You may want to rethink "max efficacy" there for the natural family planning approach.
There are multiple methods (temp tracking, calendar tracking, vaginal mucus tracking, etc) that fall under the general header of natural family planning. High efficacy numbers only come with extremely consistent use of multiple methods. With all that work, it ties with the effectiveness of birth control pills. With only a portion of that work, it's not very effective at all in comparison.
> FAMs are about 77%–98% effective. That means 2–23 out of 100 couples who use FAMs will get pregnant each year, depending on which method(s) are used. If you use multiple FAMs together, they work even better.
> The better you are about using FAMs the right way — tracking your fertility signs daily and avoiding sex or using birth control on “unsafe” days — the more effective they’ll be. But there’s a chance that you’ll still get pregnant, even if you always use them perfectly.
There are multiple methods (temp tracking, calendar tracking, vaginal mucus tracking, etc) that fall under the general header of natural family planning. High efficacy numbers only come with extremely consistent use of multiple methods. With all that work, it ties with the effectiveness of birth control pills. With only a portion of that work, it's not very effective at all in comparison.
From https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/fertil... -
> FAMs are about 77%–98% effective. That means 2–23 out of 100 couples who use FAMs will get pregnant each year, depending on which method(s) are used. If you use multiple FAMs together, they work even better.
> The better you are about using FAMs the right way — tracking your fertility signs daily and avoiding sex or using birth control on “unsafe” days — the more effective they’ll be. But there’s a chance that you’ll still get pregnant, even if you always use them perfectly.