Number 60 n October 18, 2012

Current Contraceptive Use in the United States,
 

2006–2010, and Changes in Patterns
 

of Use Since 1995
 by Jo Jones, Ph.D.; William Mosher, Ph.D.; and Kimberly Daniels, Ph.D., Division of Vital Statistics

Abstract

Objective—Use of contraception and the effectiveness of the method used to

prevent pregnancy are major factors affecting national pregnancy and birth rates and

the ability of women to plan their pregnancies. This report presents national

estimates of contraceptive use among women of childbearing age (15–44 years) in

2006–2010. Selected comparisons are made with 1995 data to describe changes in

contraceptive use and in method choice over time.

Methods— Data for 2006–2010 were collected through in-person interviews with

22,682 women and men aged 15–44 years in the household population of the United

States. Interviews were conducted by female interviewers in the homes of sampled

persons. This report is based primarily on the sample of 12,279 women interviewed in

2006–2010; some tables are supplemented with the sample of 10,847 women interviewed

in 1995.

Results—Sixty-two percent of women of reproductive age are currently using

contraception. Of women using a contraceptive method in the month of the interview, the

most common methods used are the pill (28%, or 10.6 million women) and female

sterilization (27%, or 10.2 million women). Use of intrauterine devices as a current

method has increased since 1995 (from 0.8% in 1995 to 5.6% in 2006–2010), whereas

fewer women report that their partners are using condoms as their current, most effective

contraceptive method. Of women at risk of an unintended pregnancy, 11% report not

currently using a method of contraception.

Keywords: condoms • pill • unintended pregnancy • National Survey of Family

Growth

Introduction

Use of contraception and

birth and pregnancy rates in

the United States

The National Survey of Family

Growth (NSFG) is designed to provide

national data that supplement and

complement the National Vital Statistics

data on registered births in the United

States, by collecting data on the factors

that affect those rates—including sexual

activity, marriage, divorce, cohabitation,

contraceptive use, and infertility (1).

The Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention’s National Center for Health

Statistics (NCHS) coordinates both these

data collection efforts. NSFG data are

analyzed in this report in part to

understand recent changes and group

differences in birth and pregnancy rates

as documented in recent National Vital

Statistics Reports.

Changes in contraceptive method

use are shown by comparing the 1995

and 2006–2010 NSFG surveys. The

1995 NSFG was a periodic survey

designed to interview a large number of

women within a short period of time,

between January and October 1995; the

2006–2010 NSFG was designed to

continuously interview smaller numbers

of women for a longer period, between

June 2006 and June 2010 (2,3). These

two surveys contain the largest samples

of women in the NSFG’s history—

10,847 in 1995 and 12,279 in 2006–

2010, allowing detailed comparisons

that were not possible in previous

reports (4,5).

Reducing the percentage of all

pregnancies that are unintended has

been one of the national health

promotion (‘‘Healthy People’’)

objectives since they were first

established in 1980 (6–8). The Healthy

People objectives have placed some

emphasis as well on reducing disparities

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Center for Health Statistics 
Page 2 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012

Table A. Birth rates, percentage of births to unmarried women, and percentage of pregnancies unintended: United States, 1995 and 2008

Total Hispanic Non-Hispanic white1 Non-Hispanic black1 Asian1

1995 2008 1995 2008 1995 2008 1995 2008 1995 2008

Total fertility rate per woman2 .................. 1.98 2.07 2.80 2.71 1.78 1.87 2.19 2.12 1.80 1.80

Birth rate, women aged 15–193 ................ 56 40 99 70 39 27 97 60 26 14

Birth rate, women aged 20–243 ................ 108 102 172 154 90 83 138 132 64 50

Percent of births to unmarried women4 ............ 32 41 41 53 21 29 70 72 16 17

Percent of pregnancies unintended5.............. 48 49 49 53 42 40 69 67 --­ --­

- - - Data not available.

1Race is categorized using the 1977 Office of Management and Budget standards. Data for Asian includes Pacific Islander and those of Hispanic ethnicity.

2The total fertility rate as presented here is the sum of birth rates for 5-year age groups multiplied by 5 and divided by 1,000. The 1995 data are from Martin et al., 2010, Table 4 (Asian) and Table

8; 2008 data are from Hamilton et al., 2011, Table S-2.

3Birth rates are births per 1,000 women. The 1995 data are from Martin et al., 2010, Table 4 (Asian) and Table 8; 2008 data are from Hamilton et al., 2011, Table S-2.

4The 1995 data are from Ventura et al., 1997, Table 10 (Asian) and Table 11; 2008 data are from Martin et al., 2010, Table 13 (Asian) and Table 14.

5The 1995 data are from Finer and Henshaw, 2006, Table 1 and are based on 1994 data; 2008 data are from Finer and Zolna, 2011, Table 1 and are based on 2006 data.

in unintended pregnancy among groups

with higher levels and rates (4,9–12);

these groups include teenagers,

unmarried adults, and low-income and

minority populations. In 1999, family

planning, defined as ‘‘the ability to

achieve desired birth spacing and family

size,’’ was noted as 1 of 10

‘‘achievements in public health’’ in the

20th century because of its contributions

to the health of infants, children, and

women (13).

Data on patterns of contraceptive

use can help to understand recent trends

and group differentials in birth and

pregnancy rates. Table A compiles a

number of the frequently monitored

birth rates based on the National Vital

Statistics Birth Registration System and

from other published sources for 1995

and 2008 (10,11,14–16). These years

correspond to the year the Cycle 5

NSFG was conducted and the midpoint

of interviewing for the 2006–2010

NSFG.

In 2008, the total fertility rate

(TFR) in the United States (the number

of births per woman estimated from the

current set of age-specific birth rates)

was 2.07 children per woman, slightly

higher than in 1995 (1.98). The teenage

birth rate, 56 births per 1,000 females

aged 15–19 in 1995, fell to 40 in 2008

and 34 in 2010, while the birth rate of

young adult women aged 20–24

declined more modestly from 108 in

1995 to 102 in 2008, and 90 in 2010

(Table A) (16). In contrast, the

percentage of all births that were to

unmarried women increased from 32%

in 1995 to 41% in 2008. There was no

change in the overall percentage of

pregnancies that were unintended

(Table A) (17).

However, these total rates and

percentages mask differences evident

among Hispanic origin and racial groups

in both 1995 and 2008 and over time. In

1995, Hispanic women had the highest

TFR at 2.80 compared with 1.78 for

non-Hispanic white women. The TFR

decreased to 2.71 for Hispanic women

and increased to 1.87 for white women

by 2008, so although the difference

between Hispanic women and white

women persisted, it was smaller in 2008

than it had been in 1995 (14,16).

Differences by Hispanic origin and race

are also seen for the other rates and

percentages. Comparing patterns of

contraceptive use may help to partially

explain differences in the number of

births by race and Hispanic origin, as

well as by other sociodemographic

characteristics.

Nearly all (99.1%) sexually

experienced women in the United States

have used contraception at some time in

their lives (1). But women (or their

partners) may not use contraception

consistently or correctly and

subsequently become pregnant when not

intending to; thus, researchers

distinguish between perfect and typical

use. Estimates of the probability that a

woman will become pregnant within the

first 12 months that a contraceptive

method is used are based on typical

use (18). The data in Table B are based

on a study of the 2002 NSFG data (18);

they show that the average probability

of having an unintended pregnancy in

one year of typical contraceptive use (of

all methods) in the United States was

about 12%.

The chance a woman will have an

unintended pregnancy within the first

year of using a contraceptive method

varies significantly by which method

she uses. Hormonal methods (e.g., the

pill, and injectable and implantable

contraceptives) and the intrauterine

device (IUD) are more effective at

preventing pregnancy than other

methods. For example, a woman has a 1

in 15 chance of becoming pregnant

within a year of typical use if she uses a

hormonal implant compared with a one

in four probability if she relies on

fertility awareness (18,19). Kost et

al. (18) use the term fertility awareness

to describe methods women use to

prevent pregnancy by abstaining from

sexual intercourse during their fertile

period each month. The NSFG has

historically used the term periodic

abstinence to refer to these methods and

distinguishes between methods that

identify fertile periods by counting the

number of days since the start of the

last menstrual period (calendar rhythm)

from those that use changes in

temperature or cervical mucus (natural

family planning).

Table B also shows that the overall

rate of contraceptive failure varies by

race and ethnicity. About 10% of

non-Hispanic white women become

pregnant within a year of using a

contraceptive method compared with

15% of Hispanic women and 20% of
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012

Page 3

Table B. Probability of a contraceptive failure (pregnancy) within the first 12 months of aged 15–44 years, conducted from June

typical use of a contraceptive method, by method and by race 2006 through June 2010. Additional data

Probability of 95% confidence from interviews with 10,847 women

All women1 pregnancy interval interviewed in the 1995 NSFG are

All methods ............................... 12.4 (11.2–13.7)

Injectable ............................... 6.7 (4.3–10.4)

Pill ................................... 8.7 (7.2–10.5)

Male condom............................. 17.4 (14.8–20.5)

Withdrawal .............................. 18.4 (13.7–24.2)

Fertility awareness ......................... 25.3 (16.1–37.5)

All methods by Hispanic origin and race2

Hispanic ................................. 15.0 (12.3–18.2)

Non-Hispanic black .......................... 21.3 (17.8–25.2)

Non-Hispanic white and other .................... 10.1 (8.7–11.7)

1Probabilities and confidence intervals taken from Kost et al., 2008, Table 2. 2Probabilities and confidence intervals taken from Kost et al., 2008, Table 3.

NOTE: Based on 2002 National Survey of Family Growth data.

non-Hispanic black women. Some of

these differences reflect differences in

method choice and use.

Approach

The purpose of this report is to

provide data on trends and patterns of

contraceptive use in the United States,

to further understanding of trends and

differentials across age and racial and

ethnic groups in birth and pregnancy

rates, the percentage of births that are

unintended, and various health issues

related to contraception. In doing so,

this report devotes some attention to two

themes.

1)	 Examining selected characteristics

of women that are known to be

closely associated with

contraceptive use (e.g., marital and

cohabitation status, education,

income, and parity). Some of these

factors, such as cohabitation and

income, are not available on birth

certificate data.

2)	 The rise since 1995 in the

proportions of women who rely on

long-acting, reversible contraceptive

methods—such as implants,

injectables, the contraceptive patch,

the contraceptive ring, and the IUD.

These methods were introduced or

significantly modified since the

1990s, and they are associated with

lower rates of unintended

pregnancies compared with most

other methods.

This report presents a broad

overview of current contraceptive use

across the ages in which virtually all

births occur. Final data for births

occurring in 2008 show that, of the total

number of births (4.248 million), 99.7%

occurred to women between the ages of

15–44 years—4.234 million births. The

remaining 0.3% occurred to females

aged 14 years and under (5,764 births)

or to women aged 45 years and over

(7,650 births) (15). This report focuses

on current contraceptive use to augment

research on the relationship of

contraceptive use with unintended

pregnancy in the United States (17).

Separate reports will examine

contraceptive use at first premarital

intercourse, ever use of contraception,

and discontinuation of contraceptive

methods.

Methods

Source of the data

This report is primarily based on

the 2006–2010 NSFG, augmented by

the 1995 NSFG. The NSFG is jointly

planned and funded by NCHS and

several other programs of the U.S.

Department of Health and Human

Services (see Acknowledgments). Data

were also collected from 10,403 men in

2006–2010, but are not analyzed in this

report.

The 2006–2010 NSFG includes data

from the 12,279 interviews with women

presented in select tables.

The interview was voluntary;

participants were provided information

about the survey before being asked for

signed informed consent. The survey

was reviewed and approved by NCHS’s

Institutional Review Board (IRB) and

the University of Michigan’s IRB. The

overall response rate in 2006–2010 was

77%—the response rate for women was

78% (3); in 1995, the response rate was

79% (2). To protect the respondent’s

privacy, only one person was

interviewed in each selected household.

The interviews were conducted in

person by female interviewers who

received thorough training on the

survey; responses were entered directly

into laptop computers.

The interview collected information

on a woman’s births and pregnancies,

marriages and cohabitations, sterilization

operations, contraceptive use, infertility,

use of medical care related to birth

control, prenatal care, and social and

demographic characteristics. In addition

to this information, the survey collected

a rich array of data on contraceptive

use, including use of contraception at

first intercourse, ever use of specific

contraceptives at any time prior to the

interview, current use of contraception,

and reasons for stopping use of various

methods.

The 2006–2010 NSFG was based

on a new design and fieldwork plan.

The sample is a nationally representative

multistage area probability sample

drawn from 110 areas across the

country. Interviewing occurred over

4 years and was conducted in

approximately one-quarter of the

selected primary sampling units each

year. The sample is designed to produce

national, not state, estimates. Although

the sample design is new, the

interviewing procedures are very similar

to what was done in previous, periodic

surveys.

As in any survey, a certain degree

of nonsampling error may have occurred

in the NSFG—including possible errors

of memory, possible misunderstanding
Page 4 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012

of what is being asked, and possible

reluctance to report the information

being asked for. Extensive efforts to

minimize such errors were made in the

design and conduct of the survey, and

extensive consistency checking, both

during the interview and after the data

were received from the interviewer was

implemented to detect such errors and to

correct them when possible (20,21).

Further details on this topic and all

aspects of the survey can be found in

earlier reports (2,20,21).

Measurement of

contraceptive use

Measuring contraceptive use during

heterosexual intercourse is one of the

central goals of the NSFG, because it is

a key factor affecting birth and

pregnancy rates and family formation.

The questions on contraception include:

+ Whether she or a partner has ever

used each of 22 methods of

contraception at any time in her life.

+ Whether she or her partner used any

of these methods the first time she

had intercourse with a male.

+ What method or methods she is

currently using.

+ Whether she has stopped using a

method because of dissatisfaction

with the method, and what her

reasons were for that dissatisfaction.

The specific contraceptive methods

discussed below are defined and

described in many other sources,

including some for health care

professionals (22) and others for patients

(23,24).

Measuring current use when two

or more methods are used

The principal purpose of the

classification scheme used in this report

is to measure the extent to which

women are protected from unintended

pregnancy by the contraceptive methods

they are currently using. In 2006–2010,

8.6% of women who were using

contraception used multiple

contraceptive methods during the same

month (analysis not shown), similar to

earlier findings (1). In this report, those

women who were currently using more

than one method are classified by the

most effective method to prevent

pregnancy they were using, because

method choice has the most effect on

their risk of unintended pregnancy.

Methods for ranking are based on

research showing the failure rate for the

method as it is used by representative

samples of the population (i.e.,

‘‘typical’’ use as discussed above). Much

of this research is based on past cycles

of the NSFG (18,19,25). More

information on ranking methods can be

found elsewhere (1).

Measurement of race and

Hispanic origin

The Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) provides standards for

the reporting of race and ethnicity in

government reports. These standards are

periodically revised. Race classification

in Table A is based on 1977 OMB

standards (26) because that is how race

is presented in the reports from which

these figures were drawn (14–16). Race

classification in the other tables is based

on the 1997 OMB standards (27).

Measurement of ‘‘at risk’’ of

unintended pregnancy

Consistent with previous reports

(1,5), women are considered to be ‘‘at

risk’’ of an unintended pregnancy if

1) they are using a method of

contraception during the month of

interview, or 2) they are not using a

method of contraception in the month of

interview, but have had sexual

intercourse in the prior 3 months.

Women who are 1) pregnant, seeking to

become pregnant, or postpartum;

2) sterile for noncontracepting reasons;

or 3) not using contraception, but have

not had sexual intercourse since

menarche or in the 3 months before the

interview are not considered to be at

risk of an unintended pregnancy. (See

the ‘‘Technical Notes’’ Definition of

terms for more detail.)

Measuring who is at risk of a

pregnancy is neither simple nor

straightforward. Women using this

definition of at risk can be using a

method that is virtually 100% effective

at preventing pregnancy (e.g., an IUD or

sterilization). If they are using male or

female sterilization, they could be

considered either as ‘‘at risk and using a

method’’ (and in the denominator) or as

‘‘not at risk’’ (and excluded from

analysis). Women who are using a

method but have not had intercourse in

the month of interview could also be

considered as ‘‘not at risk’’ and

excluded. This, however, would exclude

women interviewed early in a month

who are sexually active but have not, as

yet, had intercourse that month. It would

also exclude women who have taken

steps to protect themselves from

pregnancy in anticipation of sexual

debut or activity as some methods (e.g.,

the pill) are not 100% effective

immediately depending on where a

woman is in her cycle when she starts

using it (22). The measure, as defined

above, is a conservative estimate of the

proportion of women who are at risk of

a pregnancy because it includes the

largest possible number of women at

risk in the denominator.

Statistical analysis

Statistics for this report were

produced using SASTM software, Version

9.3 (http://www.sas.com). The sampling

errors were produced with SUDAANTM

software, which is designed to handle

the complex sample design used by the

NSFG (http://www.rti.org/sudaan). All

estimates in this report were weighted to

reflect the reproductive-age female

household population of the United

States across the years 2006–2010.

Women aged 15–44 years living on

military bases or in institutions were not

included in the survey. Given the sample

design of the 2006–2010 NSFG,

standard errors of some statistics may be

larger than those for 1995, despite the

larger number of women who were

interviewed in 2006–2010. For a more

detailed discussion of standard errors in

the 2006–2010 NSFG see (20).

When percentages between groups

were compared, significance was

determined by using two-tailed t-tests at

the 5% level. No adjustments were

made for multiple comparisons. Terms

such as ‘‘greater than’’ and ‘‘less than’’
No sex ever/


last 3 months
 

Pill 

Pregnant/post


partum/seeking
 

Condom 

All other 

contraceptive methods 

SOURCES: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010, and Table 1 of this report. 

Figure 1. Percent distribution of women aged 15–44 years, by whether they are using

contraception and by reasons for nonuse and methods used: United States, 2006–2010

10% 17% 

19% 

17%

9% 

10% 

18%

Not using All other reasons Using


contraception, for nonuse contraception,


38%
 62%
 Female 

sterilization 

National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012	 Page 5

indicate that a statistically significant

difference was found. Terms such as

‘‘similar’’ or ‘‘no difference’’ indicate

that the statistics being compared were

not significantly different. Lack of

comment regarding the difference

between any two statistics does not

mean that the difference was tested and

found not to be significant. The data

presented in this report are bivariate

associations that may be explained by

other factors not controlled for in the

tables or included in the report.

In the description of the results

below, when the percentage being cited

is below 10%, the text will cite the

percentage to 1 decimal point. To make

reading easier and to remind the reader

that the results are based on samples

and subject to sampling error,

percentages above 10 will generally be

shown rounded to the nearest whole

percentage. In this report, percentages

are not shown if the sample

denominator is less than 100 cases, or

the numerator is less than 5 cases. When

a percentage or other statistic is not

shown for this reason, the table contains

an asterisk (*) signifying that the

‘‘statistic does not meet standards of

reliability or precision.’’ For most

statistics presented in this report, the

numerators and denominators are much

larger.

Results

Current contraceptive use

At any specific point in time,

women of childbearing age are using or

not using contraception depending on

whether they are sexually active and

their current plans, intentions, and

expectations for future births. These

plans may be influenced by a number of

factors, including: whether they are

sterile, infertile, or subfecund; their

perceived ability to become pregnant;

and their age, race and ethnicity, marital

status, income, religion, and past fertility

(1,4,5,28). Table 1 examines all women

by whether they are currently using

contraception, the contraceptive method

chosen among users, and categories of

nonuse among nonusers in order to

describe differentials in the risk of

unintended pregnancy by age. Overall in

2006–2010, 62% of women aged 15–44

were using a method of contraception in

the month of interview and 38% were

not (Table 1, Figure 1). The percentage

using and the type of method used vary

significantly by age.

+	 About 31% of all teenagers 15–19

years were using a method of

contraception at the time of the

interview; 59% of women in this age

group had never had intercourse, or

had not had intercourse in the prior 3

months.

+	 The percentage of women currently

using contraception increases

monotonically with age, so that by

aged 40–44 years, 75% of women

were using contraception.

+	 Consistent with earlier findings, the

pill is more often used by younger

women, whereas female or male

sterilization is used more frequently

by older women (1,4,5).

A larger percentage of white women

(66%) were using a method of

contraception in the month of interview

compared with Hispanic (60%) or black

(54%) women (Table 2).

+	 Similar percentages of foreign-born

(62%) and U.S.-born (57%) Hispanic

women used a contraceptive method

during the month of interview.

+	 White women are more likely to use

the pill (21%) as their current method

of contraception than Asian (12%),

Hispanic (12%), or black women

(9.9%).

+	 A larger percentage of U.S.-born

Hispanic women (26%) are not using

contraception because they have

never had intercourse, or they have

not had intercourse in the 3 months

before the survey compared with

foreign-born Hispanic women (14%)

or white women (18%).

The characteristics of women

associated with the current use of

contraception differ if one looks at all

women or restricts analysis to women

who are at risk of an unintended

pregnancy (Table 3). Further, the

characteristics of women at risk of an

unintended pregnancy who are using a

contraceptive method may differ from

those who are not. Among women at

risk of an unintended pregnancy, 89%

are using and 11% are not using

contraception (Table 3). The following

discussion focuses on the subset of

women who are most at risk of an

unintended pregnancy—those who have

had sexual intercourse in the last 3
Page 6

National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012

months but are currently not using

contraception.

+ The percentage of women not using

contraception declines with age.

About one in five (18%) women aged

15–19 years at risk of an unintended

pregnancy is currently not using

contraception compared with 9.7% of

women aged 25–44 years.

+ Never-married women are more likely

to not be currently using

contraception (17%) compared with

women who are married (7.5%) or

cohabiting (9.8%).

+ Fourteen percent of women with no

births and 17% of women with one

birth were not using contraception,

twice as many as women who have

had two births (7.1%).

+ Intentions for additional births are

associated with contraceptive use. A

higher percentage of women who

intended more children either now or

at some point in the future were not

using a contraceptive method (15%)

compared with those who did not

intend to have additional children

(8.6%).

+ A significantly higher percentage of

black women are not using a method

of contraception (17%) compared

with white (9.5%), Asian (10%), and

Hispanic women (10%).

In summary, larger percentages of

women who are under age 20 years,

who are never married, and who are

black are at increased risk of an

unintended pregnancy because they are

not using contraception compared with

women of other characteristics. Table 3

also shows that larger percentages of

women who have had fewer than two

live births or who intend more children

are not currently using contraception

compared with those who have had two

or more live births and those who do

not intend more children.

Changes in methods of

contraception used between

1995 and 2006–2010 and

current method choice

Different methods of contraception

are used at different life stages by

women. A woman’s choice of

contraceptive method is influenced by

her past fertility, her future fertility

intentions, her previous experience with

various methods, and the availability of

methods. For example, if a woman has

had all the children she desires, she may

choose sterilization as her contraceptive

method, whereas if a woman wants to

delay a pregnancy, she may choose a

reversible method such as one of the

new methods that have become

available since 1995. These include

other hormonal methods such as the

contraceptive patch, the contraceptive

ring, a newer type of implant, and a

more recently developed IUD (22–

24,29).

Tables 4–9 document changes in

contraceptive method use over time by

comparing contracepting women

interviewed in 1995 with those

interviewed in 2006–2010. In addition,

they compare methods of current

contraception among women

interviewed in 2006–2010 by selected

characteristics. Tables 4–8 show

contraceptive use by selected

demographic characteristics of the

women, and Table 9 examines

contraceptive use and method choice by

two economic indicators and a measure

of the residential context—measures that

can facilitate or hinder women’s access

to and choice of contraception. For each

of these tables, comparisons between

1995 and 2006–2010 will be discussed

first, followed by cross-category

comparisons for 2006–2010.

The most common contraceptive

methods used by women and their

partners in both 1995 and 2006–2010

were female sterilization (28% in 1995

and 27% in 2006–2010) and the pill

(27% in 1995 and 28% in 2006–2010)

(Table 4). Condom usage, as the most

effective contraceptive method currently

being used, declined from 20% to 16%

between 1995 and 2006–2010. The

decline in condom usage was offset by a

75% increase in the use of other

hormonal methods (from 4.3% to 7.2%)

and a sevenfold increase in the use of

the IUD (0.8% to 5.6%). The increased

availability and use of other hormonal

methods and the IUD have implications

for reducing nonmarital and unplanned

pregnancies. These methods have lower

failure rates than the condom when they

are used for contraception (Table B).

Age and marital or cohabiting

status

Previous research has shown that a

woman’s choice of contraceptive method

varies by age, marital status, educational

attainment, Hispanic origin and race,

and other sociodemographic

characteristics (1,5). Overall, between

1995 and 2006–2010 there were few

changes in the use of female or male

sterilization by age or marital status

(Table 4). There were changes, though,

in the current use of other contraceptive

methods by these characteristics.

Although women of all ages were less

likely to be using the condom as their

most effective method of contraception,

the decrease in condom use was largest

among teenagers. Condom use, as the

most effective method of contraception,

decreased by almost one-half among

women aged 15–19 years—from 36% of

teenagers in 1995 to 20% of teenagers

in 2006–2010. The use of other

hormonal methods increased in all age

groups, but was greater among women

under age 30 years. The increase in IUD

usage occurred mainly among women

aged 25–39 years.

Formerly married women are, on

average, older than never-married

women so they may have completed

their fertility plans and choose

sterilization as their contraceptive

method; more than one-half (51% in

2002 and 56% in 2006–2010) are using

female sterilization as their method of

contraception. Conversely, never-married

women may choose a nonpermanent

method, such as the pill or other

hormonal methods, in order to delay

childbearing until a later date. Nevermarried women may also choose the

condom alone to avoid pregnancy or in

combination with another method to

prevent sexually transmitted disease as

well as to avoid pregnancy.

+	 The decreased use of the condom

between 1995 and 2006–2010, as the

most effective method of

contraception used by women and

their partners, was due to changes in

condom use among women who were
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012	 Page 7

not married or cohabiting. In 1995,

15% of formerly married women

relied on partners to use a condom as

their most effective contraceptive

method compared with 7.7% in

2006–2010. Among never-married

women, reliance on partner’s condom

use decreased from 32% in 1995 to

22% in 2006–2010.

+ The overall increase in IUD use from

1995 to 2006–2010 was greater

among currently married or

cohabiting women than among never

or formerly married women.

As shown in Table 4, there are

differences in patterns of current

contraceptive use across age and marital

or cohabiting status groups in 2006–

2010.

+ Approximately 50% of women under

age 25 years use the pill: 53% of

those aged 15–19 and 47% of those

aged 20–24 years. At aged 40–44

years, about 10% of women rely on

the pill for contraception (Figure 2).

+ Other hormonal methods of

contraception are used more

frequently by women under age 25

years (14%) compared with women

aged 25 years and over (5.1%).

Women aged 25–29 years (11%) are

more similar to those under age 25 in

their use of other hormonal methods

than they are to women aged

30 years and over.

+	 Of women aged 40–44 years,

one-half (51%) reported their

contraceptive method was female

sterilization. This compares with less

than 3% for women aged 20–24 years

(Table 4, Figure 2).

+	 The most frequently used method

among never-married (47%) and

currently cohabiting women (32%) is

the pill, whereas the leading method

among currently (30%) or formerly

married (56%) women is female

sterilization (Figure 3).

Parity and intent to have more

children

The number of children a woman

has borne and her intentions for

additional children influence her choice

of contraception (Table 5). As with age

and marital status, patterns of method

choice changed between 1995 and

2006–2010 by these characteristics.

+	 IUD use increased 10-fold for women

who had had one birth, from 1.2% in

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision. 

SOURCES: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010, and Table 4 of this report. 

0 

10 

20 

Percent 

40 

30 

50 

60 

53 

2.6 

16 

30 

37 

51 

47 

33 

25 

17 

9.8 

Pill 

25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44

Age 

15–19 20–24

Female sterilization 

* 

Figure 2. Percentage of contracepting women who are using female sterilization or the

pill, by age: United States, 2006–2010

1995 to 10% in 2006–2010. There

was a sevenfold increase in the

percentage of women who had had

two or more births over this time

period who were using an IUD, from

0.9% in 1995 to 7.1% in 2006–2010.

+	 The use of a hormonal method by

nulliparous women, either the pill or

another hormonal method, to delay a

first pregnancy increased 20%

between 1995 to 2006–2010, from

slightly more than one-half of women

with no births (52%) in 1995 to

approximately 63% in 2006–2010.

+	 Almost twice as many women who

intend more children used other

hormonal methods in 2006–2010

(11%) than in 1995 (6.0%). IUD

usage increased by about the same

amount among women who intend

more children (from 0.6% to 5.5%)

as among those who intend no more

children (0.8% compared with 5.3%).

There are significant differences

when comparisons are made across

parity and intentions for more children

in 2006–2010.

+	 Women who have had two or more

births report using female (47%) or

male (15%) sterilization to a greater

degree than women who have not had

a birth or who have had one birth.

+	 Among women who do not intend

more children, 44% report female

sterilization and 16% report male

sterilization as their current

contraceptive method.

Education and race and Hispanic

origin

There were changes in current

method choice by educational attainment

and race and Hispanic origin between

1995 and 2006–2010 (Table 6). The use

of other hormonal methods and the IUD

increased among all educational

categories, except for other hormonal

methods among high school graduates.

The use of female sterilization dropped

from 38% to 27% among U.S.-born

Hispanic women. Other changes by race

and ethnicity include the following.

+	 Pill use decreased among nonHispanic black women from 24% to

18%.
Page 8	 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012

Female sterilization Pill Other hormonal 

SOURCES: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010, and Table 4 of this report. 

Marital status 

Currently married Currently cohabitating Formerly married Never married 0 

10 

20 

Percent 

40 

30 

50 

60 

30 

19 

3.9 

24 

32 

10 

56 

17 

7.3 

10 

47 

12 

Figure 3. Percentage of contraceptors aged 15–44 years who were using female

sterilization, the pill, or other hormonal methods, by marital status: United States,

2006–2010

+ Fewer white women relied on their

partner to use a condom as their most

effective contraceptive method in

2006–2010 (14%) than in 1995

(20%).

+ The use of other hormonal methods

increased among white (from 3.4% to

5.3%), black (from 7.8% to 13%),

and U.S.-born Hispanic women (from

5.2% to 10%).

+ Use of the IUD increased across the

majority of racial and Hispanic origin

groups.

Looking only at 2006–2010, Table 6

shows that female sterilization decreased

monotonically by educational

attainment—from 55% of those with

less than a high school diploma to 13%

of women with a bachelor’s degree or

higher. Conversely, use of the pill by

women and women’s partner’s use of

the condom increased with increasing

educational attainment. For example,

three times as many women with a

bachelor’s degree or higher rely on the

pill (35%) compared with women with

less than a high school diploma (11%).

Similar percentages of women across

educational categories use other

hormonal methods or the IUD.

There are differences by race and

Hispanic origin in 2006–2010 in

contraceptive use as well.

+	 Higher percentages of black (37%)

and foreign-born Hispanic (37%)

women used female sterilization

compared with white women (24%),

U.S.-born Hispanic women (27%), or

Asian women (11%) (Table 6,

Figure 4).

+	 Other hormonal methods are more

frequently used by Hispanic (9.2%)

and black women (13%) compared

with white (5.3%) or Asian women

(3.8%).

+	 Across race and Hispanic origin

groups, use of the pill was highest

among white women (32%) (Table 6,

Figure 4).

+	 Use of the condom by women’s

partners as the most effective

contraceptive method was highest

among Asian women. For women

overall, 16% report using the condom

(Table 4), but the percentage for

Asian women is 40%, about twice

that for any other Hispanic origin and

race group (Table 6).

Combined effects of age and

education with race and Hispanic

origin

The associations of age and

education with contraceptive method

choice vary across racial and Hispanic

origin categories, and the patterns of use

have changed between 1995 and

2006–2010. These joint associations of

race and Hispanic origin with age and

with educational attainment are

presented in Table 7.

Changes between 1995 and

2006–2010 by age and race and

Hispanic origin categories—There were

several changes within race and age

categories (Table 7) that occurred

between 1995 and 2006–2010. However,

due to small sample sizes in some

age-by-race categories, standard errors

are relatively large, so some changes

that occurred between 1995 and

2006–2010 may not be significant.

+	 Black women under age 25 years

decreased their usage of the pill from

38% in 1995 to 24% in 2006–2010.

+	 White women in both age categories

decreased their reliance on their

partner’s use of the condom as their

most effective contraceptive method

between 1995 and 2006–2010.

Differences by age and race and

Hispanic origin, 2006–2010—There

were also differences in 2006–2010 by

age and race.

+	 Among the younger age group in

2006–2010, condom use by women’s

partners as the most effective

contraceptive method was higher

among black (38%) and Hispanic

(29%) women aged 15–24 years

compared with white women (20%).

+	 The pill and other hormonal methods

were used by the younger age group

to a greater degree across all race and

Hispanic origin categories.

Sterilization was used mainly by the

older age group.

Changes between 1995 and

2006–2010 by education and race and

Hispanic origin categories—Table 7

looks at the joint effect of race and

education on contraceptive method

choice. There were changes over time in
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012	 Page 9

SOURCES: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010, and Table 6 of this report. 

Hispanic origin and nativity and race 

Percent 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

27 

37 

24 

37 

11 

23 

17 

32 

18 

21 

Non-Hispanic

Asian

Non-Hispanic

black

Non-Hispanic

white

Hispanic,

foreign born

Hispanic,

U.S. born 

Female sterilization Pill 

Figure 4. Percentage of contracepting women using female sterilization and the pill, by

Hispanic origin and nativity and race: United States, 2006–2010

the usage of female sterilization, the pill

and other hormonal contraceptives, the

IUD, and the condom as the most

effective contraceptive method, and the

patterns of change varied across

categories of Hispanic origin and race.

The following changes occurred among

Hispanic women within educational

categories between 1995 and 2006–

2010.

+ There was a decrease in the use of

the pill (from 21% to 14%) among

women with a high school diploma or

less.

+ Condom usage by women’s partners

as the most effective contraceptive

method decreased among Hispanic

women with more than a high school

education from 29% to 22%.

+ IUD use increased among both

educational groups; other hormonal

methods increased among those with

more than a high school education.

Among non-Hispanic white women

in both educational groups condom use

decreased—from 13% to 8.9% for

women with a high school education or

less and from 22% to 16% for women

with more than a high school education.

White women increased their use of:

+	 Female sterilization from 40% to

47% among those with a high school

diploma or less

+	 Other hormonal methods among

women with more than a high school

education, from 2.1% to 5.2%

+ The IUD in both educational groups

The changes in contraceptive use

that occurred among non-Hispanic black

women by education between 1995 and

2006–2010 include the following.

+	 The percentage using other hormonal

methods increased in both educational

groups: from 4.7% to 9.5% for

women with a high school education

or less, and from 5.1% to 13% for

those with more than a high school

education.

+	 IUD usage increased significantly

among black women with more than

a high school education between

1995 and 2006–2010 (0.7% to 8.4%).

Differences by education and race

and Hispanic origin, 2006–2010—

Looking just at 2006–2010, there are

differences in method choice across race

and ethnicity for the two broad

educational categories (Table 7).

+	 In both educational groups, black

women had larger percentages using

female sterilization as their

contraceptive method compared with

white and Hispanic women.

+	 More white women in both

educational categories had male

partners who had been sterilized

compared with Hispanic and black

women.

+	 One-third of white women with more

than a high school education used the

pill compared with 24% of Hispanic

women and 20% of black women.

+	 Non-Hispanic black women with

more than a high school education

(13%) were about twice as likely as

comparable white women to use

another hormonal method (5.2%).

+	 Condoms were used more frequently

by women’s partners as the most

effective contraceptive method among

women with more than a high school

education in all three racial and

ethnic groups.

Religious affiliation and other

religious characteristics

Contraceptive use varies by

religious affiliation, importance of

religion, and frequency of attendance at

religious services. The percentages of

women by religious affiliation,

importance of religion, or frequency of

attendance at religious services who

used female sterilization, male

sterilization, or the pill did not change

between 1995 and 2006–2010 (Table 8).

Although there were no changes in

patterns of use over time, there are

differences when comparing

contraceptive use across religious

characteristics in 2006–2010.

+	 Among Baptist and Fundamentalist

Protestant women, 41% used female

sterilization as their contraceptive

method, a significantly larger

percentage than women not affiliated

with a religion (22%), who are

Catholic (24%), or who are affiliated

with another Protestant denomination

(25%).
Page 10

National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012

+ The use of female sterilization

increases monotonically by the

importance of religion in women’s

daily life from 12% for women for

whom religion is not important to

32% for women for whom religion is

very important. Women who attend

religious services once a week or

more use female sterilization to a

greater degree (32%) than women

who attend less than once a week

(25%) or never attend religious

services (22%).

+ Women who are of another Protestant

denomination have a higher

frequency of male sterilization (13%)

compared with women who are

Catholic, women with no religion, or

women who are Baptist or

Fundamentalist Protestant (8% to 9%

each).

+ As was the case for female

sterilization, male sterilization is used

to a greater degree among women for

whom religion is very important

(12%) and who attend religious

services once a week or more (13%)

compared with women for whom

religion is not important at all (6.6%)

and who never attend religious

services (8.6%).

+ Baptist and Fundamentalist Protestant

women used the pill to a lesser

degree (21%) compared with Catholic

(28%) or other Protestant (29%)

women, or women with no religious

affiliation (31%).

+ Of women for whom religion is not

important, almost one-half (48%) use

the pill or other hormonal methods

compared with 29% of women for

whom religion is very important.

+ Women who never attend religious

services (30%) or attend less

frequently than once a week (29%)

used the pill to a greater extent

compared with women who attend

religious services once a week or

more (22%).

+ Catholic women (18%) and women

with no religious affiliation (16%)

more frequently rely on their

partner’s use of condoms as their

most effective contraceptive method

compared with Baptist or

Fundamentalist Protestant women

(12%). Women for whom religion is

not important (22%) rely on partner’s

use of condoms more frequently than

women for whom religion is very

important (15%).

+	 There is no difference in the use of

periodic abstinence by religious

affiliation, importance of religion, or

frequency of attendance at religious

services.

Economic characteristics and

residential location

Table 9 examines how economic

characteristics and residential location

may be related to women’s current

contraceptive method use, and how

patterns of use may have changed

between 1995 and 2006–2010. These

variables may indicate differential

access to specific methods because of

out-of-pocket costs and relative ease in

obtaining various methods. For example,

if it is difficult to travel to a medical

professional to get a monthly injection,

women may rely on a method that

requires few or no medical

appointments, such as an IUD, which

may remain in place for up to 10 years,

or condoms, which are available from

local area stores. This has been

documented in previous research, which

has found disparities in the receipt of

reproductive health services among

women living in rural areas compared

with women living in metropolitan areas

(4,30).

Overall, patterns of contraceptive

use in 2006–2010 were similar to those

in 1995 across categories of insurance

coverage in the past 12 months, poverty

level income, or metropolitan residence,

but some differences between the two

time points are detailed below (Table 9).

There was, however, a compositional

shift in insurance coverage and income

among currently contracepting women

between these two time periods. In

1995, 71% of women had private

insurance the entire year, 17% of

women had public insurance, and 11%

had no insurance. In 2006–2010, 65% of

women had private insurance, 19% had

public insurance, and 15% had no

insurance (analysis not shown). The

shift from private to public insurance or

no coverage has been documented in

other national surveys, for example, the

National Health Interview Survey and

the Current Population Survey (31).

There were changes in patterns of

contraceptive use between 1995 and

2006–2010 by health insurance coverage

and income.

+	 The percentage of women without

insurance who relied on female

sterilization increased from 31% in

1995 to 39% in 2006–2010. In

contrast, the percentage of women

with private insurance who used

female sterilization decreased in this

period, from 27% in 1995 to 23% in

2006–2010.

+	 There was a decrease in the

percentages of women with incomes

over 300% of the poverty level in the

use of female sterilization. There was

no change in the percentages for

lower income women.

