Skip to main content
Guttmacher Institute

Search

  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Data, Videos & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
Guttmacher Institute
Donate

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Data, Videos & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact
Fact Sheet
April 2020

Contraceptive Effectiveness in the United States

From the series Contraceptive Use in the United States
Who Uses Contraception
Methods Used
Emergency Contraception
Effectiveness

Contraceptive failure rates describe the risk of becoming pregnant among users of each contraceptive method; they are used to inform individuals’ method choice. The effectiveness of contraceptive methods varies according to many different factors, including how difficult the methods are to use consistently and correctly. These failure-rate estimates are based on the experiences of individuals who use the methods and may change over time. The estimates provided below are based on the most recent studies available.

Contraceptive failure rates are defined as the proportion of women who will become pregnant within the first 12 months after initiating method use. Typical-use failure rates express effectiveness among all women who use the method, including those who use it inconsistently and incorrectly.* Perfect-use failure rates express effectiveness among only those women who use the method both consistently and correctly.

Interactive figure media
Interactive Figure
  • Male and female sterilization are considered permanent contraceptive methods. These methods have failure rates of less than 1% in both typical and perfect use.1 Restoring fertility after undergoing one of these procedures is possible but difficult.
  • The implant and the intrauterine device are the most effective reversible contraceptive methods available.1 (Click “IUD” link in graphic for failure rates by IUD type.) They have failure rates of less than 1% for both typical and perfect use; typical-use failure rates are low because these methods do not require user intervention. Implants and IUDs are often referred to as long-acting reversible contraceptives, or LARCs.
  • Shorter-acting hormonal methods include the pill, patch, injectable and vaginal ring. The injectable has a typical-use failure rate of 4%, and a perfect-use failure rate of less than 1%.1,2 The pill, ring and patch have typical-use failure rates of 7%, and perfect-use failure rates of less than 1%.
  • Male condoms and internal (female) condoms are considered “coitally dependent” methods, because they are generally employed near the time of sexual intercourse. The male condom has a typical-use failure rate of 13%, and a perfect-use failure rate of 2%.1,2  Internal condoms have a typical-use failure rate of 21% and a perfect-use failure rate of 5%.1 Male and internal condoms are the only contraceptive methods available that simultaneously prevent pregnancy and protect against STIs, including HIV.
  • Other coitally dependent methods include the sponge, the diaphragm, withdrawal and spermicides. Typical-use failure rates for these methods range from 14% to 27%; perfect-use failure rates range from 4% to 20%.1,2
  • There are many fertility awareness-based methods (FABMs) for pregnancy prevention. For each FABM, users track changes in one or more specific biomarkers of fertility (menstrual dates, basal body temperature, cervical mucus or position, urinary hormone metabolites) to estimate the beginning and end of the “fertile window” during which pregnancy is possible. (Click “Fertility awareness–based methods” link in graphic for failure rates by type of FABM.) Effectiveness estimates vary across different FABMs, with typical-use failure rates ranging from 2% to 34% and perfect-use failure rates ranging from less than 1% to 5%, based on moderate-quality studies.3
  • Studies estimating failure rates for emergency contraception differ methodologically from studies for other methods, and these rates are not included in the table and figure. However, use of emergency contraceptive pills or placement of a copper IUD after unprotected intercourse substantially reduces the risk of pregnancy.1
  • The lactational amenorrhea method is a highly effective, temporary contraceptive method that relies on the body’s natural response to exclusive breast-feeding, but to maintain effective protection against pregnancy, another contraceptive method must be used as soon as menstruation resumes, the frequency or duration of breast-feeding is reduced, bottle feeds are introduced or the baby reaches six months of age. The six-month perfect-use failure rate for the lactational amenorrhea method is less than 2%.†1

1. Hatcher RA et al., Contraceptive Technology, 21st ed., New York: Managing Contraception, 2018.

2. Sundaram A et al., Contraceptive failure in the United States: estimates from the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2017, 49(1):7–16, doi:10.1363/psrh.12017, https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2017/02/contraceptive-failure-….

3. Peragallo Urrutia R et al., Effectiveness of fertility awareness-based methods for pregnancy prevention: a systematic review, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 132(3):591–604, doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002784.

References

1. Hatcher RA et al., Contraceptive Technology, 21st ed., New York: Managing Contraception, 2018.

2. Sundaram A et al., Contraceptive failure in the United States: estimates from the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2017, 49(1):7–16, doi:10.1363/psrh.12017, https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2017/02/contraceptive-failure-….

3. Peragallo Urrutia R et al., Effectiveness of fertility awareness-based methods for pregnancy prevention: a systematic review, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 132(3):591–604, doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002784.

*Data used to calculate typical-use contraceptive failure rates come from the female respondent files in the National Survey of Family Growth. All respondents self-report their current gender at the time of interview.

†Because this method should be used for a maximum of six months, 12-month failure rate estimates are unavailable.

Footnotes

*Data used to calculate typical-use contraceptive failure rates come from the female respondent files in the National Survey of Family Growth. All respondents self-report their current gender at the time of interview.

†Because this method should be used for a maximum of six months, 12-month failure rate estimates are unavailable.

From the series Contraceptive Use in the United States

Share

Download Fact Sheet

Reproductive rights are under attack. Will you help us fight back with facts?

Donate

Topic

United States

  • Contraception

Geography

  • Northern America: United States

Tags

LARC, birth control
Guttmacher Institute

Center facts. Shape policy.
Advance sexual and reproductive rights.

Donate Now
Newsletter Signup  Contact Us 
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Footer

  • Privacy Policy
  • Accessibility Statement
© 2025 Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization under the tax identification number 13-2890727. Contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowable.