74. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35029663/
  75. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2480&context=honors
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5683155/
  77. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2822%2900015-0/abstract
  78. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2016/09/clinical-challenges-of-long-acting-reversible-contraceptive-methods
  79. https://www.cdc.gov/contraception/hcp/usmec/barrier-methods.html
  80. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1504271/
  81. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2003/0315/p1287.html
  82. https://www.auanet.org/guidelines-and-quality/guidelines/vasectomy-guideline
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028221002508
  84. https://www.news-medical.net/health/Natural-Family-Planning-Advantages-and-Disadvantages.aspx
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6123910/
  86. https://www.scielosp.org/article/bwho/2004.v82n6/454-461/
  87. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2001/09/nih-condom-report-glass-90-full
  88. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-8384-7
  89. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235069/
  90. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-24601-y
  91. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00043801.htm
  92. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3693657/
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3011324/
  94. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2010/0801/p288.html
  95. https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/21/5/640/565023
  96. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1744187006000898
  97. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-advisory/articles/2018/01/hormonal-contraception-and-risk-of-breast-cancer
  98. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/intrauterine-devices-iud
  99. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26037216/
  100. https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/contraception-diaphragms
  101. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2083303/
  102. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/4933-tubal-ligation
  103. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/vasectomy/about/pac-20384580
  104. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18165410/
  105. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546661/
  106. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/afp-community-blog/entry/the-next-generation-of-natural-family-planning.html
  107. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4970461/
  108. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6205a1.htm
  109. https://www.goodrx.com/conditions/birth-control/annual-cost-of-birth-control
  110. https://www.singlecare.com/blog/birth-control-statistics/
  111. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/blog/how-much-does-birth-control-cost
  112. https://powertodecide.org/what-we-do/contraceptive-deserts
  113. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6055351/
  114. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6102234/
  115. https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org/health-wellness/health-encyclopedia/he.getting-pregnant-after-stopping-birth-control.te8132
  116. https://contraceptionmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40834-018-0064-y
  117. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382578998_Delay_in_Return_to_Fertility_after_Discontinuation_of_Using_Depo-Provera_and_Associated_Factors_Among_Currently_Pregnant_Women_Attending_Antenatal_Care_in_Public_Health_Facilities_in_Gindeberet_Distri
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10335688/
  119. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/sterilization-reversal
  120. https://www.shadygrovefertility.com/article/tubal-reversal-vs-ivf-0/
  121. https://www.mcrmfertility.com/2023/06/13/tubal-reversal/
  122. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10705112/
  123. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004188
  124. https://www.mdanderson.org/cancerwise/the-pill-and-cancer-is-there-a-link.h00-159779601.html
  125. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00049581.htm
  126. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2971735/
  127. https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2822%2900772-4/fulltext
  128. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2025/04-05/birth-control-brain
  129. https://www.statnews.com/2021/12/06/patients-doctors-clashing-side-effects-hormonal-birth-control/
  130. http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html
  131. https://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/birth-control-pills-patches-and-devices/ethical-questions-about-birth-control/
  132. https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/12/5/603/778783
  133. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10905510/
  134. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010782405003148
  135. https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3241&context=lnq
  136. https://www.healio.com/news/womens-health-ob-gyn/20241206/few-adults-without-biological-children-regret-decision-for-permanent-contraception
  137. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23780231221142969
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.