Celia:
I was wondering how many of you chose which method of nfp to use. there seems to be a few…sympto-thermal, creighton, billings, etc. Is there a difference really between them or are they just different ways of approaching the same thing? From research so far I’ve only seen the latter to be true pretty much, but I could be wrong. Any thoughts or advice? Thanks!
The three signs of fertility are temperature shift at ovulation, cervical mucus before, during, and after ovulation, and the position of the cervix before, during, and after ovulation.
Each method uses one or more of these signs in tracking and observing the fertile and infertile phases.
Sympto-thermal uses all three signs and it taught through the couple to couple league. It is probably the predominant method taught in parish/diocesan NFP courses.
Creighton uses external observation of mucus only. It was developed by Dr. Hilgers and others at Creighton University based on the Drs. Billings’ work.
Billings, from my understanding, uses internal obeservation of mucus and cervical position. The Drs. Billings (husband and wife team) pioneered the modern method of NFP in Australia.
I am currently learning Creighton and really love it. It is very easy to learn and use. The methods are all essentially equivalent in effectiveness, however individual women may find one or another more compatible with her lifestyle or easier to interpret with their particular signs.
For example, sympto-thermal requires taking the temp at the same time every day with a certain amount of consecutive sleep hours which may be hard for nursing mothers, women who are frequent travellers or shift workers. I find the temp thing to be annoying, and prefer the mucus only method. Creighton also goes in to much more detail on the mucus, which is helpful to me.
Some methods may be better for nursing mothers, pre-menopausal women, women with infertility issues, etc.