This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Coitus interruptus is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
|
Coitus interruptus
|
|
| Background | |
| B.C. type | Behavioral |
| First use | Ancient |
| Failure rates (first year) | |
| Perfect use | 4% |
| Typical use | 15-28% |
| Usage | |
| Reversibility | Yes |
| User reminders | Dependent upon self-control. Urinating between acts of sexual intercourse helps clear sperm from urethra. |
| Clinic review | None |
| Advantages and Disadvantages | |
| STD protection | No |
| Benefits | No side effects |
Coitus interruptus, also known as withdrawal or the pull-out method, is a method of contraception in which a couple has sexual intercourse, but semen is ejaculated outside of and away from the vagina. Coitus interruptus may also more generally refer to any extraction of the penis prior to ejaculation during intercourse. This method has been widely used for at least 2,000 years and was used by an estimated 38 million couples worldwide in 1991.[1]
Contents |
Efficacy
Like many methods of birth control, reliable effectiveness is achieved only by correct and consistent use. Observed failure rates of withdrawal vary depending on the population being studied: studies have found actual failure rates of 15-28% per year.[2] In comparison the pill has an actual use failure rate of 2-8%,[3] while the IUD has an actual use failure rate of 0.8%.[4] The condom has an actual use failure rate of 10-18%.[2] (see Comparison of birth control methods)
For couples that use withdrawal correctly at every act of intercourse, the failure rate is 4% per year. In comparison the pill has a perfect-use failure rate of 0.3%, and the IUD has a perfect-use failure rate of 0.6%. The condom has a perfect-use failure rate of 2%.[4]
The primary cause of failure of the withdrawal method is the lack of self-control of those using it. Poor timing of the withdrawal can result in semen on the vulva, which can easily migrate into the female reproductive tract. Some medical professionals view withdrawal as an ineffective method of birth control.[5] In contrast, a recent study in Iran found that provinces with higher rates of withdrawal use do not have higher fertility rates, and that the contribution of withdrawal use to unintended pregnancies is not markedly different from that of other commonly used methods such as the pill or condom.[6]
It has been suggested that the pre-ejaculate ("Cowper's fluid") emitted by the penis prior to ejaculation contains spermatozoa (sperm cells), which can easily pass into the upper female genital tract in the presence of cervical mucus.[7] However, several small studies[8][9] have failed to find any viable sperm in the fluid. While no large conclusive studies have been done, it is now believed the primary cause of method (correct-use) failure is the pre-ejaculate fluid picking up sperm from a previous ejaculation.[10] For this reason, it is recommended that users of withdrawal have the male partner urinate between ejaculations, to clear the urethra of sperm, and wash any ejaculate from objects that might come near the woman's vulva (e.g. hands and penis).[11]
Advantages
The advantage of coitus interruptus is that it can be used by people who have objections to or do not have access to other forms of contraception. (Some men prefer it so they can avoid possible adverse effects of hormonal contraceptives on their partners.[12]) Some women also prefer this method over hormonal contraception to avoid adverse effects such as depression, mood swings, vaginal dryness, decreased libido, and headaches, among others. It has no direct monetary cost, requires no artificial devices, has no physical side effects, and can be practiced without a prescription or medical consultation, and provides no barriers to stimulation.
Disadvantages
Compared to the common reversible methods of IUDs, hormonal contraceptives, and male condoms, coitus interruptus is less effective at preventing pregnancy.[4] As a result, it is also less cost-effective than many more effective methods: although the method itself has little direct cost, users have a greater chance of incurring the risks and expenses of pregnancy and child-birth. Only models that assume all couples practice perfect use of the method find cost savings associated with the choice of withdrawal as a birth control method.[13]
The method is largely ineffective in the prevention of STDs, like HIV, since pre-ejaculate may carry viral particles or bacteria which may infect the partner if this fluid comes in contact with mucous membranes. However, a reduction in the volume of bodily fluids exchanged during intercourse may reduce the likelihood of disease transmission compared to using no method due to the smaller number of pathogens present.[9]
The method may be difficult for some couples to use. The interruption of intercourse may leave some couples sexually frustrated or unsatisfied.[14]
Prevalence
Worldwide, 3% of women of childbearing age rely on withdrawal as their primary method of contraception. Regional popularity of the method varies widely, from a low of 1% on the African continent to 16% in Western Asia. (Data from surveys during the late 1990s).[15]
In the United States, 56% of women of reproductive age have had a partner use withdrawal. In 2002, 2.5% were using withdrawal as their primary method of contraception.[16]
See also
References
- ^ Rogow D, Horowitz S (1995). "Withdrawal: a review of the literature and an agenda for research". Studies in family planning 26 (3): 140–53. doi:. PMID 7570764., which cites:
- Population Action International (1991). "A Guide to Methods of Birth Control." Briefing Paper No. 25, Washington, D. C.
- ^ a b Kippley, John; Sheila Kippley (1996). The Art of Natural Family Planning, 4th addition, Cincinnati, OH: The Couple to Couple League, p.146. ISBN 0-926412-13-2., which cites:
- Guttmacher Institute (1992). "Choice of Contraceptives". The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics 34: 111–114. doi:10.1016/j.<a (inactive 2008-07-21).
Hatcher, RA; Trussel J, Stewart F, et al (1994). Contraceptive Technology, Sixteenth Revised Edition, New York: Irvington Publishers. ISBN 0-8290-3171-5.
- Guttmacher Institute (1992). "Choice of Contraceptives". The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics 34: 111–114. doi:10.1016/j.<a (inactive 2008-07-21).
- ^ Audet MC, Moreau M, Koltun WD, Waldbaum AS, Shangold G, Fisher AC, Creasy GW (2001). "Evaluation of contraceptive efficacy and cycle control of a transdermal contraceptive patch vs an oral contraceptive: a randomized controlled trial" (Slides of comparative efficacy]). JAMA 285 (18): 2347–54. doi:. PMID 11343482.
Guttmacher Institute. "Contraceptive Use". Facts in Brief. Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved on 2005-05-10. - see table First-Year Contraceptive Failure Rates - ^ a b c Hatcher, RA; Trussel J, Stewart F, et al (2000). Contraceptive Technology, 18th Edition, New York: Ardent Media. ISBN 0-9664902-6-6.
- ^ Creatsas G (1993). "Sexuality: sexual activity and contraception during adolescence". Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 5 (6): 774–83. PMID 8286689.
- ^ Amir H. Mehryar, A. Aghajanian, B. Delavar, H. Eini-Zinab, & Shahla Kazemipour. "Continuing use of a traditional method (withdrawal) in a high contraceptive prevalence country, Iran: Correlates and consequences". Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, Iran. Retrieved on 2006-09-14.
- ^ "Withdrawal (coitus interruptus)". Reproductive Health Online: The Reading Room. JHPIEGO. Retrieved on 2007-07-29.
- ^ Zukerman, Z.; Weiss D.B. Orvieto R. (April 2003). "Short Communication: Does Preejaculatory Penile Secretion Originating from Cowper's Gland Contain Sperm?". Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 20 (4): 157–159. doi:. PMID 12762415.
Free M, Alexander N (1976). "Male contraception without prescription. A reevaluation of the condom and coitus interruptus" (PDF). Public Health Rep 91 (5): 437–45. PMID 824668. Retrieved on 2007-03-06. - ^ a b "Researchers find no sperm in pre-ejaculate fluid" (October 1993). Contraceptive Technology Update 14 (10): 154–156. doi:10.1016/j.<a (inactive 2008-07-21). PMID 12286905.
- ^ "Withdrawal Method". Planned Parenthood (March 2004). Retrieved on 2008-03-28.
- ^ Delvin, David (2005-01-17). "Coitus interruptus (Withdrawal method)". NetDoctor.co.uk. Retrieved on 2006-07-13.
- ^ Ortayli, N et al (2005). "Why Withdrawal? Why not withdrawal? Men's perspectives". Reproductive Health Matters 25 (13): 164–73. doi:. PMID 16035610.
- ^ "Economic value of contraception" (April 1995). American Journal of Public Health 85 (4): 494-503.
- ^ "Coitus Interruptus (Withdrawal)". Abstinence & Natural Birth Control Methods. Sexually Transmitted Disease Resource (2006). Retrieved on 2006-09-05.
- ^ . "Family Planning Worldwide: 2002 Data Sheet" (PDF). Population Reference Bureau. Retrieved on 2006-09-14.
- ^ Chandra, A; Martinez GM, Mosher WD, Abma JC, Jones J. (2005). "Fertility, Family Planning, and Reproductive Health of U.S. Women: Data From the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth" (PDF). Vital Health Stat 23 (25). National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved on 2007-05-20. See Tables 53 and 56.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 1 September 2008, at 16:25.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Coitus interruptus".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.