U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Center for Health Statistics 

Number 55 n July 24, 2012 This report was updated December 20, 2012.

Values were corrected on pages 9 and 27; and

Tables 2, 3, 6, and I, and Figure I, were updated to

reflect corrected percentages and standard errors.

Intended and Unintended Births in the
 

United States: 1982–2010
 by William D. Mosher, Ph.D.; Jo Jones, Ph.D.; and Joyce C. Abma, Ph.D.,

Division of Vital Statistics

Abstract

Objectives—This report shows trends since 1982 in whether a woman

wanted to get pregnant just before the pregnancy occurred. This is the most

direct measure available of the extent to which women are able (or unable) to

choose to have the number of births they want, when they want them. In this

report, this is called the ‘‘standard measure of unintended pregnancy.’’

Methods—The data used in this report are primarily from the 2006–2010

National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), conducted by the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. The

2006–2010 NSFG included in-person interviews with 12,279 women aged 15–44.

Some data in the trend analyses are taken from NSFG surveys conducted in

1982, 1988, 1995, and 2002.

Results—About 37% of births in the United States were unintended at the

time of conception. The overall proportion unintended has not declined

significantly since 1982. The proportion unintended did decline significantly

between 1982 and 2006–2010 among births to married, non-Hispanic white

women. Large differences exist between groups in the percentage of births that

are unintended. For example, unmarried women, black women, and women with

less education or income are still much more likely to experience unintended

births compared with married, white, college-educated, and high-income women.

This report also describes some alternative measures of unintended births that

give researchers an opportunity to study this topic in new ways.

Keywords: unintended pregnancy • unwanted births • contraceptive use •

National Survey of Family Growth

Introduction

This report provides some basic

statistics on the extent to which women

in the United States are able, or unable,

to have the number of births they want,

when they want them. In this report, this

measure is called the ‘‘standard measure

of unintended pregnancy.’’

The report describes trends and

group differences since 1982 in whether

births were intended or unintended and

is limited to pregnancies that ended in

live births. Pregnancies ending in

miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion are

excluded. Research that included all

pregnancy outcomes (1–3) has shown

that about one-half of all pregnancies in

the United States are unintended by the

mother at the time she becomes

pregnant, including more than onethird of live births (Table 1). Other

studies (1,4–6) have shown that a higher

percentage of births among teenagers,

unmarried adults, low-income and

less-educated women, and black women

are unintended, compared with married,

high-income, college-educated, and

white women.

Many studies on unintended

childbearing (7–13), including a

comprehensive review by the Institute of

Medicine (7) and a recent white paper

reviewing more than 60 additional
Page 2	 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012

studies on this topic (8), have also

shown that births that were unintended

by the mother are at elevated risk of

adverse social, economic, and health

outcomes for the mother and the child.

Unintended births are associated with

delayed prenatal care, smoking during

pregnancy, not breastfeeding the baby,

poorer health during childhood, and

poorer outcomes for the mother and the

mother-child relationship (7–13).

Longer-term negative consequences for

children have been found by some

longitudinal studies of unintended

pregnancies that track the children into

adulthood (8,12,13).

Reducing the percentage of all

pregnancies that are unintended has

been one of the objectives of the

Healthy People national health initiative

since its beginning in 1980 (14–16). The

Healthy People objectives have placed

an emphasis on reducing disparities in

unintended pregnancy among groups

with higher levels and rates (1–16),

including 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 one of 10 achievements in

public health in the 20th century

because of its contribution to the health

of infants, children, and women (17).

Two recent studies (18,19) estimated

the annual cost to taxpayers of

unintended pregnancy and birth in the

United States. The costs examined

included only costs for prenatal care,

pregnancy, labor and delivery, and infant

care for 1 year after birth. The studies

used different assumptions and methods:

one estimated the costs at about $11.3

billion, and the other at about $11.1

billion, per year. These estimates

exclude all long-term costs of

unintended pregnancy and all

nonmedical costs because such costs are

more difficult to estimate. Even when

the costs are limited to short-term

medical costs, preventing unintended

pregnancy has been shown to be

cost-effective. One of the studies (18)

estimated that for every dollar spent on

voluntary family planning services to

prevent unintended pregnancy, about $4

are saved in short-term costs to the

government for medical care for the

pregnancy and for 1 year of infant care

after the birth. As Monea and

Thomas (19) and Sonfield et al. (20)

have pointed out, many of these costs

for medical care are incurred by the

Medicaid program.

Methods

The data in this report are based

primarily on the 2006–2010 National

Survey of Family Growth (NSFG),

conducted by the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention’s (CDC)

National Center for Health Statistics

(NCHS). NSFG is designed to collect

data from a national sample of women

(and, since 2002, men) on factors

affecting birth and pregnancy rates,

including contraception; infertility;

marriage, divorce, and cohabitation;

pregnancy outcomes; and closely related

health topics (6,21).

NSFG interviewed national samples

of women aged 15–44 in 1973, 1976,

1982, 1988, and 1995. In 2002 and

2006–2010, national samples of men

were also interviewed. NSFG interviews

were conducted in person in respondents’

homes. Since 1973, the NSFG

questionnaire has been administered in

both English and Spanish.

This report is based largely on

interviews with 12,279 women

conducted from June 2006 through June

2010, and on the 7,643 interviews with

women in 2002. Interviewing and data

preparation for the surveys in 2002 and

2006–2010 were carried out by the

University of Michigan’s Institute for

Social Research (ISR), under a contract

with NCHS (21,22).

The 2006–2010 NSFG is based on a

nationally representative, multistage,

area probability sample drawn from 110

primary sampling areas across the

country. The sample is designed to

produce national (not state) estimates.

The interviews with women lasted an

average of 80 minutes, and the response

rate was about 78%. More information

about how the survey was planned and

conducted is available in two previous

reports (21,22).

The present report is based entirely

on the NSFG samples of women, for

three main reasons:

+	 Data for women of all marital

statuses have been available since

1982, allowing the study of longerterm trends. In contrast, data for men

have only been available since 2002.

+	 Interviews with women contain more

questions about pregnancy, including

multiple measures of intended and

unintended pregnancy, allowing more

detailed study.

+	 Sample sizes are larger for women,

especially in important subgroups by

age, marital status, and race and

ethnicity.

Limited findings on intended and

unintended births using data from the

2002 NSFG sample of men have been

published (23). Although the overall

patterns are similar to those for women,

the data from men deserve more

detailed study.

Statistical Analysis

All estimates of percentages and

numbers in this report use sampling

weights that are designed to produce

unbiased estimates for the approximately

61 million women aged 15–44 in the

United States. The statistical package

SAS, version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary,

North Carolina; http://www.sas.com/)

was used to produce these estimates.

Each table includes standard errors as a

measure of the sampling variability of

each estimated percentage. SUDAAN

software (RTI International, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina;

http://www.rti.org/sudaan/) was used to

estimate the sampling errors because it

takes into account the use of weighted

data and the complex design of the

sample.

The significance of differences

among subgroups was determined by

standard two-tailed t-tests. No

adjustments were made for multiple

comparisons. Terms such as ‘‘greater

than’’ and ‘‘less than’’ indicate that a

statistically significant difference was

found. Terms such as ‘‘similar’’ or ‘‘no

difference’’ indicate that the statistics
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012	 Page 3

(usually percentages) being compared

were not significantly different. Lack of

comment regarding the difference does

not mean that significance was tested

and found to be not significant.

Readers should note the sampling

errors for small groups. Percentages are

not shown in tables if the denominator

is fewer than 75 cases or the numerator

is fewer than 5 cases. When a

percentage or other statistic is not

shown for this reason, it is replaced by

an asterisk signifying that the ‘‘figure

does not meet standards of reliability or

precision.’’ For most of the statistics

reported, the numerators and denominators are much larger. As noted

above, standard errors for all estimates

are shown in the tables.

The 95% confidence intervals

around each percentage can be

constructed by multiplying the standard

error by 1.96 and adding it to, and

subtracting it from, the percentage. For

example, Table 1 indicates that the

percentage of births in the last 5 years

that were intended was 62.9%, and the

standard error of that percentage was

1.51%. This means that the 95%

confidence interval of that percentage is

62.9 plus or minus 2.96 (1.51 times

1.96), or 59.9–65.9.

In the description of results that

follows, when the percentage being cited

is below 10%, the text will show the

exact percentage to one 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.

Measuring Unintended

Pregnancy in Surveys

This report measures only

pregnancies ending in live birth, in part

because it is more difficult to collect

reliable data in the same degree of detail

on the intendedness of other

pregnancies (24). Other studies (1–3)

have included miscarriages and

abortions, but in less detail than the

measures shown here for births.

Standard measure of unintended

pregnancy

The results shown in Tables 1–6 are

based on a standard measure of

unintended pregnancy that has been

used in surveys in some form for

decades. Questions on intended and

unintended pregnancies ending in live

birth (called ‘‘unintended births’’ in this

report) were first introduced in a large

national survey of the U.S. population

by Westoff and Ryder in the 1965 and

1970 National Fertility Studies (25,26),

after somewhat similar concepts had

been used in surveys in 1941, 1955, and

1960 (27,28). An early version of

questions on this topic was used in the

1972 report of the Commission on

Population Growth and the American

Future, which showed that 44% of births

to married couples in 1966–1970 were

unintended (ref 29, p 164). The report

also showed that the percentage of

births that were unintended was much

lower for married women with more

education than for those with less

education.

Since the mid-1970s, information

from NSFG has been used to measure

the extent of unintended fertility in the

United States (4–7). The data have also

been the subject of many studies in

scientific journals (cited below) and a

major study from the Institute of

Medicine referenced earlier (7).

Questions similar to those asked in

NSFG have been used in studies such as

CDC’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment

Monitoring System (PRAMS), a

state-level survey of samples of recent

mothers (http://www.cdc.gov/PRAMS).

Similar concepts based on NSFG

data have been used by other

researchers (e.g., refs 1–3 and 30)

and by organizations such as the

National Campaign to Prevent

Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy

(http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/).

