Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Outcomes From Treatment of Infertility With Natural Procreative Technology in an Irish General Practice

Joseph B. Stanford, Tracey A. Parnell and Phil C. Boyle
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine September 2008, 21 (5) 375-384; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2008.05.070239
Joseph B. Stanford
MD, MSPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tracey A. Parnell
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Phil C. Boyle
MB
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Characteristics of Couples Beginning Treatment with Natural Procreative Technology, by Subsequent Conception Status

    Patient CharacteristicAll Eligible Couples*NPT Treatment, ConceivedNPT Treatment, Did Not Conceive
    Total (n)†1072364708
    Woman's age (mean years [range])35.8 (25–48)34.8 (25–45)36.4 (26–48)
    Prior years attempting to conceive (mean [range])5.6 (1–20)4.8 (1–17)6.1 (1–20)
    Had previous live birth (percent yes)243020
    Received previous ART‡ (percent yes)332139
    • * One hundred sixty-seven couples were not eligible because they had been trying for less than 1 year or because they did not complete the evaluation after the initial consultation.

    • † Number of couples in each category. Age was available for all women. For previous years attempting to conceive, 30 (2.8%) had missing data; for previous births, 30 (2.8%) had missing data; for previous ART, 20 (1.9%) had missing data.

    • ‡ Assisted reproductive technology (ART) includes in vitro fertilization with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Common Diagnoses of Couples Receiving Treatment Before and After Evaluation with Natural Procreative Technology*

    Diagnostic CategoryBefore NPT Evaluation (n [%])After NPT Evaluation (n [%])
    Unexplained infertility506 (47.2)5 (0.5)
    Unexplained recurrent miscarriage124 (11.6)2 (0.2)
    Anovulation31 (2.9)36 (3.4)
    Polycystic ovarian syndrome68 (6.3)110 (10.3)
    Endometriosis209 (19.5)208 (24.6)
    Male factor115 (10.7)146 (13.6)
    Limited cervical mucus12 (1.1)276 (25.7)
    Suboptimal luteal progesterone99 (9.2)923 (86.1)
    Suboptimal luteal estrogen2 (0.2)676 (63.1)
    • * This table is based on the 1072 couples that initiated evaluation. Diagnostic categories sum to more than 100% because couples could have more than one diagnosis (other than unexplained).

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Cumulative Outcomes per 100 Couples by Time Completed in Natural Procreative Technology Evaluation and Treatment

    Time Interval (months)Cumulative Withdrawals from NPT (n “proportion”)ConceptionsLive Births*
    Starting at Time Interval (n)Cumulative Conceptions (n)Crude ProportionAdjusted Proportion†Starting at Time Interval (n)Cumulative Live Births (n)Crude ProportionAdjusted Proportion†
    0–3105 (9.8)1072757.07.31072555.15.4
    4–6233 (21.7)89215214.215.989511110.411.8
    7–12478 (44.6)68727825.935.569420519.127.1
    13–18624 (58.2)31632630.448.533725523.841.8
    19–24672 (62.7)12235433.064.813227325.552.8
    25–36‡4636456286
    • * Live births are assigned the time interval when the conception occurred rather than when the birth occurred.

    • † Adjusted by life-table analysis, where withdrawal or continuing treatment at the end of study follow-up are censoring events.

    • ‡ Proportions are not calculated beyond 24 months.

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Live Births per 100 Couples at 24 months of Natural Procreative Technology Treatment by Characteristics of Couples Beginning Treatment

    Couple CategoryCouples (n)Live Births (n)Crude ProportionAdjusted Proportion*
    All couples107227325.552.8
    Woman's age (years)
        ≤30862933.759.1
        >30–3541213432.558.6
        >35–404238921.046.1
        >401512113.950.9
    Time spent attempting to conceive (years)
        1–32469036.666.0
        >3–646812927.655.4
        >6–92103918.644.9
        >91181411.942.8
    Previous live birth
        Yes2579235.873.9
        No78518123.148.5
    Previous ART attempts (n)†
        070221630.861.5
        11282922.741.9
        21251814.434.9
        ≥3971010.319.8
    • * Adjusted by life-table analysis, where withdrawal or continuing treatment at the end of study follow-up are censoring events. Adjusted proportions should be interpreted with caution because of small numbers in subgroups.

    • † Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) includes in vitro fertilization (IVF) with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

    • View popup
    Table 5.

    Outcomes for Natural Procreative Technology Live Births (n = 286)

    Outcomen (%)
    Multiple gestation13 (4.5)
    Gestational age (weeks)
        ≥37246 (86.0)
        <3715 (5.2)
        Unknown25 (8.7)
    Birth weight (grams)
        ≥2500245 (85.6)
        1500–250013 (4.5)
        <15004 (1.4)
        Unknown24 (8.4)
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine: 21 (5)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 21, Issue 5
September-October 2008
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Outcomes From Treatment of Infertility With Natural Procreative Technology in an Irish General Practice
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
3 + 12 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Outcomes From Treatment of Infertility With Natural Procreative Technology in an Irish General Practice
Joseph B. Stanford, Tracey A. Parnell, Phil C. Boyle
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Sep 2008, 21 (5) 375-384; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2008.05.070239

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Outcomes From Treatment of Infertility With Natural Procreative Technology in an Irish General Practice
Joseph B. Stanford, Tracey A. Parnell, Phil C. Boyle
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Sep 2008, 21 (5) 375-384; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2008.05.070239
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Correction to “Outcomes From Treatment of Infertility With Natural Procreative Technology in an Irish General Practice”
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Knowledge, awareness and perception of Natural Procreative Technology (NaProTechnology) among pharmacy undergraduate students in Nigeria: a pre-post educational video intervention study
  • Natural procreative technology for infertility and recurrent miscarriage: Outcomes in a Canadian family practice
  • Ovulation induction with clomifene: a primary care perspective
  • Re: Outcomes From Treatment of Infertility With Natural Procreative Technology in an Irish General Practice
  • The Medical Home, Health Services, and Clinical Family Medicine Research
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Identifying and Addressing Social Determinants of Health with an Electronic Health Record
  • Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care
  • A Pilot Comparison of Clinical Data Collection Methods Using Paper, Electronic Health Record Prompt, and a Smartphone Application
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire