Which NFP model?

[mrsp813]

Hello all!

I am a convert that hasn’t used any method of NFP yet. My husband and I are going to use it after our 4th baby in 6 years is born this November.:whacky:

I have no clue what method we should use. I’ve signed up for a CCL course (which i presume to be sympto-thermal?) which starts in September but am also curious about Marquette and Creighton.

Some info…I have had wacky cycles since I was a teenager and most drs have just put me on ABC to regulate them. Honestly…they aren’t even completely regular “on” the pill. I may or may not BF this time around. I’m going to try, but I didn’t nurse my other 3 so I’m not sure how it’s going to work out. I have very erratic sleep habits, as my 2 yo and 10 month old still wake in the night a few times a week.

I am also, admittedly, terrified to use NFP. I dont’ really mind having more children, but our financial situation is precarious at best. We can’t afford a car to accommodate 5 children in car seats right now as we just bought our minivan last year. There are other larger financial problems as well. I guess this is why Marquette seems so appealing, as I’m familiar w using a fertility monitor and I’m comforted by some other tangible sign of my fertility or lack there of at any particular time.

Thanks for reading…I welcome all (name removed by moderator)ut and advice!

 

[Em_in_FL]

The biggest difference between the models is what bodily fertility signs they focus on…
Most methods focus solely on cervical mucous (Marquette, Billings, Creighton)… Marquette, as you mentioned, also uses the fertility monitor…
Sympto-Thermal uses 3 fertility signs - cervical mucous, cervical position, and temperature. I personally love it because I feel more comfortable having the extra “data” to rely on in order to accurately read my fertility… but that’s just me.
I’ve heard those with suffer from PCOS seem to have success with the Creighton model.

HTH a little… that’s the main differences!

 

[1ke]

They are all reliable.

As EM pointed out, they have different methods of observation, different terminology, etc.

I think it comes down to two factors: individual circumstances and special cases

Individual circumstances:

I chose Creighton for two reasons, the first being the temp with STM. I wake up too much in the night, I travel for my job, and I am a big sleep-in-on-the-weekend gal. So, the temp taking at the same time each day did not suit my lifestyle. I also liked Creighton’s methodology of classifying mucus. I did learn STM a number of years ago as a single woman, and I found their classification to be confusing. I learned Creighton before I got married.

Special cases:

For those with fertility issues, and to a certain extent going into menopause, the Creighton Method has its advantages. Those who want to consult with Dr. Hilgers (Pope Paul VI Institute) need to chart Creighton for at least 6 months prior.

Marquette sounds really interesting, I’ve never had a need to pursue using the fertility monitor in addition to regular charting-- which I don’t even do anymore since DH and I are not actively TTC or TTA. We are “whatever.”

So, it’s totally up to you-- what fits your lifestyle, what seems easiest to use, what may be useful in special cases such as fertility/cycle issues that require medical attention.

Another method similar to Creighton is Billings (Creighton is actually an offshoot of Billings Ovulation Model).