The standard measure of unintended

pregnancy [used more or less in this

form since the 1965 National Fertility

Study (25)] is based on a series of

questions that classify pregnancies into

three categories: intended, mistimed, and

unwanted—meaning that the woman

wanted the pregnancy when she had it

(intended), later than she had it

(mistimed), or never (unwanted) (1–7).

The present report shows two

possible ways to improve measures of

unintended pregnancy. One approach

(used in Tables 1–6) is to enhance the

standard measure by dividing the

mistimed category into two

subcategories: births mistimed by less

than 2 years, and those mistimed by

2 years or more. Researchers have

examined these two categories of

mistimed births and have found

important differences. Pulley et al. (31)

called births mistimed by less than 2

years ‘‘moderately mistimed’’ and those

mistimed by 2 years or more ‘‘seriously

mistimed.’’ They reported that births

mistimed by 2 years or more were more

common among teenagers, unmarried

women, and black women than among

married adults and white women (31)

(also see ref 6).

Using this classification of mistimed

births, the standard measure now has

four categories:

1.	 Intended means the pregnancy

occurred at about the time the

mother wanted to become pregnant.

2.	 Mistimed by less than 2 years

(‘‘moderately mistimed’’) means the

pregnancy occurred too soon—

specifically, less than 2 years before

the mother wanted to become

pregnant.

3.	 Mistimed by 2 years or more

(‘‘seriously mistimed’’) means the

pregnancy occurred too soon—

specifically, 2 years or more before

the mother wanted to become

pregnant.

4.	 Unwanted means the mother never

wanted a baby, or a baby of that

birth order (second, third, fourth,

etc.).

The basic findings of this report are

shown (Tables 1–6) using the standard

four-category measure of unintended

pregnancy. The specific questions on

which the standard measure is based are

given below. The questions are from the

NSFG Female Questionnaire;

questionnaire wording is in italics. Note

that women could be using, or not
Page 4	 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012

using, contraception at the time of the

pregnancy. For women who had used

contraception sometime before the

pregnancy, the first question is EG–2.

EG–2

Before you became pregnant...had you

stopped using all methods of birth

control?

Yes (go to question EG–3/EG–5)

No (go to EG–6)

For women who had never used

contraception, or had stopped using

contraception before the pregnancy, the

first question is EG–3/EG–5, and the

wording is ‘‘did not use.’’

EG–3/EG–5

Was the reason you (did not use/

stopped using) all methods of birth

control because you yourself wanted

to become pregnant?

Yes (go to EG–10)

No (go to INTR_EG2)

INTR_EG2

The next few questions are important.

They are about how you felt right

before you became pregnant.

EG–6

Right before you became pregnant...,

did you yourself want to have

a(nother) baby at any time in the

future?

Yes (go to EG–10)

No (skipped to next series of

questions) [Pregnancy was

unwanted]

Don’t know/not sure (go to EG–7, not

shown, that asks if she probably

wanted, or probably didn’t want, a

baby at some time in the future. If

‘‘probably not,’’ pregnancy was

unwanted; if ‘‘probably yes,’’ go

to EG–10. If she responded that

she ‘‘didn’t care,’’ pregnancy was

coded as intended.

EG–10

So would you say that you became

pregnant too soon, at about the right

time, or later than you wanted?

Too soon (go to EG–11) [Pregnancy

was mistimed]

Right time [Pregnancy was intended]

Later [Pregnancy was intended]

Didn’t care [Pregnancy was intended]

EG–11

How much sooner than you wanted did

you become pregnant? (Months/years)

Four examples are given to

illustrate how the questions work:

+	 If the woman stopped using

contraception (EG–2 = yes) or had

not used contraception because she

wanted to become pregnant (EG–3/

EG–5 = yes) and the pregnancy

occurred at about the right time in

her life (EG–10 = right time), then

the pregnancy was intended.

+	 If the woman stopped using

contraception (EG–2 = yes) or had

not used contraception but not

because she wanted to become

pregnant (EG–3/EG–5 = no), and she

became pregnant too soon (EG–10 =

too soon) by about 1 year (EG–11 =

12 months), then the pregnancy was

mistimed by less than 2 years.

+	 If the woman was still using

contraception (EG–2 = no) and

wanted to have a baby eventually

(EG–6 = yes) but not for another 5

years (EG–10 = too soon and EG–11

= 5 years), then the pregnancy was

mistimed by 2 years or more.

+	 If the woman became pregnant with

her third baby, was still using

contraception (EG–2 = no), and only

wanted two children (EG–6 = no),

then the third birth was unwanted.

The terminology used to describe

the standard measure in different

scientific journals, and by different

researchers, varies. Some call the

concept the ‘‘wantedness’’ of

pregnancies; others call it

‘‘intendedness.’’ Some call intended

pregnancies ‘‘planned’’ and unintended

pregnancies ‘‘unplanned.’’ Some also

label intended pregnancies as

pregnancies occurring ‘‘at the right

time’’ or simply ‘‘right time,’’ with

mistimed being ‘‘wanted later,’’ and

unwanted being ‘‘never wanted.’’

These paraphrases are generally

accurate. They convey that intendedness

is a measure of when (if ever) the

woman wanted to become pregnant.

This report uses the labels intended,

mistimed, and unwanted because they

are used most often in the literature and

have been used in previous NCHS

publications (4–6,9–10). The following

summarizes how the terms correspond

to each other:

Term used in Equivalent

this report term(s)

Intended Planned; at the right

time; wanted then

Unintended Unplanned

Mistimed Wanted later

Unwanted Never wanted

Alternative measures of

unintended pregnancy

The second way in which some

researchers have sought to improve the

measurement of unintended pregnancy is

to construct a completely new set of

measures (28,30–36). In 1999, Bachrach

and Newcomer (ref 33, p 252) suggested

an approach similar to that taken in the

present report:

The research evidence clearly

demonstrates that the ‘intendedness’ of a

pregnancy (as measured by the NSFG) is

a continuum involving at least two

dimensions—intentionality or planning

plus an affective dimension expressing

happiness or dismay at being pregnant...

However, the research to date reassures us

that the intentionality and affective

dimensions of the...measure are

related—in fact, strongly related. We think

this justifies continued use of the

(standard) measure. At the same

time...researchers should continue their

efforts to expand approaches to these

concepts and to develop improved ways of

measuring them.

In response to suggestions such as

these, both the standard measure of

unintended pregnancy and the

alternative measures were included in

the 2002 and 2006–2010 NSFG surveys.

The alternative measures are presented

in Table 7 to encourage further research

using them. The alternative questions

(asked for pregnancies ending in the

3 years before the survey) are as

follows:
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012	 Page 5

EG–21

Look at the scale on card 40, where a

0 means trying hard NOT to get

pregnant, and 10 means trying hard to

get pregnant. If you had to rate how

much you were trying to get pregnant

or avoid pregnancy, how would you

rate yourself?

EG–22

Look at the scale on card 41 where a

0 means you wanted to avoid a

pregnancy and a 10 means you

wanted to get pregnant. If you had to

rate how much you wanted or didn’t

want a pregnancy right before you got

pregnant that time, how would you

rate yourself?

EG–13

Please look at the scale on card 39.

On this scale, a 1 means that you

were very unhappy to be pregnant,

and a 10 means that you were very

happy to be pregnant. Tell me which

number on the card best describes

how you felt when you found out you

were pregnant.

Here, these measures are referred to as:

+ ‘‘Trying to get pregnant’’ or ‘‘the

trying scale.’’

+ ‘‘Wanting to get pregnant’’ or ‘‘the

wanting scale.’’

+ ‘‘Happiness at being pregnant’’ or

‘‘the happiness scale.’’

Note that the trying and wanting

scales both measure the woman’s

behavior and attitude just before she

became pregnant—as does the standard

measure of unintended pregnancy. In

contrast, the third scale measures her

happiness just after she became aware

that she was pregnant. As noted above

from Bachrach and Newcomer (33),

these three scales are strongly correlated

with each other, but researchers and

clinicians have observed that some

couples exhibit ambivalent, inconsistent,

or indifferent behavior and attitudes.

Having more than one scale, and

making the measures continuous, allows

women in surveys to report such

complexity while retaining the standard

measure for comparisons over time.

Questions regarding male

partners

NSFG also included several

questions about the father of the birth.

These measures can be used with either

the standard measure or the alternative

measures. Following the questions about

whether she wanted each pregnancy, a

woman was asked:

INTROWTH_1

Sometimes how people feel about

having a baby in general can be

different from how they feel about

having a baby with a certain partner.

EG–12a

Right before the pregnancy, did you

(think you might ever) want to have a

baby with that partner? Would you

say...

Definitely yes,
 

Probably yes,
 

Probably no, or
 

Definitely no?
 

Women were also asked the

following questions, from which a

measure similar to the standard measure

for women was formed for her

perception of the father’s wantedness of

the pregnancy:

EG–16

Right before you became pregnant, did

the father want you to have a baby at

any time in the future?

Yes (go to EG–17)

No (go to next series of questions)

[Pregnancy was unwanted]

Don’t know/not sure (go to next series

of questions) [Don’t know father’s

wantedness of the pregnancy]

EG–17

So would you say you became

pregnant sooner than he wanted, at

about the right time, or later than he

wanted?

Sooner [Pregnancy was mistimed]

Right time [Pregnancy was intended]

Later [Pregnancy was intended]

Didn’t care [Pregnancy was intended]

Only time and further research will

tell whether these alternative questions

are necessary to understand and explain

trends and group differences in the

intendedness of births (27,32,33).

Time periods for analysis

The questions used in the standard

measure of unintended pregnancy were

asked in NSFG for all births (and other

pregnancies) to all women in the

sample. In this report, however, statistics

on this standard measure are shown for

births in the 5 years before the interview

because 5 years of births yield enough

cases to obtain reliable statistics (4,587

births in 2006–2010 and 2,818 in 2002),

but changes over time, if any, can be

seen; and each woman in the sample has

the same length of time (5 years or 60

months) to have a birth. For women

interviewed in the first month of

interviewing in June 2006, births from

June 2001 through June 2006 are

included. For women interviewed in

May 2010, births from May 2005 to

May 2010 are included. The average

date of interview for women interviewed

in 2006–2010 was in May 2008. The

average ‘‘birth in the last 5 years’’

occurred in November 2005, about 21⁄2

years before the average date of

interview.