+	 Pill usage increased only among

women who had private insurance

between 1995 (26%) and 2006–2010

(30%). In contrast, the percentages of

women who used the pill decreased

among those who had public

insurance or who had no insurance in

the preceding 12 months.

+	 There was a significant increase in

the use of the pill by women with

incomes of 400% of the poverty level

or more between 1995 (28%) and

2006–2010 (39%).

Differences can also be seen across

categories of insurance coverage,

income, and residential location among

women in 2006–2010.

+	 About twice as many women with

public insurance (40%) or no

insurance in the previous 12 months

(39%) used female sterilization in

2006–2010 compared with women

who had private insurance (23%).

+	 In 2006–2010, levels of female

sterilization decreased as income

increased: Forty-three percent of

contracepting women with incomes at

0–149% of the poverty level used

female sterilization compared with

14% of women with incomes at

400% or more of the poverty level

(Figure 5).
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012	 Page 11

0–149% 150%–299% 300%–399% 400% or more

Percent 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

Income as percent of poverty 

SOURCES: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010, and Table 9 of this report. 

Female sterilization Pill Male sterilization 

43 

19 

30 

23 

20 

25 

14 

39 

11 

22 

12 

3.7 

Figure 5. Percentage of contraceptors aged 15–44 years who were using female or male

sterilization or the pill, by poverty level income: United States, 2006–2010

+ Women living outside of metropolitan

areas were more likely to use female

sterilization for their method of

contraception (35%) compared with

those living in central cities (24%) or

within a metropolitan area, not a

central city (25%).

+ Women who had private insurance

(14%) relied on male sterilization to a

greater degree than other women.

+ About twice as many women living

in a metropolitan area not in a central

city (12%) used male sterilization

compared with women living in a

central city (6.9%).

+ The percentage of women using the

pill increased with income, from 19%

of those with incomes of 0–149% to

39% among women with incomes at

400% or greater.

+ More women with public insurance in

the last year used other hormonal

methods (11%) compared with those

with no insurance (7.3%) or private

insurance (4.9%).

+ Women with incomes at 149% of the

poverty level or less (8.2%) used

other hormonal methods more

compared with women with incomes

of 300% or more.

+	 Women in central cities used other

hormonal methods more (9.2%)

compared with women living outside

central cities of metropolitan areas

(5.7%).

In summary, women’s current use

of contraceptive methods varies

depending on their insurance coverage,

their income, and their residential

location. Women with fewer economic

resources, as suggested by having public

insurance or no insurance, or by having

incomes below 150% of the poverty

level, use female sterilization to a

greater degree compared with women

who have private insurance and incomes

above 150% of the poverty level.

Women with private insurance and

incomes at 150% of the poverty level or

more, use male sterilization and the pill

at higher rates than women with other

characteristics. Women living in rural

areas use sterilization, both male and

female, to a greater extent compared

with women living in central cities.

More women living in metropolitan

areas rely on their partner’s use of

condoms as their most effective

contraceptive method compared with

women living in nonmetropolitan areas.

Discussion and

Conclusion

This report presents estimates of

current contraceptive use among women

of childbearing ages using data collected

in 2006–2010. A Healthy People

objective since 1980 (6–8) is to reduce

the proportion of births that are

unintended, and the use of effective

contraception is a major factor in a

woman’s ability to plan her pregnancies,

that is, to ‘‘achieve desired birth spacing

and family size’’ (13). Changes in

contraceptive method choice and use

have not decreased the overall

proportion of pregnancies that are

unintended between 1995 and 2008 due,

in part, to 1) compositional changes in

race and Hispanic origin in the U.S.

population and 2) an increase in the

proportion of births that were nonmarital

from 1982. But, changes in

contraceptive method use among

married, non-Hispanic white women

have contributed to a significant decline

in the proportion of unintended births

among this group (3,17).

Since 1990, a number of new

hormonal methods have become

available that are highly effective in

preventing unintended pregnancies

(22–24). Despite the increased

availability of these new methods,

disparities in unintended pregnancies

and birth rates across major

sociodemographic groups persist due to

variations in use and access. The

following paragraphs restate some of the

main themes presented in the report and

summarize changes in patterns of use

between 1995 and 2006–2010.

Changes in contraceptive use were

presented by comparing the 1995 and

2006–2010 surveys. These comparisons

showed changes such as an increase in

the current use of the IUD and other

hormonal methods along with a decrease

in the current use of condoms as the

most effective method used. Given that

various highly effective, reversible

methods became available starting in

1990 with the introduction of

NorplantTM, describing changes in

patterns of use over this time period is

especially valuable.
Page 12

National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012

The data presented in this report

show that teenagers and black and

Hispanic women have adopted other

hormonal methods to a greater degree

than older women or non-Hispanic

white women (Tables 4 and 6).

Concurrently, there was a 45% decline

in the use of condoms as the most

effective method used among 15–19

year-olds. The change in method choice

by teenagers, along with their increased

use of contraception at first intercourse

and their increased use of dual

methods (32), have been credited with

the recent decline in teenage birth

rates (33).

There are differences, however, by

race and Hispanic origin for teenagers

and young adult women aged 15–24

years, in their method choice that have

implications for disparities in unintended

births. Nearly 4 of 10 non-Hispanic

black women aged 15–24 (38%) are

currently relying on their partner’s use

of the condom as their most effective

method of contraception and 52% are

currently using the pill, other hormonal

methods, or the IUD (Table 7). For

white women in the same age group,

20% rely on their partner’s use of the

condom and 73% are using a highly

effective, reversible method. Women

who rely on their partner’s use of the

condom have double the probability of

becoming pregnant than those who use

the pill (Table B).

This report presents differences in

contraceptive use by nativity status

among women of Hispanic origin, an

important distinction given research

documenting changes in fertility patterns

by nativity status among Hispanic

women (3,34). Among other findings,

data in this report show that foreignborn Hispanic women rely to a greater

extent on female sterilization as their

current contraceptive method compared

with U.S.-born Hispanic women.

This report also found differentials

in current contraceptive use by measures

of access—economic resources and

residential location. Women with public

insurance, with incomes below 150% of

the poverty level, and who lived in

nonmetropolitan areas were much more

likely to use female sterilization as their

current contraceptive method compared

with women with greater resources and

those living in metropolitan areas.

Women without insurance and those

living in central cities were more likely

to rely on the condom, a method of

contraception that does not involve a

medical professional and is available

over the counter in most drug and

grocery stores.

In the last two decades, women

(and their partners) have an increasing

array of contraceptive choices to help

them plan and time their pregnancies.

Up-to-date descriptions of contraceptive

use are needed to keep pace with these

developments as well as provide

information to supplement and

complement other NCHS data on births

in the United States, for example, the

recent report documenting record low

teenage birth rates (33). This report fills

this need by using the most recent

NSFG data augmented by data from the

1995 NSFG to describe current use of

contraception both across demographic

characteristics and over time.

References

1.	 Mosher WD, Jones J. Use of

contraception in the United States:

1982–2008. National Center for

Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat

23(29). 2010. Available from:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/

sr_23/sr23_029.pdf.

2.	 Potter FJ, Iannacchione VG, Mosher

WD, Mason RE, Kavee JD. Sample

design, sampling weights, imputation,

and variance estimation in the 1995

National Survey of Family Growth.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Vital Health Stat 2(124). 1998.

Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/

nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_124.pdf.

3.	 Martinez GM, Daniels K, Chandra A.

Fertility of men and women aged

15–44 years in the United States:

National Survey of Family Growth,

2006–2010. National health statistics

reports; no 51. Hyattsville, MD:

National Center for Health Statistics.

2012. Available from: http://www.

cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr051.pdf.

4.	 Chandra A, Martinez GM, Mosher

WD, Abma JC, Jones J. Fertility,

family planning, and reproductive

health of U.S. women: Data from the

2002 National Survey of Family

Growth. National Center for Health

Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(25).

2005. Available from: http://www.

cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/

sr23_025.pdf.

5.	 Mosher WD, Martinez GM, Chandra

A, Abma JC, Willson SJ. Use of

contraception and use of family

planning services in the United

States, 1982–2002. Advance data

from vital and health statistics; no

350. Hyattsville, MD: National

Center for Health Statistics. 2004.

Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/

nchs/data/ad/ad350.pdf.

6.	 U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services (ed). Promoting

health, preventing disease: Objectives

for the Nation. U.S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, DC.

1980.

7.	 U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services (ed). Healthy People

2000: National Health Promotion and

Disease Prevention Objectives. U.S.

Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC. September 1990.

8.	 Healthy People 2020 Website. Family

planning topic area. Available from:

http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/

topicsobjectives2020/overview.

aspx?topicid=13.

9.	 Logan C, Holcombe E, Manlove J,

Ryan S. The consequences of

unintended childbearing: A white

paper. May 2007. Available from:

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/

resources/pdf/consequences.pdf.

10. Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Disparities

in rates of unintended pregnancy in

the United States, 1994 and 2001.

Perspect Sex Reprod Health

38(2):90–96. 2006.

11 Finer LB, Zolna MR. Unintended

pregnancy in the United States:

Incidence and disparities, 2006.

Contraception 84(5):478–85. 2011.

12. Chandra A. Health aspects of

pregnancy and childbirth: United

States, 1982–1988. National Center

for Health Statistics: Vital Health

Stat 23(18). 1995. Available from:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/

sr_23/sr23_018.pdf.

13. CDC. Achievements in public health,

1900–1999: Family planning.

MMWR 48(47): 1073–81. Dec 3,

1999. Available from: http://

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/

mmwrhtml/mm4847a1.htm.

14. Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Curtin SC,

Mathews TJ. Report of final natality
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012 Page 13

statistics, 1995. Monthly vital

statistics report, vol 45 no 11, supp

2. Hyattsville, MD: National Center

for Health Statistics. 1997. Available

from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/

mvsr/supp/mv45_11s.pdf.

15. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD,

et al. Births: Final data for 2008.

National vital statistics reports; vol

59 no 1. Hyattsville, MD: National

Center for Health Statistics. 2010.

Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/

nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_01.pdf.

16. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Ventura SJ.

Births: Preliminary data for 2010.

National vital statistics reports Web

release; vol 60 no 2. Hyattsville,

MD: National Center for Health

Statistics. 2011. Available from:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/

nvsr60/nvsr60_02.pdf.

17. Mosher WD, Jones J, Abma JC.

Intended and unintended births in the

United States: 1982–2010. National

health statistics reports; no. 55.

Hyattsville, MD: National Center for

Health Statistics. 2012. Available

from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/

nhsr/nhsr055.pdf.

18. Kost K, Singh S, Vaughan B,

Trussell J, Bankole A. Estimates of

contraceptive failure from the 2002

National Survey of Family Growth.

Contraception 77(1):10–21. 2008.

19. Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in

the United States. Contraception

83(5): 397–404. 2011.

20. Lepkowski JM, Mosher WD, Davis

KE, Groves RM, Van Hoewyk J. The

2006–2010 National Survey of

Family Growth: Sample design and

analysis of a continuous survey.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Vital Health Stat 2(150). 2010.

Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/

nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_150.pdf.

21. Groves RM, Mosher WD, Lepkowski

JM, Kirgis NM. Planning and

development of the continuous

National Survey of Family Growth.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Vital Health Stat 1(48). 2009.

Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/

nchs/data/series/sr_01/sr01_048.pdf.

22. Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Stewart F,

et al. Contraceptive technology.

Revised 18th edition. New York:

Ardent Media. 2004.

23. Hatcher RA. Contraceptive choices.

Dawsonville, GA: Bridging the Gap

Communications. 2003.

24. American College of Obstetricians 33. Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ. Birth rates

and Gynecologists. Birth control: A for U.S. teenagers reach historic lows

woman’s choice. Washington, DC. for all age and ethnic groups. NCHS

2003. data brief, no 89. Hyattsville, MD:

25. Trussell J. Estimates of contraceptive National Center for Health Statistics.

failure from the 1995 National 2012. Available from: http://www.

Survey of Family Growth. cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/

Contraception 78(1):85. 2008. db89.htm.

26. Office of Management and Budget. 34. Landale NS, Oropesa RS. Hispanic

Directive No. 15 Race and Ethnic families: Stability and change.

Standards for Federal Statistics and Annual Review of Sociology

Administrative Reporting. Adopted 33:381–405. 2007.

May 12, 1977. Available from:

http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/

populations/bridged-race/Directive

15.html.

27. Office of Management and Budget.

Revisions to the Standards for the

Classification of Federal Data on

Race and Ethnicity. Federal Register

62FR58781–90. Statistical policy

directive 15. 1997. Available from:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

fedreg_1997standards/.

28. Goldscheider C, Mosher WD.

Religious affiliation and

contraceptive usage: Changing

American patterns, 1955–1982. Stud

Fam Plann 19(1): 48–57. January/

February 1988.

29. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Drugs@FDA: FDA approved drug

products. Available from: http://

www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/

drugsatfda/index.cfm.

30. Chuang CH, Hwang SW, McCallHosenfeld JS, et al. Primary care

physicians’ perceptions of barriers to

preventive reproductive health care in

rural communities. Perspect Sex

Reprod Health 44(2):78–83. 2012.

31. Cohen RA, Makuc DM, Bernstein

AB, Bilheimer LT, Powell-Griner, E.

Health insurance coverage trends,

1959–2007: Estimates from the

National Health Interview Survey.

National health statistics reports; no

17. Hyattsville, MD: National Center

for Health Statistics. 2009. Available

from: http://wwwdev.cdc.gov/nchs/

data/nhsr/nhsr017.pdf.

32. Martinez G, Copen CE, Abma JC.

Teenagers in the United States:

Sexual activity, contraceptive use,

and childbearing, 2006–2010

National Survey of Family Growth.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Vital Health Stat 23(31). 2011.

Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/

nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_031.pdf.
Page 14 National Health Statistics Reports

n Number 60n October 18, 2012

and method used among women aged 15–44 years, according to age at interview: United States, 2006–2010

Age in years

15–44 15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44

Number in thousands

..... 61,755 10,478 10,365 10,535 9,188 10,538 10,652

Percent distribution (standard error)

..... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

..... 62.2 (0.79) 30.5 (1.39) 58.3 (1.74) 65.3 (1.46) 69.7 (1.90) 74.6 (1.52) 75.3 (1.53)

..... 16.5 (0.77) * 1.5 (0.34) 10.7 (0.93) 20.9 (1.91) 27.9 (1.69) 38.1 (2.09)

..... 6.2 (0.43) * 0.5 (0.20) 2.7 (0.48) 6.6 (1.01) 12.4 (1.18) 15.1 (1.59)

..... 17.1 (0.62) 16.2 (1.08) 27.4 (1.51) 21.5 (1.26) 17.7 (1.37) 12.7 (1.23) 7.4 (1.01)

..... 4.5 (0.27) 4.9 (0.60) 7.1 (0.76) 7.4 (0.71) 3.9 (0.54) 2.0 (0.44) 1.4 (0.40)

..... 0.9 (0.11) 0.7 (0.22) 1.1 (0.28) 1.5 (0.36) 0.9 (0.29) 0.5 (0.28) *

..... 2.3 (0.19) 3.5 (0.47) 3.3 (0.54) 3.4 (0.58) 1.7 (0.32) 1.0 (0.31) 0.6 (0.20)

..... 1.3 (0.15) 0.7 (0.25) 2.7 (0.54) 2.4 (0.43) 1.4 (0.33) 0.5 (0.21) 0.4 (0.18)

..... 3.5 (0.28) 0.8 (0.27) 3.3 (0.48) 4.7 (0.59) 4.9 (0.80) 4.8 (0.73) 2.4 (0.48)

..... 10.2 (0.42) 6.1 (0.60) 14.9 (1.05) 13.6 (1.05) 10.8 (1.14) 9.0 (1.04) 6.8 (0.89)

..... 0.6 (0.09) * 0.2 (0.07) 0.5 (0.21) 0.8 (0.26) 1.0 (0.31) 1.1 (0.36)

..... 0.1 (0.05) – – – 0.4 (0.20) * *

..... 3.2 (0.26) 2.1 (0.48) 3.3 (0.50) 4.1 (0.52) 3.2 (0.54) 4.1 (0.66) 2.6 (0.62)

..... 0.3 (0.09) 0.2 (0.08) * 0.3 (0.10) 0.5 (0.23) 0.6 (0.25) 0.4 (0.29)

..... 37.8 (0.79) 69.5 (1.39) 41.7 (1.74) 34.7 (1.46) 30.3 (1.90) 25.4 (1.52) 24.7 (1.53)

..... 0.4 (0.09) * * 0.2 (0.07) * 0.4 (0.17) 1.5 (0.52)

..... 1.7 (0.17) 0.5 (0.18) 1.4 (0.37) 1.4 (0.40) 1.8 (0.41) 2.0 (0.41) 3.1 (0.54)

..... 5.0 (0.25) 3.2 (0.44) 8.1 (0.92) 8.4 (0.92) 7.2 (0.92) 2.3 (0.50) 1.4 (0.42)

..... 4.0 (0.25) 0.6 (0.23) 4.0 (0.62) 6.3 (0.78) 6.0 (0.86) 4.8 (0.61) 2.4 (0.53)

..... 11.8 (0.65) 51.4 (1.67) 11.6 (1.52) 3.1 (0.62) 1.9 (0.51) 1.1 (0.36) 0.6 (0.19)

w ..... 7.3 (0.32) 7.1 (0.65) 7.9 (0.93) 7.0 (0.68) 6.6 (0.83) 6.5 (0.71) 8.6 (0.93)

w .... 7.7 (0.40) 6.7 (0.69) 8.7 (0.96) 8.4 (0.91) 6.7 (0.84) 8.4 (0.97) 7.1 (0.94)

ision.

emergency contraception, female condom or vaginal pouch, foam, cervical cap, TodayTM sponge, suppository or insert, jelly or cream (without diaphragm), and other methods.

e surgical sterilization for noncontraceptive reasons, not shown separately.

ding.
National Health Statistics Reports

n Number 60n October 18, 2012 Page 15

and method used among women aged 15–44 years, according to Hispanic origin and race:

Hispanic Non-Hispanic

Total Hispanic, Hispanic, White, Black, Asian,

All women1 Hispanic U.S. born foreign born single race single race single race

..... 61,755 10,474 5,369 5,104 37,384 8,451 2,456

Percent distribution (standard error)

..... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

..... 62.2 (0.79) 59.7 (1.39) 57.2 (1.98) 62.3 (1.94) 65.6 (1.08) 54.2 (1.54) 58.5 (3.83)

..... 16.5 (0.77) 18.9 (1.59) 15.3 (1.91) 22.7 (1.83) 15.5 (1.02) 20.2 (1.59) 6.6 (2.25)

..... 6.2 (0.43) 3.3 (0.63) 2.9 (0.76) 3.7 (0.94) 8.7 (0.66) 0.9 (0.29) 4.0 (1.51)

..... 17.1 (0.62) 11.8 (1.06) 13.1 (1.18) 10.5 (1.44) 21.0 (0.90) 9.9 (0.80) 12.3 (1.97)

..... 4.5 (0.27) 5.5 (0.56) 5.8 (0.69) 5.1 (0.90) 3.5 (0.28) 7.2 (0.88) 2.2 (1.14)

..... 0.9 (0.11) 1.5 (0.31) 1.7 (0.41) 1.4 (0.37) 0.5 (0.10) 1.0 (0.26) *

..... 2.3 (0.19) 2.9 (0.39) 2.5 (0.49) 3.4 (0.75) 1.6 (0.18) 4.6 (0.67) *

..... 1.3 (0.15) 1.0 (0.29) 1.6 (0.54) 0.4 (0.16) 1.4 (0.20) 1.6 (0.38) *

..... 3.5 (0.28) 4.0 (0.42) 3.4 (0.62) 4.7 (0.72) 3.6 (0.39) 2.6 (0.49) 2.7 (1.22)

..... 10.2 (0.42) 10.8 (0.88) 11.6 (1.23) 9.9 (0.96) 9.2 (0.51) 10.5 (0.90) 23.6 (3.62)

..... 0.6 (0.09) 0.8 (0.23) 1.0 (0.41) 0.6 (0.17) 0.6 (0.13) 0.2 (0.13) 1.8 (0.83)

..... 0.1 (0.05) * * * 0.1 (0.03) * *

..... 3.2 (0.26) 3.4 (0.46) 2.8 (0.48) 4.1 (0.83) 3.1 (0.32) 2.4 (0.47) 4.9 (1.4)

..... 0.3 (0.09) 0.7 (0.30) 1.3 (0.61) * 0.3 (0.09) 0.1 (0.05) *

..... 37.8 (0.79) 40.3 (1.39) 42.8 (1.98) 37.8 (1.94) 34.4 (1.08) 45.8 (1.54) 41.6 (3.83)

) ..... 0.4 (0.09) 0.7 (0.31) 0.2 (0.11) 1.1 (0.54) 0.3 (0.09) 0.4 (0.22) –

..... 1.7 (0.17) 1.6 (0.31) 1.6 (0.44) 1.7 (0.38) 1.5 (0.22) 2.3 (0.47) 1.5 (0.86)

..... 5.0 (0.25) 6.7 (0.77) 6.0 (1.13) 7.4 (0.94) 4.5 (0.33) 6.1 (0.73) 3.6 (1.37)

..... 4.0 (0.25) 4.5 (0.62) 2.5 (0.56) 6.6 (1.18) 3.6 (0.32) 4.7 (0.65) 3.4 (0.64)

..... 11.8 (0.65) 12.4 (0.76) 17.3 (1.30) 7.3 (0.94) 11.3 (0.97) 11.8 (0.89) 17.6 (2.87)

w ..... 7.3 (0.32) 7.5 (0.67) 8.5 (1.04) 6.4 (0.75) 6.4 (0.46) 9.2 (0.86) 8.8 (1.74)

w .... 7.7 (0.40) 7.0 (0.75) 6.7 (0.79) 7.2 (1.23) 6.9 (0.51) 11.2 (0.84) 6.7 (1.89)

ision.

groups, not shown separately.

emergency contraception, female condom or vaginal pouch, foam, cervical cap, TodayTM sponge, suppository or insert, jelly or cream (without diaphragm), and other methods.

e surgical sterilization for noncontraceptive reasons, not shown separately.

ding.
Page 16 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012

Table 3. Current use of a method of contraception by women aged 15–44 years, all women, and women at risk of unintended pregnancy,

by selected characteristics: United States, 2006–2010

All women Women at risk of unintended pregnancy1

Characteristic

Number in

thousands

Percent currently

using a method

(standard error)

Number in

thousands

Percent currently

using a method

Percent not

currently using

a method

(Standard

error2)

Total3

................................. 61,755 62.2 (0.79) 43,145 89.0 11.0 (0.55)

Age

15–24 years ............................

15–19 years ...........................

20–24 years ...........................

25–44 years ............................

25–29 years ...........................

30–34 years ...........................

35–39 years ...........................

40–44 years ...........................

20,842

10,478

10,365

40,912

10,535

9,188

10,538

10,652

44.3 (1.40)

30.5 (1.39)

58.3 (1.74)

71.3 (0.79)

65.3 (1.46)

69.7 (1.90)

74.6 (1.52)

75.3 (1.53)

10,840

3,896

6,944

32,305

7,766

7,019

8,750

8,770

85.2

82.0

87.0

90.3

88.6

91.2

89.8

91.4

14.8

18.0

13.0

9.7

11.4

8.8

10.2

8.6

(1.06)

(1.71)

(1.29)

(0.58)

(1.17)

(1.14)

(1.19)

(1.15)

Marital or cohabiting status

Married ...............................

Cohabiting .............................

Formerly married .........................

Never married ...........................

25,605

6,910

5,659

23,581

77.4 (0.88)

72.8 (1.74)

63.9 (2.27)

42.2 (1.48)

21,417

5,572

4,122

12,034

92.5

90.2

87.8

82.6

7.5

9.8

12.2

17.4

(0.59)

(1.29)

(1.79)

(1.19)

Parity

No births ..............................

One birth ..............................

Two or more births ........................

27,401

10,011

24,342

45.7 (1.26)

59.8 (1.64)

81.7 (0.91)

14,551

7,185

21,409

86.1

83.4

92.9

14.0

16.7

7.1

(1.04)

(1.56)

(0.65)

Intent to have more children4

Intends more ............................

Intends no more ..........................

30,133

30,776

49.2 (1.11)

74.7 (0.87)

17,378

25,153

85.4

91.4

14.6

8.6

(1.01)

(0.64)

Religion

No religion .............................

Catholic ...............................

Baptist and fundamentalist Protestant.............

Other Protestant denomination .................

11,083

15,399

12,617

16,876

63.7 (1.56)

60.6 (1.30)

62.6 (1.53)

65.1 (1.33)

8,123

10,520

8,785

12,181

86.9

88.7

89.9

90.2

13.1

11.3

10.1

9.8

(1.22)

(1.13)

(0.93)

(0.84)

Education5

No high school diploma or GED ................

High school diploma or GED ..................

Some college, no bachelor’s degree .............

Bachelor’s degree or higher...................

6,844

11,578

13,702

15,083

70.2 (1.61)

73.3 (1.36)

70.0 (1.36)

67.4 (1.42)

5,438

9,407

10,472

11,347

88.3

90.2

91.5

89.6

11.7

9.8

8.5

10.4

(1.48)

(0.97)

(0.96)

(1.08)

Poverty level income6

0–149% ...............................

0–99% ..............................

150%–299% ............................

300%–399% ............................

400% or more ...........................

16,695

10,554

14,992

9,311

10,279

66.8 (1.14)

64.4 (1.39)

70.4 (1.22)

74.1 (1.94)

64.1 (1.35)

12,473

7,721

11,863

7,505

7,407

89.4

88.1

89.0

91.9

89.0

10.6

11.9

11.0

8.1

11.0

(0.86)

(1.04)

(0.98)

(1.19)

(1.26)

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic ...............................

U.S. born .............................

Foreign born ...........................

Not Hispanic

White, single race .......................

Black or African American, single race ...........

Asian, single race .......................

10,474

5,369

5,104

37,384

8,451

2,456

59.7 (1.39)

57.2 (1.98)

62.3 (1.94)

65.6 (1.08)

54.2 (1.54)

58.5 (3.83)

6,978

3,433

3,544

27,105

5,526

1,600

89.6

89.5

89.7

90.5

82.8

89.7

10.4

10.5

10.4

9.5

17.2

10.3

(1.05)

(1.16)

(1.67)

(0.67)

(1.24)

(2.90)

1Women are considered to be ‘‘at risk of unintended pregnancy’’ if they were coded 1–22 or 42 on CONSTAT1, the recode for current contraceptive status. Codes 1–22 are women who are
 

currently using contraception; code 42 are women who have had sex in the last 3 months but are not current contraceptors.
 

2The standard error is the same for the percentages in the two columns—percent currently using and percent currently not using a method—of women at risk of unintended pregnancy.
 3Includes women who did not know their fertility intentions, those of other religions, and those of other or multiple race and origin groups, not shown separately.
 

4Measures future intentions. Women who are currently seeking a pregnancy are not considered to be at risk of unintended prgnancy.
 5Limited to women aged 22–44 years at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 6Limited to women aged 20–44 years at time of interview.
 
National Health Statistics Reports

n Number 60n October 18, 2012 Page 17

men aged 15–44 years and percent distribution of method used by age and marital status: United States, 1995 and 2006–2010

Sterilization Other

umber in Using any hormonal Intrauterine Periodic Other

ousands method Female Male Pill Condom methods1 device abstinence2 methods

Percent distribution (standard error)

38,663 100.0 27.8 (0.60) 10.9 (0.41) 26.9 (0.61) 20.4 (0.48) 4.3 (0.26) 0.8 (0.12) 2.3 (0.02) 6.6 (0.33)

38,394 100.0 26.6 (1.17) 10.0 (0.65) 27.5 (1.02) 16.4 (0.67) 7.2 (0.44) 5.6 (0.44) 1.2 (0.16) 5.7 (0.41)

8,431 100.0 2.7 (0.41) 0.8 (0.24) 49.5 (1.50) 29.4 (1.32) 10.8 (0.82) * 1.0 (0.34) 5.5 (0.64)

2,681 100.0 * * 44.2 (2.59) 36.2 (2.53) 13.2 (1.76) * * 5.0 (1.20)

5,750 100.0 3.8 (0.60) 1.1 (0.36) 52.0 (1.89) 26.3 (1.65) 9.7 (0.93) * 1.0 (0.36) 5.8 (0.74)

30,232 100.0 34.7 (0.72) 13.7 (0.51) 20.6 (0.62) 17.9 (0.52) 2.5 (0.23) 1.0 (0.15) 2.6 (0.25) 7.0 (0.39)

6,760 100.0 17.4 (1.20) 4.7 (0.70) 38.8 (1.70) 24.8 (1.50) 5.9 (0.76) 0.8 (0.26) 1.8 (0.38) 6.0 (0.80)

7,980 100.0 29.5 (1.32) 10.3 (0.89) 28.2 (1.36) 18.4 (1.14) 2.5 (0.43) 0.9 (0.26) 3.2 (0.46) 6.9 (0.80)

8,264 100.0 40.7 (1.41) 18.8 (1.11) 11.3 (0.81) 16.6 (0.98) 1.5 (0.32) 0.9 (0.24) 2.7 (0.49) 7.7 (0.84)

7,227 100.0 49.9 (1.49) 20.3 (1.15) 6.0 (0.78) 12.4 (0.84) 0.4 (0.17) 1.3 (0.34) 2.8 (0.48) 7.0 (0.72)

9,234 100.0 1.8 (0.37) 0.6 (0.23) 49.2 (1.76) 23.6 (1.29) 13.6 (1.00) 4.6 (0.69) 0.3 (0.11) 6.4 (0.88)

3,194 100.0 * * 53.2 (2.42) 20.0 (1.93) 16.1 (1.73) 2.7 (0.86) * 7.6 (1.59)

6,040 100.0 2.6 (0.57) 0.9 (0.34) 47.1 (2.21) 25.5 (1.59) 12.2 (1.24) 5.6 (0.82) 0.3 (0.12) 5.8 (0.88)

29,160 100.0 34.4 (1.42) 13.0 (0.84) 20.6 (0.99) 14.1 (0.74) 5.1 (0.43) 5.9 (0.49) 1.4 (0.21) 5.5 (0.43)

6,879 100.0 16.4 (1.39) 4.1 (0.73) 32.9 (1.77) 20.8 (1.44) 11.3 (1.08) 7.3 (0.93) 0.7 (0.33) 6.7 (0.79)

6,403 100.0 30.0 (2.52) 9.5 (1.39) 25.3 (1.82) 15.5 (1.71) 5.6 (0.76) 7.1 (1.13) 1.8 (0.45) 5.3 (0.85)

7,861 100.0 37.3 (2.22) 16.6 (1.53) 17.0 (1.59) 12.1 (1.37) 2.7 (0.58) 6.5 (0.97) 1.7 (0.51) 6.2 (0.91)

8,016 100.0 50.6 (2.46) 20.0 (2.04) 9.8 (1.35) 9.0 (1.18) 1.9 (0.53) 3.2 (0.64) 1.5 (0.48) 4.0 (0.91)

22,667 100.0 31.2 (0.83) 17.3 (0.67) 20.4 (0.73) 17.4 (0.60) 2.7 (0.28) 0.9 (0.15) 3.0 (0.30) 7.1 (0.48)

3,286 100.0 24.7 (1.88) 3.8 (0.93) 36.1 (2.29) 18.6 (1.75) 6.4 (1.12) 0.9 (0.47) 2.5 (0.59) 7.0 (1.05)

4,144 100.0 50.5 (1.85) 3.3 (0.69) 20.9 (1.57) 15.0 (1.50) 3.5 (0.67) 0.8 (0.31) 0.8 (0.32) 5.3 (0.88)

8,566 100.0 8.8 (0.71) 0.4 (0.17) 43.5 (1.44) 31.8 (1.31) 8.0 (0.77) 0.5 (0.21) 0.9 (0.28) 6.1 (0.72)

19,806 100.0 30.2 (1.60) 17.1 (1.14) 18.6 (1.37) 15.3 (0.92) 3.9 (0.40) 7.1 (0.58) 1.7 (0.29) 6.1 (0.60)

5,028 100.0 24.0 (2.12) 4.0 (0.82) 32.2 (2.19) 15.8 (1.63) 10.1 (1.27) 5.9 (1.03) 1.4 (0.54) 6.6 (1.06)

3,618 100.0 55.5 (3.00) 6.1 (1.41) 16.5 (2.22) 7.7 (1.44) 7.3 (1.39) 3.6 (0.78) * 3.1 (0.98)

9,943 100.0 10.2 (1.00) 0.6 (0.16) 46.6 (1.54) 22.0 (1.22) 12.0 (0.96) 3.0 (0.50) * 5.4 (0.73)

ision.

njectable (Depo-ProveraTM). For 2006–2010, also includes ImplanonTM implant, 1-month injectable (LunelleTM), contraceptive patch, and contraceptive ring.

FP), cervical mucus test, and temperature rhythm.
Page 18 National Health Statistics Reports

n Number 60n October 18, 2012

men aged 15–44 years and percent distribution of method used by parity and intent to have more children: United States, 1995

Sterilization Other

Number in Using any hormonal Intrauterine Periodic Other

thousands method Female Male Pill Condom methods1 device abstinence2 methods

Percent distribution (standard error)

........ 11,516 100.0 2.7 (0.35) 4.1 (0.53) 49.0 (1.14) 30.3 (1.17) 3.4 (0.46) 0.4 (0.17) 1.9 (0.33) 8.1 (0.74)

........ 6,866 100.0 12.2 (1.01) 7.2 (0.78) 33.8 (1.33) 25.7 (1.22) 9.7 (0.89) 1.2 (0.37) 2.5 (0.41) 7.7 (0.78)

........ 20,280 100.0 47.2 (0.91) 16.0 (0.67) 12.0 (0.58) 13.0 (0.51) 3.0 (0.28) 0.9 (0.14) 2.4 (0.27) 5.5 (0.44)

........ 12,521 100.0 2.4 (0.50) 3.0 (0.54) 53.5 (1.46) 23.3 (1.28) 9.6 (0.78) 1.1 (0.28) 0.5 (0.17) 6.8 (0.84)

........ 5,989 100.0 10.7 (1.24) 8.8 (1.39) 28.7 (1.98) 21.7 (1.82) 9.4 (1.13) 10.1 (1.51) 1.0 (0.27) 9.5 (1.13)

........ 19,884 100.0 46.6 (1.52) 14.9 (1.03) 10.7 (0.94) 10.4 (0.72) 5.0 (0.51) 7.1 (0.58) 1.6 (0.30) 3.9 (0.43)

........ 12,952 100.0 0.2 (0.09) * 50.6 (1.11) 31.6 (1.06) 6.0 (0.53) 0.6 (0.17) 2.5 (0.34) 8.3 (0.61)

........ 23,363 100.0 45.8 (0.87) 17.8 (0.66) 12.7 (0.58) 12.6 (0.47) 3.2 (0.28) 0.8 (0.16) 2.0 (0.23) 5.2 (0.41)

........ 14,836 100.0 – 0.6 (0.25) 47.8 (1.42) 26.1 (1.21) 11.4 (0.79) 5.5 (0.64) 1.0 (0.24) 7.7 (0.70)

........ 22,994 100.0 44.4 (1.63) 16.4 (1.00) 14.0 (1.03) 10.0 (0.71) 4.4 (0.48) 5.3 (0.50) 1.3 (0.23) 4.3 (0.48)

ision.

njectable (Depo-ProveraTM). For 2006–2010, also includes ImplanonTM implant, 1-month injectable (LunelleTM), contraceptive patch, and contraceptive ring.

FP), cervical mucus test, and temperature rhythm.

y intentions is not shown.
National Health Statistics Reports

n Number 60n October 18, 2012 Page 19

men aged 15–44 years and percent distribution of method used by education and Hispanic origin and race: United States, 1995

Sterilization Other

Number in Using any hormonal Intrauterine Periodic Other

thousands method Female Male Pill Condom methods1 device abstinence2 methods

Percent distribution (standard error)

........ 3,955 100.0 56.3 (2.00) 6.4 (0.99) 13.6 (1.66) 13.1 (1.32) 4.1 (0.77) 0.9 (0.35) 1.2 (0.41) 4.4 (0.79)

........ 13,118 100.0 40.0 (1.10) 13.7 (0.85) 20.2 (0.93) 14.0 (0.79) 4.1 (0.45) 0.6 (0.15) 2.1 (0.34) 5.2 (0.53)

........ 8,631 100.0 26.1 (1.28) 12.4 (0.87) 27.1 (1.30) 20.7 (1.14) 3.1 (0.48) 0.7 (0.21) 2.4 (0.38) 7.5 (0.73)

........ 8,291 100.0 11.7 (0.81) 13.1 (0.89) 32.2 (1.23) 26.4 (1.25) 1.5 (0.35) 1.4 (0.32) 3.5 (0.52) 10.1 (0.86)

........ 4,804 100.0 54.9 (2.63) 4.3 (1.07) 10.6 (1.37) 10.1 (1.46) 7.5 (1.03) 4.7 (1.08) 1.0 (0.52) 6.8 (1.27)

........ 8,482 100.0 43.1 (2.12) 11.6 (1.20) 17.3 (1.49) 11.9 (1.24) 4.2 (0.55) 5.2 (0.64) 1.0 (0.35) 5.6 (0.82)

........ 9,585 100.0 27.1 (1.51) 11.6 (1.33) 23.4 (1.47) 16.4 (1.21) 8.0 (0.96) 6.4 (0.90) 1.2 (0.32) 5.9 (0.84)

........ 10,167 100.0 12.7 (1.58) 15.2 (1.33) 35.3 (1.62) 19.2 (1.46) 5.0 (0.69) 6.3 (0.84) 1.7 (0.41) 4.7 (0.64)

........ 3,957 100.0 36.6 (1.87) 4.0 (0.76) 23.0 (1.49) 20.5 (1.70) 6.8 (0.98) 1.5 (0.45) 2.3 (0.44) 5.2 (0.92)

........ 2,134 100.0 37.8 (2.56) 4.6 (1.20) 23.7 (1.72) 21.2 (2.26) 5.2 (1.07) 1.3 (0.55) 1.1 (0.42) 5.1 (1.14)

........ 1,629 100.0 37.8 (2.91) 3.8 (1.03) 20.6 (2.29) 18.5 (1.98) 8.1 (1.46) 2.0 (0.79) 3.6 (0.90) 5.6 (1.61)

........ 27,901 100.0 24.5 (0.70) 13.6 (0.57) 28.6 (0.79) 19.6 (0.63) 3.4 (0.31) 0.7 (0.13) 2.3 (0.27) 7.3 (0.42)

........ 5,023 100.0 39.9 (1.77) 1.8 (0.38) 23.7 (1.16) 20.3 (1.26) 7.8 (0.81) 0.8 (0.25) 1.2 (0.34) 4.6 (0.72)

........ 1,099 100.0 16.2 (3.03) 7.4 (2.15) 17.1 (3.30) 43.9 (5.00) * * 5.4 (1.95) 6.2 (1.84)

........ 6,249 100.0 31.7 (2.71) 5.5 (1.03) 19.8 (1.62) 18.1 (1.35) 9.2 (0.96) 6.8 (0.67) 2.0 (0.55) 7.0 (0.89)

........ 3,072 100.0 26.7 (3.18) 5.1 (1.29) 22.9 (1.92) 20.3 (1.96) 10.2 (1.21) 6.0 (1.07) 1.8 (0.72) 7.2 (1.34)

........ 3,177 100.0 36.5 (2.96) 6.0 (1.46) 16.8 (2.14) 15.9 (1.53) 8.3 (1.41) 7.5 (1.08) 2.2 (0.88) 6.8 (1.38)

........ 24,528 100.0 23.6 (1.47) 13.3 (0.91) 32.0 (1.43) 14.1 (0.78) 5.3 (0.42) 5.5 (0.58) 1.0 (0.19) 5.2 (0.48)

........ 4,577 100.0 37.3 (2.51) 1.7 (0.53) 18.3 (1.41) 19.5 (1.64) 13.2 (1.54) 4.9 (0.94) 0.5 (0.26) 4.7 (0.86)

........ 1,435 100.0 11.3 (3.83) 6.8 (2.54) 21.0 (3.33) 40.4 (5.17) 3.8 (1.92) 4.7 (2.05) 3.3 (1.43) 8.8 (2.37)

ision.

njectable (Depo-ProveraTM). For 2006–2010, also includes ImplanonTM implant, 1-month injectable (LunelleTM), contraceptive patch, and contraceptive ring.

