Jump to content

Talk:Diaphragm (birth control)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Expanded with slightly more female point-of-view by long-term diaphragm user ChristinaG (UK) 24/8/05. Sorry if it's less encyclopedic, and doesn't mention anal sex once (sorry guys), but went for 'information' angle for couples who 'want to know'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.92.168.169 (talk • contribs) 22:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles

[edit]

Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article. I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

diagram

[edit]

The diagram actually shows how a cervical cap is worn. Diaphragms cover much more of the vaginal wall, securing in the notch below the bladder and above the pubic bone (right hand side of the current diagram). Does anyone have ideas for where we could get a more accurate picture? Lyrl Talk Contribs 01:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cystitus

[edit]

this citation from merck manual gives explanation of cystitus which indicates it is a risk for everyone, esp. sexually active women, and correlates diaphragm + cystitus with spermicide, not diaphgragm itself. 1) are there any citations/studies which show diaphrahm alone is risk for cystitus? 2) are there any research studies comparing cystitus with general population vs. diaphragm users? (pref with controls for use with spremicide/not?) Would it maybe be more accurate to say something like diaphragm is contraindicated for women with crrent cystitus/recurrent cystitus rather than it is a risk of diaphragm use itself? Cindery 23:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec11/ch149/ch149c.html

diaphragm use in combination with other methods

[edit]

I can't find any studies/statistics which refer to contraceptive efficacy rates for cervical barrier methods in combination with fertility awareness and/or withdrawal...? Combination of these must certainly increase efficacy,and is no doubt being used. Cindery 00:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But equally one might ask of failure rates on the pill if combined with a condom used for STD protection. It would be tempting (but probably logically flawed) to consider the methods exclusive of each other's modes of action and so combine there sole-use effectiveness rates (so if condoms have 10% failure rate per year and pill 1% p.a., then combined might be expected to be 10% of 1% = 0.1% p.a.) - real life is unlikely to match such obvious assumption. However I always assumed that combination of barrier with Fertility Awareness techniques were often not independant - whole point of FA is that something different is done inside & outside of the fertile window. Either selective abstinance is practiced (in which case barrier method is I supposed an additional method on all occasions sexual intercourse practiced outside of fertile-window) or barrier methods are reserved only for the fertile window (and are not used ouside of this). I always assumed latter was the more common senario when the FA & barrier methods are conjoined methods rather than being independant of each other (i.e. there is no use of barrier methods outside of the fertile window). David Ruben Talk 01:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


agree--but "fertile window" can be so tricky for women with irreg. cycles to calculate (making paying attention to cervical mucus, taking basal body temp etc. more important than for women whose cycles are more reg.?) i think it's a good idea, actually, to mention when bc methods can be combined--that's a feature of some of them, that they are combinable in a synergistic way. i'm not sure it *does* occur to everyone that this can be done. if there's a different failure rate with diaphragm for people unaware of fertility awareness, mentioning it here could lead them to learn more about it/improve failure rate? Cindery 03:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microbicide Research

[edit]

Is this information misplaced on this article - it is about spermicides and as such is applicable to use in all forms of barrier contraceptives. Should it not be relocated under the Spermicides article ?David Ruben Talk 04:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you're right that mention of it should be included on spermicides. Also,there is a microbicides page. but if you read the study, they explain that these microbicides have to be used with a diaphragm/that's what they are testing them with/they have to be attached to something that is a barrier to the cerix--hence direct relevance. maybe a sentence to clarify that? (i assumed it had obvious relevance.)Cindery 06:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Cervical Barriers

Since microbicides must be inserted into the vagina, an application method must be designed for each product. A microbicidal preparation can be prepared to use with a diaphragm or sponge that protects the cervix. Essentially, the applicator and microbicide would be one and the same, and would remain inside the vagina during sexual activity. The diaphragm or sponge would provide contraceptive properties, and the microbicidal coating on both sides of the barrier would help protect the woman from contracting a sexually-transmitted disease.

The presence of a diaphragm might be beneficial in other ways. Because the barrier prevents semen from entering the cervix, it would allow the microbicide and the semen to mix inside the vagina for a long time period, ensuring that the microbicide inactivates all pathogens. Additionally, the cervix is an entry point for STD pathogens. Closing that entry point might significantly inhibit the ability of the pathogen to infect a woman.17

Some researchers are now re-investigating whether cervical barriers by themselves protect against sexually-transmitted diseases. Because diaphragms are frequently used with nonoxynol-9, it is possible that the detrimental effects of nonoxynol-9 have masked the beneficial effects of the diaphragm blocking the cervical entry point." Cindery 06:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]
Would this be better?

In response to a message on my talk page about the current image vs. the previous image:

If you read the diaphragm article, you will see that the diaphragm rests against the pubic bone. That means the dome of the diaphragm covers all the surface next to the bladder, and the anterior rim rests against the urethra. Both images show how a cervical cap fits (covering only the cervix and not the vaginal wall); the top image might be better for cavity rim caps like Oves and Prentif that adhere directly to the cervix, the bottom image better for Vimule and FemCap which adhere to the vaginal walls immediately surrounding the cervix. Neither image shows how the diaphragm covers much of the vaginal wall, or how it can apply pressure to the urethra. The diaphragm image is badly made.

I intend to draw in a correctly placed diaphragm on a better image when I have time, but until then I believe the poorer-quality image is more accurate for the diaphragm article. Lyrl Talk Contribs 01:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image

[edit]

What does a diaphragm look like? Does it look like a condom? Is the spring like a steel coil you find in engines? I don't know, and this wikipedia page wont tell me, so I will have to look at the real worlds biggest encyclopedia to find out. JayKeaton 18:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cervical Barrier Advancement Society is listed in External Links and has great images of cervical barriers, and also specifically of diaphragms. Lyrl Talk Contribs 01:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate"

[edit]

Note discussion at Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" re replacing occurrences of "failure rate" with "pregnancy rate". I would also like to see the same change on this page. Please make any comments there. --Coppertwig 04:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This article had an external link to the only cervical-barrier forum I am aware of, a Yahoo! group. It was removed in this edit.

This group has a physician adviser, so it's a little more formal than most message boards. Because cervical barriers are one of the least popular contraceptive options, there is very little interactive content about them on the internet - as I said before, this is the only site I am aware of. I believe it meets criteria 3 and 4 of What should be linked in WP:EL as it provides both physician-sourced information (accurate) that cannot be used in the article because it is not published (not verifiable), and also has personal reviews from a variety of women of the different cervical barriers available.

It does violate criteria #6 (requires registration) and #10 (discussion forum) of Links normally to be avoided in WP:EL. However, considering the lack of other available links, I believe this link add sufficient value to the article that it can be an exception to the normally to be avoided rule. What do others think? Lyrl Talk C 13:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image accurate perhaps but misleading in some aspects

[edit]

The image currently on the page seems (at least to me) to suggest some kind of flat panel rather than a domed ring. However, it is an image which helps show the difference between a diphragm and a cervical cap, it just doesn't show concavity. Perhaps we could add a picture of an actual diaphragm to illustrate that it is actually dome shaped? Oniamien (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are links to images in the "Types" section, but you are right it would be nice to have inline pictures. I had asked permission to use images from the Cervical Barrier Advancement Society several months ago, but at that time I had not read much about getting images to use on Wikipedia and wasn't able to work out the correct legal language. I just sent off another email to CBAS with a more specific licensing request. I'll update here when I receive a response. LyrlTalk C 01:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Diaphragm (contraceptive). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diaphragm_(birth_control)&oldid=1204621514"