The standard days method of family planning: A response to Cairo

International Family Planning Perspectives

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 188-191

  Gribble, James N ^a  

^a Palladium Group   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FAMILY PLANNING; INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT; PLANNING METHOD;

EID: 1242277313     PISSN: 01622749     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3181048     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Arevalo M, Jennings V and Sinai I, Efficacy of a new method of family planning: the Standard Days Method, Contraception, 2002, 65(5): 333-338.
2. Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Center for Communication Programs, Population Information Program, Meeting unmet need: new strategies, Population Reports, 1996, Series J, No. 43.
3. Bongaarts J and Bruce J, The causes of unmet need for contraception and the social content of services, Studies in Family Planning, 1995, 26(2):57-75;
4. Casterline JB, Perez AE and Biddlecom AE, Factors underlying unmet need for family planning in the Philippines, Studies in- Family Planning, 1997, 28(3):173-191;
5. Westoff CF and Bankole A, Unmet Need: 1990-1994, DHS Comparative Studies, Calverton, MD, USA: Macro International, 1995, No. 16.
6. Central Statistical Authority, Ethiopia, and Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) Macro, Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2000, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Central Statistical Authority, and Calverton, MD, USA: ORC Macro, 2001, p. 91;
7. National Statistical Office, Malawi, and ORC Macro, Malawi Demographic and Health Survey 2000, Zomba, Malawi: National Statistical Office, and Calverton, MD, USA: ORC Macro, 2001, p. 91;
8. International Institute for Population Sciences, India, and ORC Macro, National Family Health Survey 1998-99, Mumbai, India: International Institute for Population Sciences, 2000, pp. 171-174;
9. Cayemittes M et al., Enquête Mortalité, Morbidité et Utilisation des Services, Haiti 2000, Pétionville, Haiti: Institut Haitien de l'Enfance, and Calverton, MD, USA: ORC Macro, 2001, p. 116;
10. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos, Nicaragua, Ministerio de Salud, an ORC Macro, Encuesta Nicaragüense de Demografía y Salud 2001, Calverton, MD, USA: Macro International, 2002, p. 147;
11. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática, Peru, and Macro International, Encuesta Demográfica y de Salud Familiar 2000, Lima, Peru: Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática, 2001, p. 102.
12. Lapham RJ and Mauldin WP, Contraceptive prevalence: the influence of organized family planning programs, Studies in Family Planning, 1985, 16(3):117-137;
13. Jain AK, Fertility reduction and the quality of family planning services, Studies in Family Planning, 1989, 20(1):1-16;
14. Ross J et al., Contraceptive choice in developing countries, International Family Planning Perspectives, 2002, 28(1):32-40.
15. Monroy M, Lundgren R and Montano G, Introducing the Standard Days Method of family planning into the water and sanitation program of PCI/Procosal El Salvador, final report, San Salvador, El Salvador: Project Concern International, 2003.
16. Dosajh U, Sood B and Lundgren R, Incorporating the Standard Days Method into CASP reproductive health and sustainability project, final report, New Delhi, India: TNS MODE, 2003.
17. United Nations (UN), Report of the International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo, 5-13 September 1994, Cairo: UN, 1994, , accessed Sept. 15, 2003.
18. Pavon S, Velasquez C and Lundgren R, Informed choice in natural methods in family planning programs, final report, Tegucigalpa, Honduras: ASHONPLAFA and Secretaria de Salud, 2003.
19. Pavon S and Velasquez C, Introducing the Standard Days Method of family planning into existing multi-method and natural method family planning programs in Honduras, final report, Tegucigalpa, Honduras: ASHONPLAFA, 2003.
20. Stover J et al., Empirically based conversion factors for calculating couple-years of protection, Evaluation Review, 2000, 24(1):3-46.
21. Velasquez C and Gribble JN, Designing counseling to improve dual protection, poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, Philadelphia, PA, USA, Nov. 10-14, 2002.
22. Johri L, Gupta YP and Lundgren R, Informed choice for birth spacing in India: incorporating the Standard Days Method, poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, Philadelphia, PA, USA, Nov. 10-14, 2002.
23. Ezeh AC, Seroussi M and Raggers H, Men's Fertility, Contraceptive Use, and Reproductive Preferences. DHS Comparative Studies, Calverton, MD, USA: Macro International, 1996, No. 18;
24. Robey B and Drennan M, Male participation in reproductive health, Network, 1998, 18(3):11-15.
25. Ross J and Bulatao R, Contraceptive projections and the donor gap, Rosslyn, VA, USA: John Snow Inc., 2001;
26. Sine J, How much is enough? estimating requirements for subsidized contraceptives: results from a ten-country analysis, Washington, DC: Commercial Market Strategies, 2002.
27. Gribble JN, Jennings V and Nikula M, Mind the gap: paying for family planning in developing countries, Washington, DC: Institute for Reproductive Health, 2003;
28. Ministerio de Salud Publica y Asistencia Social, Guias nacionales Para la salud reproductive, planificacion familiar, tomo 1, Ciudad Guatemala, Guatemala: Ministerio de Salud Publica y Asistencia Social, 2003.
29. Caroline Blair and Marie Mukabatsinda, Institute for Reproductive Health, Washington, DC, and Kigali, Rwanda, personal communications, May 14, 2003.
30. Sealza L, Rivera M and Blair C, Introducing the Standard Days Method of family planning into Kaanib: testing counseling strategies, final report, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines: Research Institute for Mindanao Culture, 2003.