FP), cervical mucus test, and temperature rhythm.

view. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.

n nativity status, not shown separately.
Page 20 National Health Statistics Reports

n Number 60n October 18, 2012

men aged 15–44 years and percent distribution of method used by Hispanic origin and race, and age and education: United States, 1995 and

Sterilization Other

Number in Using any hormonal Intrauterine Periodic Other

thousands method Female Male Pill Condom methods1 device abstinence2 methods

Percent distribution (standard error)

........ 873 100.0 3.2 (1.09) * 40.1 (3.99) 31.9 (4.06) 17.5 (3.37) * * 4.3 (1.53)

........ 3,083 100.0 46.1 (2.02) 5.0 (0.95) 18.2 (1.49) 17.2 (1.43) 3.7 (0.74) 1.7 (0.53) 2.5 (0.52) 5.5 (0.96)

........ 5,775 100.0 2.1 (0.50) 1.0 (0.35) 54.5 (1.85) 27.1 (1.75) 8.1 (0.92) * 1.0 (0.34) 6.1 (0.82)

........ 22,126 100.0 30.4 (0.87) 16.9 (0.69) 21.8 (0.79) 17.6 (0.66) 2.1 (0.28) 0.9 (0.16) 2.7 (0.32) 7.6 (0.48)

........ 1,361 100.0 4.4 (1.08) * 38.0 (3.06) 35.4 (3.19) 17.4 (2.41) * * 3.8 (1.23)

........ 3,662 100.0 53.1 (2.10) 2.4 (0.52) 18.4 (1.35) 14.7 (1.22) 4.2 (0.67) 1.0 (0.34) 1.3 (0.39) 4.9 (0.79)

........ 1,361 100.0 2.3 (0.85) * 36.2 (3.34) 29.3 (2.67) 15.8 (1.74) 7.9 (1.77) * 6.5 (1.46)

........ 4,888 100.0 39.9 (2.96) 6.6 (1.29) 15.2 (1.76) 14.9 (1.51) 7.4 (1.02) 6.5 (0.77) 2.4 (0.72) 7.1 (1.11)

........ 5,985 100.0 1.3 (0.36) 0.6 (0.24) 57.8 (2.07) 19.9 (1.66) 10.7 (1.22) 4.1 (0.83) 0.2 (0.13) 5.5 (1.05)

........ 18,543 100.0 30.8 (1.79) 17.4 (1.17) 23.6 (1.43) 12.2 (0.86) 3.6 (0.42) 6.0 (0.65) 1.2 (0.24) 5.1 (0.53)

........ 1,146 100.0 2.7 (1.48) * 23.8 (2.65) 38.2 (3.70) 23.4 (2.68) 4.9 (1.52) 0.6 (0.43) 6.4 (1.46)

........ 3,431 100.0 48.9 (2.86) 2.2 (0.70) 16.5 (1.59) 13.2 (1.41) 9.8 (1.45) 4.9 (1.20) 0.5 (0.32) 4.1 (0.99)

on3

........ 2,421 100.0 47.6 (2.33) 3.8 (0.89) 21.1 (1.69) 13.9 (1.47) 6.2 (0.99) 1.4 (0.56) 2.2 (0.57) 3.9 (0.91)

....... 1,093 100.0 27.2 (3.14) 6.1 (1.48) 22.0 (2.45) 28.5 (3.57) 2.7 (1.24) 1.5 (0.63) 2.8 (1.13) 9.1 (2.32)

........ 11,516 100.0 40.4 (1.18) 15.9 (1.02) 18.7 (1.08) 13.1 (0.79) 3.6 (0.49) 0.4 (0.14) 2.0 (0.37) 6.0 (0.63)

ED ...... 13,219 100.0 16.5 (0.79) 14.9 (0.73) 31.3 (1.10) 22.4 (0.96) 2.1 (0.36) 1.1 (0.23) 2.9 (0.39) 8.9 (0.65)

........ 2,507 100.0 56.8 (2.43) 1.7 (0.56) 18.4 (1.71) 14.0 (1.41) 4.7 (0.71) 1.1 (0.45) * 2.7 (0.70)

ED ...... 1,692 100.0 33.9 (2.28) 2.6 (0.72) 26.0 (1.92) 21.3 (1.94) 5.1 (0.99) 0.7 (0.32) 1.9 (0.71) 8.6 (1.57)
National Health Statistics Reports

n Number 60n October 18, 2012 Page 21

men aged 15–44 years and percent distribution of method used by Hispanic origin and race, and age and education: United States, 1995 and

Sterilization Other

Number in Using any hormonal Intrauterine Periodic Other

thousands method Female Male Pill Condom methods1 device abstinence2 methods

Percent distribution (standard error)

on3

........ 3,507 100.0 42.4 (2.97) 5.2 (1.22) 14.3 (1.87) 13.7 (1.88) 8.4 (1.25) 7.2 (0.91) 2.1 (0.86) 6.7 (1.31)

....... 1,963 100.0 24.7 (4.27) 8.1 (2.04) 23.8 (2.80) 21.8 (2.71) 6.9 (1.73) 4.8 (1.09) 2.3 (1.08) 7.6 (1.55)

........ 7,144 100.0 47.0 (2.79) 13.9 (1.42) 15.9 (1.88) 8.9 (1.15) 2.9 (0.46) 4.8 (0.85) 0.5 (0.24) 6.1 (1.04)

ED ...... 13,925 100.0 17.4 (1.42) 16.3 (1.23) 33.0 (1.56) 15.5 (1.12) 5.2 (0.62) 6.4 (0.74) 1.4 (0.29) 4.7 (0.61)

........ 1,974 100.0 56.2 (3.15) * 13.8 (2.09) 12.9 (1.81) 9.5 (1.51) 2.7 (1.00) * 3.8 (1.44)

ED ...... 1,903 100.0 31.4 (3.79) 3.7 (1.19) 20.4 (2.39) 18.1 (2.18) 12.8 (2.49) 8.4 (1.81) * 5.0 (1.11)

ision.

njectable (Depo-ProveraTM). For 2006–2010, also includes ImplanonTM implant, 1-month injectable (LunelleTM), contraceptive patch, and contraceptive ring.

FP), cervical mucus test, and temperature rhythm.

view. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
Page 22 National Health Statistics Reports

n Number 60n October 18, 2012

men aged 15–44 years and percent distribution of method used by current religion, importance of religion in the woman’s daily life, and

ted States, 1995 and 2006–2010

Sterilization Other

Number in Using any hormonal Intrauterine Periodic Other

thousands method Female Male Pill Condom methods1 device abstinence2 methods

Percent distribution (standard error)

........ 5,633 100.0 25.4 (1.52) 9.2 (0.89) 27.8 (1.48) 21.5 (1.46) 6.2 (0.91) 1.2 (0.36) 1.8 (0.44) 6.9 (0.97)

........ 11,400 100.0 22.9 (1.04) 11.6 (0.80) 27.2 (1.03) 22.7 (1.09) 4.0 (0.49) 0.7 (0.17) 3.2 (0.45) 7.7 (0.66)

........ 10,186 100.0 38.7 (1.15) 7.8 (0.72) 25.3 (1.08) 16.3 (0.82) 5.0 (0.58) 0.6 (0.20) 1.6 (0.30) 4.8 (0.58)

........ 9,405 100.0 25.2 (1.27) 14.3 (0.96) 29.6 (1.39) 18.4 (0.97) 3.2 (0.49) 0.6 (0.22) 2.0 (0.38) 6.8 (0.75)

........ 7,060 100.0 21.6 (1.92) 8.7 (1.21) 31.4 (1.60) 16.3 (1.44) 6.8 (0.78) 7.3 (1.12) 0.5 (0.28) 7.4 (1.26)

........ 9,335 100.0 23.7 (2.05) 9.2 (1.09) 28.4 (1.93) 18.1 (1.33) 7.9 (0.88) 4.9 (0.70) 1.8 (0.45) 6.0 (0.88)

........ 7,895 100.0 40.7 (1.68) 8.3 (1.18) 20.6 (1.63) 12.3 (1.11) 7.3 (0.82) 4.5 (0.65) 0.9 (0.36) 5.4 (0.74)

........ 10,991 100.0 25.4 (1.85) 12.7 (1.20) 28.9 (1.68) 15.0 (1.09) 7.6 (0.88) 4.6 (0.70) 1.2 (0.31) 4.7 (0.55)

........ 17,269 100.0 33.0 (0.86) 13.0 (0.72) 21.5 (0.82) 19.0 (0.75) 3.1 (0.38) 0.6 (0.14) 2.9 (0.34) 7.0 (0.50)

........ 13,831 100.0 23.9 (0.92) 9.9 (0.66) 32.0 (0.95) 20.5 (0.85) 4.9 (0.45) 1.0 (0.21) 1.8 (0.29) 6.0 (0.53)

........ 1,914 100.0 15.1 (2.09) 4.5 (1.26) 37.1 (2.82) 29.3 (2.59) 5.0 (1.18) * 1.7 (0.78) 7.1 (1.46)

........ 17,359 100.0 32.1 (1.52) 12.0 (1.06) 22.7 (1.25) 14.6 (0.81) 6.7 (0.64) 5.2 (0.52) 1.7 (0.33) 5.2 (0.51)

........ 11,949 100.0 23.9 (1.68) 8.6 (0.93) 30.3 (1.84) 18.1 (1.46) 7.6 (0.82) 5.5 (0.72) 0.9 (0.25) 5.2 (0.63)

........ 1,990 100.0 11.9 (2.54) 6.6 (2.06) 37.9 (3.26) 21.8 (2.63) 10.1 (2.05) 4.0 (0.95) * 7.6 (2.09)

es

........ 12,385 100.0 32.9 (1.13) 14.6 (0.84) 21.2 (0.91) 18.6 (0.88) 3.3 (0.45) 0.3 (0.11) 3.1 (0.40) 6.1 (0.55)

........ 17,413 100.0 25.9 (0.89) 9.6 (0.62) 30.3 (0.93) 21.0 (0.79) 4.0 (0.34) 1.0 (0.17) 1.9 (0.25) 6.3 (0.48)

........ 8,843 100.0 24.3 (1.12) 8.2 (0.68) 28.4 (1.21) 21.8 (1.02) 6.3 (0.73) 1.2 (0.34) 1.9 (0.39) 8.0 (0.82)

........ 11,099 100.0 32.2 (1.90) 12.9 (1.28) 22.4 (1.55) 15.4 (1.16) 6.4 (0.77) 4.4 (0.57) 1.8 (0.46) 4.5 (0.62)

........ 18,436 100.0 25.4 (1.35) 9.1 (0.83) 29.3 (1.36) 16.0 (0.92) 7.7 (0.59) 5.9 (0.59) 1.0 (0.20) 5.7 (0.58)

........ 8,804 100.0 22.3 (1.65) 8.6 (1.26) 29.9 (1.69) 18.0 (1.47) 6.9 (0.81) 6.4 (0.88) 0.6 (0.22) 7.3 (1.02)

ision.

njectable (Depo-ProveraTM). For 2006–2010, also includes ImplanonTM implant, 1-month injectable (LunelleTM), contraceptive patch, and contraceptive ring.