The alternative measures, on the

other hand, require several additional

questions for each pregnancy. If they

were asked of every pregnancy for

every woman, the interview would

become too long. To minimize the time

burden of the questions, the alternative

measures were limited to births in the

3 years before the interview.

Strengths and Limitations of

This Report

Because the data in this report come

from NSFG, the report has the following

strengths:

+	 The data are drawn from interviews

with large national samples of

women, selected by rigorous

probability sampling methods, so the

estimates can be generalized to the
Page 6	 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012

household population of women aged

15–44. In 2006–2010, a total of

12,279 women were interviewed.

+ The interviews were conducted in

person in either English or Spanish

by female interviewers who received

thorough training on the survey, so

the quality of the data is generally

very good.

+ The 2006–2010 response rate for

women was 78%, which is considered

high and suggests that the data for

most statistics can be generalized to

the population with confidence.

+ NSFG has data that allow trends and

differences to be described by such

characteristics as the woman’s age

and marital and cohabiting status at

the time of the birth, her race, and

her education and household income

at the time of the interview.

The report has the following limitations:

+ The data were limited to pregnancies

ending in live birth. Data were

collected that allow some analyses of

other pregnancies, but interpreting

these data would require further

discussion. According to recent

research (1), about one-half of all

unintended pregnancies end in

abortion, while the other one-half end

in a live birth, miscarriage, or

stillbirth. The reporting of abortions

in NSFG (and other surveys) is not

complete, so the present report

focuses on live births. However,

groups of women that have high rates

of unintended births [e.g., unmarried

women, black women, Hispanic (or

Latina) women, and those aged

15–24] also tend to have higher

abortion rates than the contrasting

groups (married women, white

women, and women aged 25–

44) (37).

+ The report is intended to present

some basic statistical facts on trends

and differences in intended and

unintended births in the United

States. It does not perform causal or

multivariate statistical analyses. The

findings shown here, however, are

consistent with the large body of

research on unintended births cited

earlier, much of which did use

multivariate controls (7–13,30,31).

+	 NSFG is designed to provide

statistically reliable national

estimates; the sample was not

designed to provide state or local-area

estimates.

Results

Trends in the proportion of

pregnancies ending in live births

(hereafter, the proportion of births) that

were intended, mistimed, or unwanted

are shown in Table 1. Tables 2–4 show

results for 2002 and 2006–2010 by the

mother’s age and marital status at the

time of the birth, her race and ethnicity,

her education, her family’s income, and

the birth order of the child. Table 5

displays detailed categories of the

standard measure of unintended births.

Table 6 contains data on reasons for

nonuse of contraception leading to

unintended births. Table 7 shows the

relationship between the standard

measure of unintended pregnancy and

the alternative measures. Table 8

displays data on some of the

consequences of unintended pregnancy

for the mother and the infant. Finally,

Table 9 presents a profile of intended

and unintended births that shows the

characteristics of these categories of

births. Definitions for some of the

technical terms used in this report are

given in the Technical Notes.

Table 1 shows the percent

distribution among all women of

pregnancies ending in live births, by the

intendedness of the pregnancy, for the

five most recent NSFG surveys (1982,

1988, 1995, 2002, and 2006–2010).

There were few changes between 1982

and 2006–2010 overall in the

distribution of pregnancies by

intendedness. For example, looking at

the 2006–2010 row, 63% of all births in

the 5 years before the interview were

intended by the mother—that is, she

wanted the pregnancy to occur when it

did. Another 23% were mistimed—that

is, she wanted to have a pregnancy

eventually, but not then. Finally, 14% of

births were from pregnancies that were

unwanted—that is, the mother did not

want to have that pregnancy then or at

any time in the future. This compares

with 64% intended, 27% mistimed, and

10% unwanted births in 1982. (The data

for 1995 in Table 1 are shown in italics

because research suggests that the 1995

data may show a bias toward higher

percentages intended, for methodological

reasons. See the Technical Notes for

further details.)

Unwanted and mistimed

pregnancies ending in live birth are

often combined and referred to as

‘‘unintended’’ births, as noted above in

the ‘‘Measuring Unintended Pregnancies

in Surveys’’ section of this report. In

2006–2010, 37% of births were from

unintended pregnancies (Table 1),

compared with 37% in 1982. Thus,

there was no statistically significant

change in the percentage of births

intended or unintended in this 28-year

period. However, this apparent lack of

change from 1982 to 2006–2010 masks

two trends that moved in opposite

directions during the period:

+	 An increase in the percentage of

births that were intended among

non-Hispanic white ever-married

women.

+	 A decrease in the proportion of births

that occurred to white ever-married

women because of an increase in

births to never-married women. Data

from the National Vital Statistics

System show that the proportion of

all births occurring to unmarried

women (most of whom were

never-married) rose from 18% in

1980 to 41% in 2009 (38–40).

Because most of the births to

never-married women are unintended,

the rising proportion of births to

unmarried women tended to reduce

the percentage of all births that were

intended.

These two changes are described in turn.

First, Table 1 shows births to

women who had ever been married in

1982 and 2006–2010 (also see Figure 1).

Among non-Hispanic white women, the

percentage intended increased

significantly, from 72% in 1982 to 78%

in 2006–2010. Among non-Hispanic

black ever-married women, the

percentage intended was 59% in 1982

and 66% in 2006–2010, which is not a

statistically significant change. Changes
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012 Page 7

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

Mistimed 

Unwanted 

1982 2006– 

2010 

Total 

8 9 

22 16 

30 

25 

1982 2006– 

2010 

Non-Hispanic 

white 

6 6 

22 

15 

29 

22 

1982 2006– 

2010 

Non-Hispanic 

black 

16 

26 

23 

41 

12 

35 

NOTES: Refer to Table 1. Percentages may not sum to total unintended due to rounding. 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 1982 and 2006–2010. Percent 

1982 2006– 

2010 

Hispanic 

11 

16 

18 

18 

29 

34 

Figure 1. Percentage of births to ever-married women that were unintended (unwanted or

mistimed) at conception, total and by race of mother: United States, 1982 and 2006–2010

among ever-married Hispanic women

from 1982 to 2006–2010 were also not

statistically significant. Stated another

way, the percentage of births that were

unintended declined significantly among

non-Hispanic white ever-married women

(Figure 1).

Second, note in Table 1 that

non-Hispanic white ever-married women

had 12.175 million births in the 5 years

before the 1982 survey, which was 66%

of all 18.442 million births in those

years, compared with 9.099 million

births in the 5 years before the 2006–

2010 survey, which was 43% of all

21.161 million births in those years.

The proportion of births to ever-married

white women decreased over these

decades because births to never-married

women were increasing, from 16% in

1982 (2.955 million to never-married

women in the 5 years before 1982, out

of 18.442 million births in those years),

to 35% of births in the 5 years before

the 2006–2010 survey (7.311 million

births out of 21.161 million). Thus,

the proportion of births intended

did increase in one large group—

NOTE: Refer to Table 2. 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010. Percent 

15–19 20–24 25–44 Married Cohabiting Not married or cohabiting 

23 

50 

75 77 

49 

33 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

Age (years) Marital status 

Figure 2. Percentage of births that were intended at conception, by mother’s age and

marital status at birth: United States, 2006–2010

ever-married non-Hispanic white

women—between 1982 and 2006–2010,

but that group accounted for a

decreasing proportion of all births.

Data on births in the 5 years before

the interview for the 2002 and 2006–

2010 surveys are shown by the age of

the mother at birth, and her marital

status at birth, in Table 2 and Figure 2.

Only 23% of births to teen mothers

were intended in 2006–2010 (Figure 2),

and 77% (nearly four in five) were

unintended. Among births to young

adult women aged 20–24, 50% were

intended (Figure 2), and at ages 25–44,

75% were intended. These percentages

are virtually unchanged from the

percentages intended by age in 2002.

The figure at age 20–24 is particularly

noteworthy because it means that 50%

of the 5.2 million births to women aged

20–24 in that period (about 2.6 million

births in 5 years) were unintended. Note

also that 51% of births to teenagers in

2006–2010 were mistimed by 2 or more

years—that is, the teen mother wanted

the birth to occur at least 2 years later

than it did—compared with 22% of

births to women aged 20–24 and 4.8%

to women aged 25–44.

Table 2 also shows births by

whether the mother was married,

cohabiting, or neither at the time of the

birth in 2002 and in 2006–2010. Note

that the number of births to cohabiting

women aged 15–44 increased from

2.998 million in 2002 to 4.950 million

from 2002 to 2006–2010, which is an

increase from 14% of births in 2002 to

23% in 2006–2010. About 77% of births

to women who were married at the time

of the birth were intended in 2006–

2010, compared with 49% of births to

women who were cohabiting at the birth

and 33% to women who were unmarried

and not cohabiting (Figure 2).

Births to women aged 25–44 were

more likely to be intended than births to

women under age 25, for married,

cohabiting, and unmarried women

(Table 2). Births to married women are

more likely to be intended than births to

unmarried women, and births to women

aged 25–44 are more likely to be

intended than births to younger women.

The differences by age and marital

status are often large (Table 2):
Page 8	 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012

NOTES: Refer to Table 3. Education is measured at time of interview. 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2002 and 2006–2010. Percent 

58 

64 67 

86 

59 60 

63 

83 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

Less than high 

school diploma 

High school 

diploma 

Some college College degree 

2002 2006–2010 

Figure 3. Percentage of births that were intended at conception, by education of mother:

United States, 2002 and 2006–2010

+ Among births to women aged 15–24,

60% of births to married women

were intended, compared with 42% of

births to cohabiting women and 21%

to unmarried noncohabiting women.

+ Among births to women aged 25 and

over, 81% of births to married

women were intended, compared with

59% of births to cohabiting women

and 52% to unmarried noncohabiting

women.

Information on the intendedness of

births by the education of the mother,

for women aged 22–44 at the date of

interview, is displayed in Table 3.

(Women aged 15–21 are often still in

school, so they are excluded from these

statistics. Also, because education is

measured at the date of interview, some

women may have had less education at

the date of the birth than at the date of

interview.) Births to women with a

college degree are significantly more

likely to be intended than births to

less-educated women. In 2006–2010,

59%–63% of births were intended for

women who had not completed high

school, had a high school diploma, or

attended some college, compared with

83% of births to mothers with a college

degree or higher (Figure 3).

In 2006–2010, about 17% of births

to women with a high school diploma

were unwanted, compared with 4.0% of

births to women with a college degree.

An additional 13% of births to women

with a high school diploma were

mistimed by 2 years or more, compared

with just 2.9% of births to college

graduates. Clearly, in both 2002 and

2006–2010 women with a college

degree were more often successful in

having children only when they intended

to have them, compared with women

with less education.

Data are also shown in Table 3 by

birth order, that is, whether the birth

was the woman’s first, second, or third

or higher birth. Among first births, 61%

were intended in 2006–2010, while 22%

were mistimed by 2 years or more and

8.8% were unwanted—indicating that

31% of first births occurred 2 years or

more before the mother wanted them, or

they were not wanted ever. The

percentage of births that were unwanted

at conception was 9% for first births,

11% for second births, and 23% among

third or later births.

Changes within categories of birth

order were generally not statistically

significant between 2002 and 2006–

2010. Changes between the two dates

within categories of education were also

generally not statistically significant.

The intendedness of births varies

considerably by the race and ethnicity of

the mother (Table 4). For example, in

2006–2010 the percentage of births that

were intended varied from 69% of births

to non-Hispanic white women, to 57%

for Hispanic women and 47% for black

women. The differences in 2002 show a

similar pattern.

Births to white women are less

likely to be reported as unwanted, or as

mistimed by more than 2 years [what

Pulley et al. (31) call ‘‘seriously

mistimed’’]. The percentage of births

that were unwanted was 9.3% among

non-Hispanic white women, compared

with 18% among Hispanic and 23%

among black women. In 2006–2010,

births mistimed by 2 years or more

accounted for 11% of births among

white women, 17% among Hispanic

women, and 22% among black women.

As shown in Figure 4, adding these two

categories together, the percentage of

births in 2006–2010 that were either

unwanted or mistimed by 2 years or

more was:

+	 20% among non-Hispanic white

women.

+ 35% among Hispanic women.

+ 45% among black women.

These differences may be related to the

lower levels of education and income

among Hispanic and black women

compared with white women, as well as

the higher proportions of births to

unmarried black women.

Table 4 contains data for 2002 and

2006–2010 by current family income,

expressed as a percentage of the poverty

level. Those at 0%–99% of the poverty

level are ‘‘below poverty,’’ whereas

those at 400% of poverty or higher have

incomes at least four times the poverty

level. In 2008 (the midpoint of

interviewing for the 2006–2010 NSFG),

the poverty level was $14,489 for a

family of two and $22,025 for a family

of four. (This analysis is limited to

women aged 20–44 because women

aged 15–19 often do not know their

family’s income. Income is measured at

the date of interview because it is
50
 

45
 

40
 

35
 

17 

Mistimed by 2 

years or more 30 

22 

20 20 

11 

Unwanted 23 10 18
 

9
 

0
 

Non-Hispanic Hispanic Non-Hispanic 

white black 

NOTES: Refer to Table 4. Percentages may not sum to total unwanted and mistimed by 2 years or more, due to rounding. 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010. 

Figure 4. Percentage of births that were unwanted or mistimed by 2 years or more at

conception, by Hispanic origin and race of mother: United States, 2006–2010 Percent 

National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012 Page 9

unknown at the time of the birth, but it

is unlikely to be different for most

women because the categories of

income are broad—roughly equal to

$20,000.)

In 2006–2010, 53% of births in the

previous 5 years to women currently

living below the poverty level were

intended, compared with 82% of births

to women with current family incomes

at 400% of poverty or higher.

Differences by income in the proportion

of births that were unwanted or

mistimed by 2 years or more were large:

38% of births to women living in

households with incomes below poverty

(0%–99% in Table 4) were either

unwanted (20%) or mistimed by

2 years or more (18%), compared with

9.4% of births to women living at 400%

of the poverty level or higher (4.3%

unwanted and 5.1% mistimed by 2 years

or more).

NSFG provides additional detail in

the intended category (Table 5) to

further distinguish the timing of births

for married and unmarried mothers by

birth order. Overall, 63% of all births

were intended, with 53% occurring,

according to the woman, ‘‘at the right

time’’ (i.e., about when she wanted it to

happen); 9.5% were wanted earlier (i.e.,

it took her longer to get pregnant than

she wanted); and just 0.9% ‘‘didn’t

care’’ whether they got pregnant at that

time. Further study of the wanted earlier

category is warranted, but for this report

it is noteworthy that only 1% of women

said they didn’t care whether their

pregnancy occurred when it did or at

some other time.

Among first births to married

women, 84% were intended and 16%

were unintended (Figure 5). Among first

births to unmarried women, 38% were

intended and 62% were unintended

(Figure 6). Although only 7.1% of first

births to married women were mistimed

by 2 years or more (they occurred 2

years or more too soon), 39% of first

births to unmarried women were

mistimed by 2 years or more (Figures 5

and 6).

If a woman had two children and

wanted no more, but had a third child,

that third birth is classified as unwanted.

Similarly, if she had three children and

wanted no more, but had a fourth birth,

that fourth birth is classified as

unwanted. The proportion of unwanted

births to married women was 1.7% for

first births, 4.1% for second births, and

17% for third and higher births. This

may indicate that married women, prior

to their third or later pregnancy, intend

to have only two children. The pattern

by birth order was similar for unmarried

women, but the proportions unwanted

were much higher: 16% of first births,

25% of second births, and 35% of third

and later births to unmarried women

were unwanted (Figures 5 and 6 and

Table 5).

Nonuse of Contraception

and Unintended Births

Among women who had unintended

births in the United States in 1998–

2002, about 40% were using

contraception, which means that 60%

were not (ref 1, p 92). It is useful to

examine the reasons for nonuse of

contraception among women who did

not use a method before their most

recent unintended birth (Table 6).

[Other researchers (41) have used NSFG

to study the rate of unintended

pregnancy when women are using

specific contraceptive methods, termed

contraceptive ‘‘failure rates.’’]

If a woman gave birth within 3

years of the interview, became pregnant

in a month when she was not using

contraception, and indicated that the

pregnancy was mistimed or unwanted,

she was shown a card listing reasons

often given for nonuse of contraception

and asked

‘‘Which of the following statements

applies to you right before you became

pregnant that time?’’

The card listed the following reasons,

and she could choose more than one

reason:

You did not expect to have sex.
 

You did not think you could get
 

pregnant.
 

You didn’t really mind if you got
 

pregnant.
 

You were worried about the side
 

effects of birth control.
 

Your male partner did not want you to
 

use a birth control method.
 

Your male partner himself did not
 

want to use a birth control method.
 

From this list, the woman was asked to

choose the reasons she was not using

contraception. A relatively small group

of women is represented in Table 6

(about 2.442 million over 3 years, or

about 814,000 per year, which is about
0 

10 

20 

40 

70 

60 

50 

35 

7	 

17	 

Percent

30 

23 Unwanted 

20 

6 

7 16 4 Mistimed by 4 2 years or more 7 

2	 

Mistimed by 10 12 11 8 less than 2 years

All birth orders 1st birth 2nd birth 3rd or higher birth 

NOTES: Refer to Table 5. Percentages may not sum to total unintended due to rounding and the inclusion of cases where 


amount mistimed cannot be calculated.
 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010.
 

Figure 5. Timing of unintended births by birth order, for married women: United States,

2006–2010

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

Unwanted

Percent

70 

62 

60 57 

16	 

57 

24 

26	 

39	 

Mistimed by less 

15 

8 7 9 8 than 2 years 

35	 

50 

16 

25 

Mistimed by 2 

years or more 

All birth orders 1st birth 2nd birth 3rd or higher birth	 

NOTES: Refer to Table 5. Percentages may not sum to total unintended due to rounding and the inclusion of cases where 


amount mistimed cannot be calculated.
 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010.
 

Figure 6. Timing of unintended births by birth order, for unmarried women: United States,

2006–2010

Page 10	 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012

+ The most common reason a woman

gave for not using contraception was

that she ‘‘did not think (she) could

get pregnant.’’ There was no

significant variation in the percentage

of women who gave this reason by

unintended pregnancy because they

‘‘didn’t really mind’’ getting pregnant

appear to be giving an inconsistent

answer. But the reasons for nonuse of

age, marital status, or income.

(49%, compared with 35% of white

However, Hispanic women were

more likely than others to say they

did not think they could get pregnant

+ The data also suggest that women

with some college education were

women and 25% of black women).

less likely to say they ‘‘did not think

(they) could get pregnant’’ (26%)

than women with a high school

education or less (42%).

+	 Women who were neither married nor

cohabiting were the most likely to

say that they ‘‘did not expect to have

sex’’ (32%, compared with 11% of

married women or cohabiting

women).

+ At first, those who said they did not

related things. Among the small

group who were not using contrause contraception before an

contraception, and the intentions

about pregnancy, are elicited by

questions that ask about different but

ception before a pregnancy that was

19.2% of the 4.25 million births each

year; in 2008, there were 4,247,694, or

4.25 million births). Of this 19.2% of

births, women gave the following

reasons for their nonuse of

contraception:

+ About 36% said they did not think

they could get pregnant (19.2% ×

36% is about 6.9% of all births, or

about 290,000 births in a year).

+ 23% said they ‘‘didn’t really mind if

I got pregnant’’ (19.2% × 23% is

about 4.4% of all births).

+	 17% ‘‘did not expect to have sex’’

(about 3.3% of births).

+	 14% (2.7% of births) were ‘‘worried

about the side effects of birth

control.’’

+	 8.0% said her male partner didn’t

want to use birth control himself.

+	 5.3% said her male partner didn’t

want her to use birth control.

Looking at variations in these reasons

by the characteristics of the women

reveals the following:

mistimed by less than 2 years, 55%

said they ‘‘didn’t really mind’’ getting

pregnant, whereas among women

who said the pregnancy was mistimed

by 2 years or more, just 12% gave

this reason; and among those who

were not using contraception before

an unwanted pregnancy, only 7.6%

said they ‘‘didn’t really mind.’’

+	 The variations in the percentages who

‘‘didn’t really mind’’ having an

unintended pregnancy show that

women who gave this reason were

more likely to have a partner or

spouse, higher income, and more

education, and were trying to

postpone the pregnancy by a year or

two, compared with women who did

not give this reason for nonuse.
Happiness when found out pregnant (1–10 scale)
 

How hard trying to get or avoid pregnancy right before (0–10 scale)
 

How much wanted to get or avoid pregnancy right before (0–10 scale)
 

Mean scale value 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

9.4 

7.2 

5.8 

4.8 

10 

8.2 

7.5 

4.6 

4.0 2.7 

2.3 

2.6 

1.9 

Intended Mistimed by less Mistimed by 2 Unwanted 

than 2 years years or more 

NOTE: Refer to Table 7. 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010. 

Figure 7. Mean scale value of alternative measures of unintended pregnancy for each

category of the standard measure of unintended pregnancy: United States, 2006–2010

National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012	 Page 11

The questions in Table 6 allowed

women to report two or more reasons

for their nonuse of contraception. If the

answers are limited to one reason per

woman, the proportion whose primary

reason was that they ‘‘didn’t really

mind’’ getting pregnant drops from 23%

(when more than one reason is

collected) to 17%, or 3.2% of all births.

Looking only at mothers of births that

were mistimed by less than 2 years,

39% of these women gave ‘‘I didn’t

really mind’’ getting pregnant as their

only reason for nonuse of contraception

(compared with 55% when more than

one reason was collected).

This apparent inconsistency for

3.2%–4.4% of births is not surprising

for a few reasons. The multidimensional

nature of intendedness (33) is being

represented: intentionality may be better

measured by the questions in the

standard measure of unintended

pregnancy, whereas the affective

(emotional) dimension may be surfacing

when women consider the question

posing various reasons for their nonuse

of contraception. Finally, when

‘‘unintended’’ is subdivided into the

categories of mistimed less than 2 years

and mistimed 2 years or more, those

who were most likely to give this reason

were those whose pregnancy was

moderately mistimed (it occurred less

than 2 years too soon). This shows the

value of having multiple types of

measures and developing meaningful

subcategories. Research using the

alternative measures discussed in this

report may shed further light on findings

such as this.

The findings in Table 6 are similar

to those in a study of data collected

from 26 states in 2000–2002 (42), which

strengthens the findings of both studies.

Both studies were based on large

samples of women and used similar lists

of reasons for nonuse of contraception.

The present study, however, advances

research in this area by including

measures to classify mistimed births as

mistimed by less than 2 years or by 2

years or more, and it also includes ‘‘I

did not expect to have sex’’ as a reason

for nonuse—the third most-cited reason

in this report.

Alternative Measures of

Unintended Pregnancy

This section compares the results

for intendedness of pregnancies, using

the standard measure of unintended

pregnancy (Tables 1–6) and the

alternative measures based on the

attitudinal scale questions described in

the ‘‘Methods’’ section. As discussed

earlier, the alternative measures were

added to NSFG to provide a different

approach for measuring intendedness.

This approach has at least three

distinctive features:

+	 Numerical scales are used to indicate

the strength of feelings.

+	 Separate questions are asked about

three of the specific elements that are

thought to contribute to a pregnancy

being intended or unintended (30,33–

36).

+	 Questions are added about the

woman’s partner’s attitudes about the

pregnancy.

Based on the observations of

Bachrach and Newcomer (33) and

others (6,34–36), positive feelings

toward the pregnancy on the standard

measure (an intended pregnancy) should

be associated with positive feelings on

each of the alternative measures:

wanting, trying, and happiness (with

values of, for example, 7–10).

Conversely, negative feelings on the

standard measure (unwanted, or

mistimed by 2 years or more) should be

associated with negative feelings on

each of the alternative measures (with

values of, for example, 0–3).

Table 7 displays the average (mean)

value of the three attitudinal scales

described earlier that measure these

important elements of intendedness.

Table 7 and Figure 7 show that these

three scales and the standard measure of

intendedness are strongly correlated:

they measure women’s positive and

negative feelings toward pregnancies,

but each scale measures a slightly

different aspect of those feelings

(30,32,36).

The first scale, ‘‘wanted to get

pregnant,’’ measures how much the

woman wanted (i.e., desired) to get (or

to avoid getting) pregnant just before

she got pregnant. Note that ‘‘wanted’’ as

used in this scale is different from

‘‘wanted’’ as one of the categories of the

standard measure (see the ‘‘Measuring

Unintended Pregnancies in Surveys’’

section of this report). The category

‘‘intended’’ is the result of the series of

questions involving contraceptive use,

pregnancy timing, and future
Page 12	 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012

childbearing plans. Despite these

differences, note that women who

reported that their pregnancy was

intended (on the standard four-category

measure) rated their pregnancy at 8.2 on

this 0–10 scale. This high rating reflects

agreement that a pregnancy that was

intended on the standard measure also

rates high on the 0–10 wanting (desire

for pregnancy) scale. In contrast, those

who reported that the pregnancy was

unwanted on the standard measure rated

the pregnancy at 1.9, on average, on the

wanting scale, indicating they did not

desire to become pregnant.

Looking at the second scale,

‘‘trying to become pregnant’’ (how hard

the woman was trying to get pregnant or

to avoid pregnancy), intended

pregnancies (on the standard measure)

had a mean rating of 7.5, compared with

2.6 for unwanted pregnancies. This

shows agreement between the standard

measure and the alternative measure, but

the difference between 7.5 and 2.6 (4.9)

is not as large as for the wanting scale

measures of 8.2 and 1.9, a difference of

6.3. These results suggest that the

wanting and trying scales (measures of

the woman’s desire and behavior) are

strongly but not perfectly correlated, as

suggested by Bachrach and

Newcomer (33) and by Miller and

Jones (36). Further research with these

questions will likely focus on the

circumstances under which women give

divergent answers on the standard

measure and the alternative measures of

unintended pregnancy.

Looking at the average values for

the third scale, ‘‘happy to be pregnant’’

(how happy she was when she found

out she was pregnant), the same pattern

emerges: pregnancies that were intended

on the standard measure were rated 9.4

out of 10, whereas unwanted

pregnancies were rated 4.8 on average.

(The average values of the happiness

scale are slightly higher than those of

the wanted or trying scales in part

because the happiness scale has values

of 1–10, whereas the other two scales

have values of 0–10.)

The association between the

mother’s desire to have a child with the

baby’s father and her perception of his

intendedness of the pregnancy are also

shown in Table 7. Women who said that

they definitely wanted to have a baby

with that partner rated their desire for

the pregnancy at 7.3 on average, a

positive rating. Those who said they

definitely did not want a baby with that

partner rated their wanting of the

pregnancy at 1.8 on average, a strongly

negative rating equivalent to saying that

she did not want the baby.

These results reflect the close

relationship between wanting a baby

with a specific partner and intending to

become pregnant using the standard

measure. The findings are similar for

both the trying to get pregnant and the

happy to be pregnant scales: women

who wanted to get pregnant with a

particular partner were trying harder to

become pregnant and were happier

when they found out they were

pregnant, that is, they rated the

pregnancy more positively than those

who did not want to have a baby with

that partner.

Finally, the ratings mothers gave to

their pregnancies are shown in Table 7

by whether the woman thought the

baby’s father wanted the pregnancy. If

she thought her partner intended the

pregnancy, the average ‘‘wanting to get

pregnant’’ rating was 7.9, strongly

positive; if she thought he did not want

the pregnancy, her average rating was

2.7, a strongly negative rating.

It is too soon to say definitely

whether the alternative measures

will prove useful or necessary for

research in the long run, but the

results in Tables 1–7 suggest that:

+	 Most intended births are intended

because the mother intended (using

the standard measure) to have a baby

when she did (Tables 1–5); she tried

to have the pregnancy then, she

wanted to have a baby with that

partner as the father, and he also

wanted the baby at that time

(Table 7).

+	 For many unintended births, one or

more of these conditions does not

hold. For example, an unintended

birth is one in which the timing of

the birth was not right for the woman

(Tables 1–5), or she did not try to

become pregnant (Table 7), or she did

not want to have the baby with that

partner, or she knew the father did

not want the birth (Table 7).

Further research will be needed to

confirm or refine these hypotheses. The

main purpose of including these

measures in the present report is to

encourage the research community to

use them in further research with NSFG

data. Future research may focus on the

circumstances under which the measures

diverge, conflict, or reflect ambivalence

toward having a baby. But having these

new measures available should make it

possible to measure these circumstances

and to find out how common they are

and what factors are correlated with

them (34–36).

Correlates of Unintended

Pregnancy

The introduction to this report

summarized some of the findings of the

extensive body of literature on the

consequences of unintended pregnancy

for the baby and the mother. This

research suggests that if a woman has

an unintended pregnancy, she may be

unprepared for it and thus may be

slower to obtain needed prenatal care

and less aware of other changes she

should make (such as improving

nutrition or quitting smoking), compared

with women with intended pregnancies.

These factors may result in less

favorable outcomes, such as those

shown in Table 8.

The results shown in Table 8 are

cross-tabulations without statistical

controls (and deserve careful replication

with controls), but many previous

studies have shown that whether a

pregnancy was intended or unintended is

related to these characteristics of the

pregnancy, after controlling

appropriately for the mother’s age, race,

marital status, and other variables

(7–13). In Table 8, these measures are

shown with the following new data from

the 2006–2010 NSFG:

+ When prenatal care began.

+	 Whether the mother smoked

cigarettes during the pregnancy.

+ How the delivery was paid for.
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012 Page 13

+ Whether the mother breastfed the

baby.

+ The baby’s birthweight.

The first measure shown in Table 8

is the timing of prenatal care. The

measure used is the percentage of

women who did not get any prenatal

care in the first trimester or who did not

get any prenatal care at all. Receiving

late or no prenatal care has been

associated with adverse child outcomes,

including low birthweight, neonatal

mortality, and increased health care

costs for the infant, at birth and

later (6,9,10,43–45). Among intended

pregnancies, 8.2% of the mothers first

received prenatal care after the first

trimester or received no prenatal care at

all. For unintended pregnancies, this

proportion was 19%—more than double.

So women who were not intending to

get pregnant and were therefore not

prepared for pregnancy (i.e., they had

unwanted or mistimed pregnancies)

were more than twice as likely to obtain

prenatal care late or not at all, thus

delaying medical treatment and advice

as well.

The second measure shown in

Table 8 is smoking during pregnancy.

Numerous studies (10,45–48) show that

smoking during pregnancy puts the

mother and baby at risk for many health

problems, including low birthweight,

preterm birth, miscarriage, infant death,

and illness during childhood. About

10% of mothers with intended

pregnancies smoked during pregnancy,

compared with 16% if the pregnancy

was unintended, including 18% of

unwanted pregnancies. This is consistent

with the findings on prenatal care: if

prenatal care is delayed, medical advice

to stop smoking would also be delayed.

The third measure in Table 8 is

whether the delivery was paid for by

Medicaid alone or in combination with

other funds. It is not feasible for NSFG

to collect a history of how much income

the woman had at various points in the

past, so there is no direct measure of the

mother’s household income at the time

of the birth. But having the birth paid

for by Medicaid indicates that the

mother’s household had a low income at

the time of the birth, and thus indicates

that the household had fewer resources

to care for the child. Use of Medicaid is

also an indicator of public costs for the

pregnancy (18–20). About 35% of the

deliveries of intended pregnancies were

paid for by Medicaid, compared with

65% of the deliveries of unintended

pregnancies. Thus, unintended

pregnancies tend to occur to mothers

with fewer resources to support the

child, and therefore result in direct

public health care costs through

Medicaid more often than intended

pregnancies.

The fourth measure in Table 8 is

whether the mother breastfed the baby

at all. Breastfeeding has been shown to

reduce an infant’s risk of ear infections,

vomiting, diarrhea, pneumonia, and

sudden infant death syndrome (49).

Breastfeeding also benefits the woman

by reducing her risk of type 2 diabetes

and breast and ovarian cancers (49).

Because of the short- and long-term

benefits to both the child and the

mother, the American Academy of

Pediatrics in 2005 recommended that all

infants be breastfed (50). In 2006–2010,

26% of babies from intended births

were not breastfed at all, compared with

39% of babies from unintended births

(Table 8).

Finally, Table 8 shows that 7.2% of

intended births were low birthweight

(less than 2,500 grams or 5.5 pounds),

compared with 12% of unwanted

pregnancies. The other differences are

small and are not significant in this

sample.

Thus, delayed or no prenatal care,

smoking during pregnancy, Medicaid

payment for delivery, and not

breastfeeding are all more common

among pregnancies that were unwanted

or mistimed by 2 years or more than

among intended pregnancies. Based as

they are on the most recent data, the

findings in Table 8 are consistent with

earlier studies that used older data and

multivariate statistical models and found

higher risks of these characteristics for

unintended pregnancies than for

intended pregnancies. Research using

NSFG and employing multivariate

controls would be a logical next step to

confirm these findings.

A Profile of Unintended

Pregnancies in 2006–2010

Tables 1–8 showed the percentages

of births to women in certain categories

that were intended or unintended.

Table 9 shows the reverse: profiles of

the percentages of mothers of intended

and unintended births who were in

certain age, marital status, and other

categories.

The data by age in Table 9 show

that in 2006–2010, 22% of unintended

births were to teenage mothers (aged

15–19 at the birth), 68% to women aged

20–34, and 9% to women aged 35 and

over at the time of the birth. Among

intended births, 4% were to teenagers,

79% to women aged 20–34, and 17% to

women aged 35–44.

Based on the data by marital status,

unmarried women had 62% of

unintended births and only 27% of

intended births. Conversely, married

women had 38% of unintended births

and 73% of intended births.

By race and ethnicity, non-Hispanic

white women had 45% of unintended

births, whereas Hispanic women had

25% and black women had 22%. In

contrast, non-Hispanic white women had

60% of intended births and black

women had just 11%.

Women with incomes below 150%

of the poverty level had 56% of

unintended births, but they had just 35%

of intended births. Fourteen percent of

unintended births were to women with

incomes three times the poverty level or

higher, but about 35% of intended births

were to this group.

Discussion

The purpose of this report is to

provide reliable national estimates of

trends and group differences in intended

and unintended births in the United

States in 1982–2010. Data from national

samples of women interviewed in

person in their homes are analyzed. The

report provides a very general overview

of these important topics, and it is

expected that researchers will use NSFG

data to explore these topics further. This

section summarizes the three most

important findings of the report and then
Page 14	 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012

discusses how the findings are related to

teenage birth rates, the use of

sterilization for contraception, and

overall birth rates.

1.	 Trends—The proportion of births that

were unintended declined among

ever-married non-Hispanic white

women between 1982 and 2006–

2010. However, this group accounted

for 66% of all births in 1982 and

only 43% of all births in 2006–2010.

The other groups (including nevermarried women and Hispanic women)

had a growing number and percentage

of births, and their births were more

likely to be unintended (6,31). As a

result, the percentage of all births

that were unintended did not decline

significantly between 1982 and 2010

(Table 1).

2.	 Differences—Unintended births occur

disproportionately among nonHispanic black women, unmarried

women, and women with less

income and education. For example,

the proportion of all births that were

unwanted or mistimed by 2 years or

more was 7% for college graduates

compared with 35% for women who

did not complete high school

(Table 3). This same percentage was

9% for women with incomes of

400% of poverty level or higher

compared with 38% for women with

incomes below poverty (0%–99%)

(Table 4). Thus, the experience of

unintended fertility for women at

different education and income

levels remains very divergent, as it

was in 2002 (Tables 3 and 4) and in

the 1970s and 1980s (4–7,25,26).

3.	 First births—Only 8.8% of first

births to married women are

unwanted or occur at least 2 years

before they were wanted, compared

with 55% of first births to unmarried

women (Table 5). This works out to

nearly one-third of all first births in

the United States; that is, 31%, or

more than 500,000 first births per

year (40), are either unwanted or

mistimed by 2 years or more

(Table 3).

Effects of Unintended Births

on the Teenage Birth Rate

A useful way to illustrate the effects

of unintended fertility is to look at the

effect of unintended births on teen birth

rates. Note that only 22.8% of births to

teenage mothers are from intended

pregnancies (Table 2). The teen birth

rate in the United States in 2008 was

40.2 births per 1,000 women aged

15–19. If U.S. teenagers had only births

that they intended to have (and

unintended births to teens were

postponed until after age 20), then the

U.S. teen birth rate would be just 22.8%

of 40.2, or 9.2 per 1,000 (51). If this

happened, teen births would drop from

11% of all births in the United States to

just 4% of all births (Table 9).

Effects of Unintended Births

on Contraceptive Choice

A recent report from NSFG (52)

showed that female sterilization was

the most used method of birth control

among black, Hispanic, low-income,

and less-educated women in the

United States. Using multivariate

statistical techniques, a recent

analysis (53) found that the more

frequent experience of unintended births

among black and Hispanic women

accounts for their more frequent use of

female sterilization as a method of birth

control. This finding is consistent with

earlier research (54). Unintended births

are more common among women with

low levels of education and income.

Previous research has shown that those

groups use the pill and other birth

control methods less effectively than

women with higher levels of education

and income (41).

Effects of Unwanted Births

on Birth Rates

In 2008 (the midpoint of

interviewing for the 2006–2010 survey),

there were 4,247,694 births in the

United States (40). An estimated 13.8%

were unwanted by their mothers

(Table 1), that is, the mother did not

want to have a birth at that time or at

any time in the future. If women

in the United States were able to avoid

pregnancies ending in unwanted

births—a subset of unintended

births—the number of births would drop

by about 586,000 per year, from

4,247,694 to about 3,661,694 (or from

68.1 births per 1,000 women aged

15–44, to 58.7). Two-thirds (68%) of

these births averted would be to

unmarried women.

Conclusions

Highlights of findings on intended

and unintended births in the United

States since 1982 have been described

with the goal of encouraging researchers

to use NSFG data to further examine

these important issues. Despite a

decrease in unintended births to

ever-married non-Hispanic white

women, the growing proportion of births

to unmarried women, most of which

were unintended, has kept the overall

proportion of unintended births

approximately constant. Large and

persistent differences are seen in

unintended births by income and

education. Most births to teenagers and

to unmarried adult women are

unintended. Underestimating the risk of

pregnancy is the most common reason

for not using contraception that leads to

unintended pregnancy (42,55).

References

1.	 Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Disparities

in rates of unintended pregnancy in

the United States, 1994 and 2001.

Perspect Sex Reprod Health

38(2):90–6. 2006.

2.	 Finer LB, Zolna MR. Unintended

pregnancy in the United States:

Incidence and disparities, 2006.

Contraception 84(5):478–85. 2011.

3.	 Henshaw SK. Unintended pregnancy

in the United States. Fam Plann

Perspect 30(1):24–9. 1998.

4.	 Munson, ML. Wanted and unwanted

births reported by mothers 15–44

years of age: United States, 1973.

Advance data from vital and health

statistics; no 9. Hyattsville, MD:

National Center for Health Statistics.

1977. Available from:

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

ad009acc.pdf.
 
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012	 Page 15

5.	 Williams LB, Pratt WF. Wanted and

unwanted childbearing in the United

States: 1973–88. Advance data from

vital and health statistics; no 189.

Hyattsville, MD: National Center for

Health Statistics. 1990. Available

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

ad/ad189.pdf.

6.	 Chandra A, Martinez GM, Mosher

WD, et al. 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;

tables 20–29. Available from:

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

sr_23/sr23_025.pdf.

7.	 Brown SS, Eisenberg L. The best

intentions: Unintended pregnancy and

the well-being of children and

families. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press. 1995.

8.	 Logan C, Holcombe E, Manlove J,

Ryan S. The consequences of

unintended childbearing: A white

paper. Washington, DC: The

National Campaign to Prevent

Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

2007. Available from:

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/

resources/pdf/consequences.pdf.

9.	 Pamuk ER, Mosher WD. Health

aspects of pregnancy and childbirth:

United States, 1982. National Center

for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat

23(16). 1988. Available from:

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

sr_23/sr23_016.pdf.

10. Chandra A. Health aspects of

pregnancy and childbirth: United

States, 1982–88. 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.

11. Taylor JS, Cabral HJ. Are women

with an unintended pregnancy less

likely to breastfeed? J Fam Pract

51(5):431–6. 2002.

12. David HP. Born unwanted, 35 years

later: The Prague Study. Reprod

Health Matters 14(27):181–90. 2006.

13. Barber JS, Axinn WG, Thornton A.

Unwanted childbearing, health, and

mother-child relationships. J Health

Soc Behav 40(3):231–57. 1999.

14. U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Public Health

Service. Promoting health/preventing

disease: Objectives for the nation.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office. 1980.

15. U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services. Healthy People

2000: National health promotion and

disease prevention objectives.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office. 1990.

16. U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services. Healthy People 2020. Family

planning topic area. Available from:

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

topicsobjectives2020/overview.aspx?

topicid=13 [Accessed February 2012].

17. CDC. Achievements in public health,

1900–1999: Family planning.

MMWR 48(47):1073–80. 1999.

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

mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/

mm4847a1.htm.

18. Frost JJ, Finer LB, Tapales A. The

impact of publicly funded family

planning clinic services on

unintended pregnancies and

government cost savings. J Health

Care Poor Underserved 19(3):778–

96. 2008.

19. Monea E, Thomas A. Unintended

pregnancy and taxpayer spending.

Perspect Sex Reprod Health

43(2):88–93. 2011.

20. Sonfield A, Kost K, Gold RB, Finer

LB. The public costs of births

resulting from unintended

pregnancies: National and state-level

estimates. Perspect Sex Reprod

Health 43(2): 94–102. 2011.

21. Groves RM, Mosher WD, Lepkowski

JM, Kirgis NG. 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. Lepkowski JM, Mosher WD, Davis

KE, et al. 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.

23. Martinez GM, Chandra A, Abma JC,

et al. Fertility, contraception, and

fatherhood: Data on men and women

from Cycle 6 (2002) of the National

Survey of Family Growth. National

Center for Health Statistics. Vital

Health Stat 23(26). 2006. Available

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

series/sr_23/sr23_026.pdf.

24. Jones RK, Kost K. Underreporting of

induced and spontaneous abortion in

the United States: An analysis of the

2002 National Survey of Family

Growth. Stud Fam Plann 38(3):187–

97. 2007.

25. Ryder NB, Westoff CF. Reproduction

in the United States, 1965. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press. 1971.

26. Westoff CF. The yield of the

imperfect: The 1970 National

Fertility Study. Demography

12(4):573–80. 1975.

27. Campbell AA, Mosher WD. A

history of the measurement of

unintended pregnancies and births.

Matern Child Health J 4(3):163–9.

2000.

28. Peterson LS, Mosher WD. Options

for measuring unintended pregnancy

in cycle 6 of the National Survey of

Family Growth. Fam Plann Perspect

31(5):252–3. 1999.

29. Commission on Population Growth

and the American Future. Population

and the American future.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office. 1972.

30. Santelli JS, Lindberg LD, Orr MG,

Finer LB, Speizer I. Toward a

multidimensional measure of

pregnancy intentions: Evidence from

the United States. Stud Fam Plann

40(2):87–100. 2009.

31. Pulley L, Klerman LV, Tang H,

Baker BA. The extent of pregnancy

mistiming and its association with

maternal characteristics and

behaviors and pregnancy outcomes.

Perspect Sex Reprod Health

34(4):206–11. 2002.

32. London K, Peterson L, Piccinino L.

The National Survey of Family

Growth: Principal source of statistics

on unintended pregnancy. In: Brown

SS, Eisenberg L, eds. The best

intentions: Unintended pregnancy and

the well-being of children and

families. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press Academy Press;

268–95. 1995.
Page 16 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012

33. Bachrach CA, Newcomer S. Intended

pregnancies and unintended

pregnancies: Distinct categories or

opposite ends of a continuum? Fam

Plann Perspect 31(5):251–2. 1999.

34. Speizer IS, Santelli JS, AfableMunsuz A, Kendall C. Measuring

factors underlying intendedness of

women’s first and later pregnancies.

Perspect Sex Reprod Health

36(5):198–205. 2004.

35. Miller WB, Severy LJ, Pasta DJ. A

framework for modelling fertility

motivation in couples. Popul Stud

(Camb) 58(2):193–205. 2004.

36. Miller WB, Jones J. The effects of

preconception desires and intentions

on pregnancy wantedness. J Popul

Res 26(4):327–57. 2009.

37. Jones RK, Kavanaugh ML. Changes

in abortion rates between 2000 and

2008 and lifetime incidence of

abortion. Obstet Gynecol

117(6):1358–66. 2011.

38. Ventura SJ, Bachrach CA.

Nonmarital childbearing in the

United States, 1940–99. National

vital statistics reports; vol 48 no 16.

Hyattsville, MD: National Center for

Health Statistics. 2000. Available

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

nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_16.pdf.

39. Ventura SJ. Changing patterns of

nonmarital childbearing in the United

States. NCHS data brief, no 18.

Hyattsville, MD: National Center for

Health Statistics. 2009. Available

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

databriefs/db18.pdf.

40. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ,

et al. Births: Final data for 2009.

National vital statistics reports; vol

60 no 1. Hyattsville, MD: National

Center for Health Statistics. 2011.

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

nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_01.pdf.

41. 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.

42. Nettleman MD, Chung H, Brewer J,

Ayoola A, Reed PL. Reasons for

unprotected intercourse: Analysis of

the PRAMS survey. Contraception

75(5):361–6. 2007.

43. Lockwood CJ, Lemons JA, eds.

Guidelines for perinatal care, 6th ed.

Elk Grove, IL: American Academy

of Pediatrics; and Washington, DC:

American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists. 2007.

44. Kirkham C, Harris S, Grzybowski S.

Evidence-based prenatal care: Pt I.

General prenatal care and counseling

issues. Am Fam Physician

71(7):1307–16. 2005.

45. Mathews TJ, MacDorman MF. Infant

mortality statistics from the 2007

period linked birth/infant death data

set. National vital statistics reports;

vol 59 no 6. Hyattsville, MD:

National Center for Health Statistics;

table II, p 27. 2011. Available from:

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

nvsr59/nvsr59_06.pdf.

46. U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS). How

tobacco smoke causes disease: The

biology and behavioral basis for

smoking-attributable disease: A

Report of the Surgeon General.

Atlanta, GA: HHS, Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention,

National Center for Chronic Disease

Prevention and Health Promotion,

Office on Smoking and Health. 2010.

47. Mathews, TJ. Smoking during

pregnancy in the 1990s. National

vital statistics reports; vol 49 no 7.

Hyattsville, MD: National Center for

Health Statistics. 2001. Available

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

nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_07.pdf.

48. Jaddoe VW, Troe EJ, Hofman A,

Mackenbach JP, Moll HA, Steegers

EA, Witteman JC. Active and passive

maternal smoking during pregnancy

and the risks of low birthweight and

preterm birth: The Generation R

Study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol

22(2):162–71. 2008.

49. Ip S, Chung M, Raman G, Trikalinos

TA, Lau J. A summary of the Agency

for Healthcare Research and

Quality’s evidence report on

breastfeeding in developed countries.

Breastfeed Med 4(Suppl1):S17–S30.

2009.

50. Gartner LM, Morton J, Lawrence

RA, Naylor AJ, O’Hare D, Schanler

RJ, et al. Breastfeeding and the use

of human milk. Pediatrics

115(2):496–506. 2005.

51. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Ventura SJ.

Births: Preliminary data for 2010.

National vital statistics reports; vol

60 no 2. Hyattsville, MD: National

Center for Health Statistics;

tables S1, S2, and S3. 2011.

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

nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_02.pdf.

52. Mosher W, 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.

53. Borrero S, Moore CG, Qin L,

Schwarz EB, Akers A, Creinin MD,

Ibrahim SA. Unintended pregnancy

influences racial disparity in tubal

sterilization rates. J Gen Intern Med

25(2):122–8. 2010.

54. Bumpass LL, Thomson E, Godecker

AL. Women, men, and contraceptive

sterilization. Fertil Steril 73(5):937–

46. 2000.

55. Kaye K, Suellentrop K, Sloup C.

The Fog Zone: How misperceptions,

magical thinking, and ambivalence

put young adults at risk for

unplanned pregnancy. Washington,

DC: National Campaign to Prevent

Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

2009. Available from:

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/

fogzone/PDF/FogZone.pdf.
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012 Page 17

Table 1. Trends in the intendedness of births at conception, by marital status at birth and Hispanic origin and race of mother:

United States, selected years

Unintended

Mistimed

Number of Less than 2 years

births in Total Total 2 years or more

Characteristic1 thousands Total Intended2 unintended Unwanted mistimed3 too soon too soon

Percent distribution (standard error)

Total 19824 ................. 18,442 100.0 63.5 (1.25) 36.5 (1.25) 9.8 (0.80) 26.7 (1.23) - - ­ - - ­

Total 1988.................. 19,020 100.0 60.9 (1.25) 39.1 (1.25) 12.4 (0.65) 26.7 (1.04) - - ­ - - ­

Total 19955 ................. 19,462 100.0 69.4 (0.89) 30.6 (0.89) 10.1 (0.55) 20.5 (0.74) 7.3 (0.47) 12.8 (0.60)

Total 2002.................. 21,018 100.0 65.1 (1.28) 34.9 (1.28) 14.1 (0.90) 20.8 (0.92) 8.0 (0.64) 12.1 (0.68)

Total 2006–20104 ............. 21,161 100.0 62.9 (1.51) 37.1 (1.51) 13.8 (0.78) 23.3 (1.14) 9.2 (0.75) 14.0 (0.93)

Ever married

1982 ..................... 15,433 100.0 70.3 (1.22) 29.7 (1.22) 7.6 (0.74) 22.2 (1.26) - - ­ - - ­

Hispanic or Latina ........... 1,568 100.0 71.3 (4.83) 28.7 (4.83) 10.5 (4.10) 18.2 (2.74) - - ­ - - ­

Non-Hispanic white........... 12,175 100.0 71.5 (1.48) 28.5 (1.48) 6.2 (0.75) 22.3 (1.61) - - ­ - - ­