FP), cervical mucus test, and temperature rhythm.

s not shown.

mentalist Protestant denominations.

er Protestant denominations.
National Health Statistics Reports

n Number 60n October 18, 2012 Page 23

men aged 15–44 years and percent distribution of method used by health insurance, income, and residential location: United States, 1995 and

Sterilization Other

Number in Using any hormonal Intrauterine Periodic Other

thousands method Female Male Pill Condom methods1 device abstinence2 methods

Percent distribution (standard error)

hs3

........ 25,669 100.0 26.5 (0.73) 14.1 (0.57) 26.3 (0.71) 20.4 (0.64) 2.2 (0.24) 0.8 (0.14) 2.6 (0.26) 7.2 (0.42)

........ 6,174 100.0 42.8 (1.51) 5.2 (0.87) 22.3 (1.29) 14.3 (1.12) 9.2 (0.94) 0.6 (0.19) 1.3 (0.38) 4.4 (0.59)

........ 4,078 100.0 31.0 (1.96) 6.7 (1.12) 26.0 (2.00) 19.7 (1.60) 4.3 (0.80) 1.7 (0.63) 2.7 (0.64) 7.9 (1.07)

........ 22,959 100.0 23.4 (1.36) 14.4 (0.97) 30.0 (1.31) 16.3 (0.87) 4.9 (0.51) 4.9 (0.52) 1.2 (0.21) 4.9 (0.43)

........ 6,687 100.0 40.1 (1.87) 5.0 (0.88) 17.7 (1.46) 12.0 (1.11) 10.5 (1.05) 7.9 (1.11) 1.1 (0.33) 5.7 (1.09)

........ 5,554 100.0 38.5 (2.36) 3.8 (0.90) 14.0 (1.48) 19.6 (1.83) 7.3 (1.05) 7.2 (1.19) 1.7 (0.65) 7.9 (1.23)

........ 7,793 100.0 45.0 (1.34) 3.7 (0.50) 22.4 (1.30) 15.3 (1.14) 6.3 (0.65) 1.0 (0.25) 1.4 (0.37) 4.9 (0.75)

........ 11,365 100.0 31.9 (1.23) 11.7 (0.81) 25.5 (1.15) 18.3 (0.92) 3.4 (0.41) 0.9 (0.23) 1.7 (0.33) 6.7 (0.61)

........ 5,167 100.0 26.9 (1.59) 16.4 (1.32) 26.8 (1.71) 17.6 (1.38) 3.9 (0.68) 0.5 (0.24) 2.4 (0.51) 5.6 (0.88)

........ 11,657 100.0 18.9 (0.94) 15.0 (0.84) 27.5 (1.02) 23.5 (0.92) 2.0 (0.32) 0.9 (0.23) 3.6 (0.49) 8.6 (0.65)

........ 11,150 100.0 42.7 (1.82) 3.7 (0.59) 19.0 (1.37) 14.9 (1.11) 8.2 (0.70) 5.3 (0.68) 1.4 (0.32) 4.8 (0.72)

........ 10,561 100.0 29.9 (1.84) 10.8 (1.13) 22.9 (1.51) 16.0 (1.08) 6.5 (0.84) 6.1 (0.63) 1.0 (0.34) 6.8 (0.83)

........ 6,899 100.0 19.5 (1.53) 22.3 (1.73) 25.0 (1.98) 16.3 (1.44) 3.5 (0.76) 7.4 (1.17) 1.5 (0.58) 4.5 (0.79)

........ 6,590 100.0 14.1 (1.95) 11.6 (1.82) 39.2 (2.12) 17.7 (1.98) 5.9 (0.93) 4.6 (0.97) 0.9 (0.26) 5.9 (0.99)

........ 11,330 100.0 27.7 (1.13) 6.9 (0.58) 27.7 (1.03) 21.8 (0.99) 5.8 (0.45) 1.0 (0.24) 2.2 (0.35) 6.9 (0.64)

........ 19,220 100.0 25.7 (0.83) 12.3 (0.59) 26.3 (0.89) 22.0 (0.76) 3.1 (0.33) 0.8 (0.15) 2.6 (0.29) 7.1 (0.46)

........ 8,113 100.0 32.6 (1.43) 13.1 (1.11) 27.3 (1.36) 14.6 (0.95) 5.0 (0.74) 0.6 (0.21) 1.7 (0.35) 5.1 (0.69)

........ 11,681 100.0 23.5 (1.66) 6.9 (0.77) 27.9 (1.59) 19.9 (1.10) 9.2 (1.07) 5.5 (0.53) 0.9 (0.27) 6.2 (0.76)

........ 18,524 100.0 24.9 (1.70) 11.9 (1.13) 27.6 (1.37) 16.9 (1.00) 5.7 (0.50) 5.7 (0.65) 1.4 (0.27) 5.9 (0.58)

........ 8,189 100.0 34.7 (2.26) 10.4 (1.33) 26.4 (2.33) 10.2 (1.09) 7.5 (0.98) 5.3 (1.10) 0.9 (0.35) 4.6 (0.67)

njectable (Depo-ProveraTM). For 2006–2010, also includes ImplanonTM implant, 1-month injectable (LunelleTM), contraceptive patch, and contraceptive ring.

FP), cervical mucus test, and temperature rhythm.

view.

e could not be calculated is not shown.

ical Notes’’ Definition of terms for details.
Page 24

National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012

Technical Notes

Definition of terms

At risk of an unintended

pregnancy—This dichotomous variable

is based on the recode variable

CONSTAT1, which categorizes women

either by their most effective

contraceptive method used in the month

of interview or by the reason they were

not using contraception that month.

Women are considered to be at risk of

an unintended pregnancy if they are

currently using contraception

(CONSTAT1 codes 1–22 in 2006–2010;

codes 1–19 in 1995) or they have had

sex in the past 3 months, but are not

currently using contraception

(CONSTAT1 code 42 in both 1995 and

2006–2010). All other women are

considered to be not at risk of an

unintended pregnancy (CONSTAT1

codes 30–41)—including those who are

pregnant, seeking pregnancy, or

postpartum (CONSTAT1 codes 30–32);

either nonsurgically sterile or sterile for

noncontraceptive reasons (CONSTAT1

codes 33–38); or are not using

contraception, but have not had sexual

intercourse since menarche or in the 3

months prior to the interview

(CONSTAT1 codes 40, 41).

Shortly before the publication of

this report, a routing issue that affected

the 1995 NSFG’s coding of the current

contraceptive use variable, CONSTAT1,

was discovered among the small group

of women who had never had sexual

intercourse, but had used a contraceptive

method. These women (about 1% of the

sample) were assigned CONSTAT1

code 40, ‘‘Other nonuser—never had

intercourse since first period.’’ Some of

these women may have been using a

contraceptive method in the month of

interview, but the data needed to assign

a contraceptive method value to

CONSTAT1 for these women are

missing for 1995. This misclassification

of approximately 100 cases results in a

slight underestimate for 1995 in the

number and percentage of women who

were using a contraceptive method.

Practically, these women were not at

risk of unintended pregnancy, even if

they were using a contraceptive method,

because they had never had sexual

intercourse, so this misclassification

does not affect the conclusions reached

about the proportion of women at risk

of an unintended pregnancy for 1995.

Sexual activity status is based on

the event history calendar series of

questions that determine months of

nonintercourse compared with the month

of interview. If a woman has not had

intercourse in the month of interview

and the 2 months prior to the interview

month, she is classified as not currently

sexually active. If she has had

intercourse in this time period, she is

considered sexually active and at risk of

pregnancy. Defining sexually active by

intercourse in the current month or the

past 2 months provides a conservative

estimate of the proportion of women at

risk of an unintended pregnancy.

Current contraceptive status—This

variable measures the contraceptive

method used (if any) in the month of

the interview. In some tables, only the

subset of women who report currently

using a method are analyzed. The

recode variable used was CONSTAT1.

Shortly before the publication of

this report, a routing issue that affected

the 1995 NSFG’s coding of the current

contraceptive use variable, CONSTAT1,

was discovered among the small group

of women who had never had sexual

intercourse, but had used a contraceptive

method. These women (about 1% of the

1995 sample) were assigned

CONSTAT1 code 40, “Other nonuser—

never had intercourse since first

period.’’ Some of these women may

have been using a contraceptive method

in the month of interview, but the data

needed to assign a contraceptive method

value to CONSTAT1 for these women

are missing for 1995. This

misclassification of approximately 100

cases results in a slight underestimate

for 1995 in the number and percentage

of women who were using a

contraceptive method.

Education—This is the woman’s

education, as measured by the highest

degree she has finished, at the date of

interview. Results are presented only for

respondents aged 22 years and over, as

many younger women have not

completed their education. The recode

variable used was HIEDUC.

Frequency of attendance of

religious services—All women,

regardless of current religious affiliation,

were asked ATTNDNOW, how often she

attended religious services.

Health insurance coverage in the

last 12 months—This is the type of

insurance coverage the woman had at

any time in the last 12 months classified

as private insurance only, any public

insurance (including military insurance)

(31), or no insurance. In the Cycle 5

interview, women were asked three

yes/no questions about different types of

insurance they may have had during the

last 12 months. These questions, and the

category of insurance they represent,

are:

+	 ‘‘During the last 12 months, were you

covered by MEDICAID, MEDICAL

ASSISTANCE, or another public

assistance program that pays for

medical care?’’—public insurance.

+	 ‘‘During the last 12 months, were you

covered by CHAMPUS, CHAMPVA,

the VA, or any other program that

provides health care for people in the

military and their families?’’—

military insurance.

+	 ‘‘(Not counting MEDICAID/Not

counting military health insurance/

Not counting MEDICAID and

military health insurance), during the

last 12 months, were you covered by

a health insurance plan that pays for

hospital or doctor bills?’’—private

insurance.

These were used to create a

composite variable of insurance

coverage in the past 12 months with

three categories—private insurance only,

any public insurance, and no insurance

coverage. If a woman reported having

both public and private insurance during

the last 12 months she was classified as

having public insurance. The number of

women who reported military insurance

coverage was too small to show

separately and those women were

included in the category for public

insurance. This coding is consistent with

other studies of insurance coverage that

classify military coverage as a type of

public insurance (31). An equivalent
National Health Statistics Reports

n Number 60n October 18, 2012 Page 25

insurance variable was created for Poverty level income—The woman

2006–2010 using the raw variables reported her total family income for the

COVERHOW01–COVERHOW04. previous calendar year in the selfHispanic origin and race—is administered ‘‘Audio Computer-Assisted

classified according to OMB standards Self Interview,’’ or ACASI, portion of

for the presentation of race and origin the interview. Her reported income, in

data in federal statistics (27). The 1997 conjunction with the number of persons

OMB standards that allow respondents living in the household, is compared to

to report more than one race or ethnic the annual weighted poverty threshold

origin are followed and the recode table for families of the same size as

variable, HISPRACE2, is used. In this published by the U.S. Census Bureau.

report, the categories Hispanic, non- Poverty level is the household’s income

Hispanic white, and non-Hispanic black, expressed asa percentage of the poverty

are shown. In some tables, non-Hispanic level threshold fora household of that

Asian is shown when sample sizes were size. For example, fora family of four

adequate for statistical reliability. in 2008, the poverty level was $22,025.

In contrast to the analysis tables, Ifa family of four had an income of

data on race in TableA that include $50,000, her family income relative to

figures taken from published NCHS the poverty level would be $50,000/

vital statistics reports (14–16) conform $22,025* 100= 227, or 227% of the

to 1977 OMB standards (26) whereby poverty level; recode variable

persons of multiple races were classified POVERTY.

intoa single race category. Religious affiliation—Religious

Importance of religion in daily affiliation is derived from RELCURR

life—is based on the raw variable (intermediate variable). It combines

RELDLIFE. In 1995, this was asked of Fundamentalist Protestant with Baptist

all women, including those with no or Southern Baptist into one group and

religious affiliation; in 2006–2010, ifa all other Protestants into another. The

woman had no current religion, she was residual category, all other religious

skipped by this question. For affiliations, is not analyzed because of

comparability across instruments, the diversity of religions of which it is

women interviewed in 1995 with no comprised (e.g., Jewish, Muslim, or

current religious affiliation were set to Mormon). Members of these religions

missing. have different patterns of contraceptive

Intent to have more children—This method use that are masked when

measure indicates intentions for combined.

additional births. Only two categories

are shown: intends more and intends no

more. Women who reported not

knowing their fertility intentions are not

shown separately. The recode variable

used was INTENT.

Marital and cohabiting status—This

is the woman’s marital and cohabiting

status at the time of the interview. The

recode variable used was RMARITAL.

Metropolitan residence—This is

based on the woman’s address at the

time of the interview and classified

according to 2000 census population

counts. OMB defines metropolitan

statistical areas. The recode variable

used was METRO.

Parity—The recode variable,

PARITY, is used and gives the total

number of live births the woman had at

the time of the interview.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Health Statistics

3311 Toledo Road

Hyattsville, MD 20782

FIRST CLASS MAIL
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

CDC/NCHS
 

PERMIT NO. G-284
 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012

Acknowledgments

The 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National

Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), with the support and assistance of a number of other organizations and individuals. Interviewing and other

tasks were carried out by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, under a contract with NCHS. The 2006–2010 NSFG was

jointly planned and funded by the following programs and agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

• Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

• Office of Population Affairs

• National Center for Health Statistics, CDC • Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, CDC • Division of Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, CDC

• Division of Reproductive Health, CDC • Division of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, CDC

• Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, CDC

• Children’s Bureau of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF)

• Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, ACF • Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

NCHS gratefully acknowledges the contributions of these programs and agencies and all others who assisted in designing and carrying out the

2006–2010 NSFG.

This report was prepared under the general direction of Charles J. Rothwell, Director of NCHS’ Division of Vital Statistics (DVS), and Stephanie

J. Ventura, Chief of the Reproductive Statistics Branch, DVS. The authors are grateful for the valuable comments provided by Stephanie

Ventura; Robert Anderson, DVS Acting Co-Associate Director for Science; and Jennifer Madans, NCHS Associate Director for Science. The

authors would also like to thank Yashodhara Patel and Isaedmarie Febo-Vázquez for their helpful contributions to the preparation of this report.

The report was produced by CDC/OSELS/NCHS/OD/Office of Information Services, Information Design and Publishing Staff: Typesetting was

done by Annette F. Holman, and graphics were produced by Odell Eldridge (contractor). Edited by vendor.

Suggested citation

Jones J, Mosher W, Daniels K. Current

contraceptive use in the United States,

2006–2010, and changes in patterns of use

since 1995. National health statistics reports;

no 60. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for

Health Statistics. 2012.

Copyright information

All material appearing in this report is in the

public domain and may be reproduced or

copied without permission; citation as to

source, however, is appreciated.

National Center for Health Statistics

Edward J. Sondik, Ph.D., Director
 

Jennifer H. Madans, Ph.D., Associate Director
 

for Science
 

Division of Vital Statistics

Charles J. Rothwell, M.S., Director

For free e-mail updates on NCHS publication releases, subscribe online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/govdelivery.htm.
 

For questions or general information about NCHS: Tel: 1–800–232–4636 • E-mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov • Internet: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs
 

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2013–1250 • CS234857