Non-Hispanic black........... 1,315 100.0 58.9 (2.55) 41.1 (2.55) 15.5 (1.68) 25.7 (1.84) - - ­ - - ­

2006–2010 ................. 13,850 100.0 74.7 (1.46) 25.3 (1.46) 8.9 (0.80) 16.4 (1.14) 9.8 (0.91) 6.4 (0.75)

Hispanic or Latina ........... 2,630 100.0 66.1 (2.55) 33.9 (2.55) 15.9 (2.31) 17.9 (2.11) 8.2 (1.31) 9.6 (1.59)

Non-Hispanic white........... 9,099 100.0 78.4 (1.71) 21.6 (1.71) 6.4 (0.86) 15.2 (1.35) 10.3 (1.25) 4.7 (0.81)

Non-Hispanic black........... 1,111 100.0 65.5 (3.82) 34.5 (3.82) 11.7 (2.64) 22.8 (3.60) 12.9 (3.17) 9.3 (2.29)

Never married

1982 ..................... 2,955 100.0 28.4 (3.28) 71.6 (3.28) 21.4 (2.34) 50.2 (3.22) - - ­ - - ­

Hispanic or Latina ........... * 100.0 * * * * - - ­ - - ­

Non-Hispanic white........... 1,062 100.0 20.0 (5.36) 80.0 (5.36) 18.3 (6.21) 61.7 (6.83) - - ­ - - ­

Non-Hispanic black........... 1,297 100.0 31.0 (2.16) 69.0 (2.16) 28.1 (2.02) 40.9 (2.99) - - ­ - - ­

2006–2010 ................. 7,311 100.0 40.4 (2.03) 59.6 (2.03) 23.1 (1.32) 36.5 (1.70) 7.9 (1.01) 28.4 (1.56)

Hispanic or Latina ........... 1,917 100.0 44.6 (2.40) 55.4 (2.40) 21.4 (2.68) 34.0 (2.25) 7.6 (1.39) 26.3 (1.89)

Non-Hispanic white........... 2,745 100.0 39.1 (3.94) 60.9 (3.94) 19.3 (2.66) 41.6 (3.49) 9.7 (2.36) 31.4 (3.15)

Non-Hispanic black........... 2,308 100.0 38.3 (2.66) 61.7 (2.66) 27.5 (1.94) 34.2 (2.21) 6.2 (0.87) 27.9 (2.33)

- - - Data not available; cannot be calculated.

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.

1The 1977 Office of Management and Budget definitions for race are used. See ‘‘Definitions of Terms’’ section.

2Includes births with intendedness reported as ‘‘don’t know.’’

3The two categories of amount mistimed may not sum to total mistimed due to cases where amount mistimed cannot be calculated.

4Includes women of other or unknown race and origin groups not shown separately.

5Shown in italics because research suggests that, for methodological reasons, these data show a bias toward higher percentages intended. See Technical Notes.

NOTES: Data are limited to births occurring in the 5 years before the interview. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth.
Page 18 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012

Table 2. Intendedness of births at conception, by mother’s age and marital or cohabitation status at the birth: United States, 2002 and

2006–2010

Intendedness status

Unintended

Mistimed

Characteristic

Number of

births in

thousands Total Intended1

Total

unintended Unwanted

Total

mistimed2

Less than

2 years

too soon

2 years

or more

too soon

Percent distribution (standard error)

Age at birth

15–19 years:

2002....................

2006–2010 ................

20–24 years:

2002....................

2006–2010 ................

25–44 years:

2002....................

2006–2010 ................

2,215

2,283

5,553

5,243

13,250

13,635

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

21.6 (2.14)

22.8 (2.63)

56.0 (2.12)

49.9 (2.35)

76.2 (1.40)

74.6 (1.39)

78.4 (2.14)

77.2 (2.63)

44.0 (2.12)

50.1 (2.35)

23.8 (1.40)

25.4 (1.39)

21.4 (2.66)

19.3 (2.59)

17.2 (1.72)

16.5 (1.37)

11.6 (1.02)

11.8 (0.88)

56.9 (2.71)

57.9 (2.90)

26.9 (1.78)

33.6 (2.03)

12.2 (0.97)

13.7 (1.09)

9.0 (2.14)

6.5 (1.50)

9.4 (1.34)

11.6 (1.61)

7.2 (0.76)

8.6 (0.87)

46.3 (2.82)

51.3 (2.87)

16.3 (1.35)

21.6 (1.90)

4.6 (0.65)

4.8 (0.58)

Marital or cohabiting status at birth

Married:

2002....................

2006–2010 ................

Unmarried, cohabiting:

2002....................

2006–2010 ................

Unmarried, not cohabiting:

2002....................

2006–2010 ................

13,534

12,635

2,998

4,950

4,486

3,576

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

76.9 (1.18)

76.6 (1.47)

48.8 (3.12)

49.3 (2.34)

40.5 (2.28)

33.1 (2.41)

23.1 (1.18)

23.4 (1.47)

51.3 (3.12)

50.7 (2.34)

59.5 (2.28)

66.9 (2.41)

9.0 (0.88)

7.2 (0.75)

18.1 (2.50)

20.4 (1.68)

26.9 (2.25)

27.7 (1.91)

14.1 (0.91)

16.2 (1.20)

33.2 (2.45)

30.3 (1.99)

32.6 (1.97)

39.2 (2.21)

8.4 (0.72)

10.1 (0.97)

8.2 (1.52)

8.8 (1.41)

6.5 (1.32)

6.4 (1.20)

5.3 (0.66)

6.0 (0.73)

24.2 (2.32)

21.5 (1.67)

24.5 (1.79)

32.1 (1.93)

Marital or cohabiting status

and age at birth

Married:

15–24 years:

2002 ..................

2006–2010 ..............

25–44 years:

2002 ..................

2006–2010 ..............

Unmarried, cohabiting:

15–24 years:

2002 ..................

2006–2010 ..............

25–44 years:

2002 ..................

2006–2010 ..............

Unmarried, not cohabiting:

15–24 years:

2002 ..................

2006–2010 ..............

25–44 years:

2002 ..................

2006–2010 ..............

3,103

2,475

10,431

10,160

1,853

2,847

1,145

2,103

2,812

2,204

1,673

1,372

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

67.0 (2.33)

59.5 (3.14)

79.9 (1.41)

80.8 (1.47)

40.1 (4.02)

42.1 (3.43)

62.7 (4.67)

59.1 (3.68)

27.3 (2.65)

21.1 (2.20)

62.7 (4.10)

52.4 (4.26)

33.1 (2.33)

40.5 (3.14)

20.2 (1.41)

19.2 (1.47)

59.9 (4.02)

57.9 (3.43)

37.3 (4.67)

40.9 (3.68)

72.7 (2.65)

78.9 (2.20)

37.3 (4.10)

47.6 (4.26)

8.4 (1.29)

7.1 (1.36)

9.2 (1.07)

7.3 (0.84)

18.6 (2.85)

19.4 (2.21)

17.3 (3.53)

21.8 (2.84)

29.2 (2.93)

26.3 (2.48)

23.0 (2.81)

30.0 (2.87)

24.6 (2.18)

33.4 (3.05)

11.0 (0.98)

12.0 (1.24)

41.3 (3.42)

38.6 (3.01)

20.0 (3.72)

19.2 (2.95)

43.5 (2.84)

52.6 (2.55)

14.3 (2.73)

17.6 (3.41)

12.3 (1.83)

15.6 (2.50)

7.3 (0.80)

8.7 (1.03)

6.1 (1.41)

9.1 (1.61)

11.5 (2.99)

8.5 (2.62)

8.0 (1.92)

5.2 (1.15)

4.0 (1.60)

8.3 (2.59)

11.7 (1.83)

17.7 (2.85)

3.4 (0.65)

3.1 (0.54)

34.2 (3.53)

29.4 (2.68)

8.1 (2.39)

10.7 (2.17)

33.2 (2.69)

46.7 (2.36)

10.0 (2.16)

8.6 (2.08)

1Includes births with intendedness reported as ‘‘don’t know.’’

2The two categories of amount mistimed may not sum to total mistimed due to cases where amount mistimed cannot be calculated.

NOTES: Data are limited to births occurring in the 5 years before the interview. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth.
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012 Page 19

Table 3. Intendedness of births at conception, by education of mother and birth order: United States, 2002 and 2006–2010

Intendedness status

Mistimed

Number of Less than 2 years

births in Total 2 years or more

Characteristic thousands Total Intended1 Unwanted mistimed2 too soon too soon

Percent distribution (standard error)

Education at interview3

Less than high school diploma:

2002.................... 3,023 100.0 58.2 (3.11) 19.1 (2.58) 22.7 (2.83) 7.2 (1.79) 15.1 (2.49)

2006–2010 ................ 3,409 100.0 58.9 (2.60) 23.2 (2.18) 17.9 (1.96) 6.2 (0.91) 11.7 (1.63)

High school diploma or GED4

:

2002.................... 5,823 100.0 64.2 (1.97) 16.1 (1.57) 19.7 (1.45) 7.5 (1.10) 11.6 (1.22)

2006–2010 ................ 4,973 100.0 59.9 (2.47) 17.3 (1.65) 22.8 (1.73) 9.3 (1.31) 13.4 (1.61)

Some college:

2002.................... 5,194 100.0 66.8 (2.47) 13.9 (1.92) 19.3 (1.57) 10.8 (1.42) 8.2 (0.92)

2006–2010 ................ 4,897 100.0 63.3 (2.61) 12.6 (1.52) 24.1 (2.67) 11.0 (2.27) 12.6 (1.78)

College degree:

2002.................... 4,957 100.0 85.5 (1.64) 6.0 (1.29) 8.5 (1.34) 6.3 (1.14) 1.8 (0.53)

2006–2010 ................ 5,604 100.0 83.3 (2.23) 4.0 (1.21) 12.6 (1.67) 9.6 (1.44) 2.9 (0.71)

Birth order

First birth:

2002.................... 8,481 100.0 63.9 (1.93) 8.5 (1.09) 27.6 (1.59) 8.3 (1.03) 18.3 (1.26)

2006–2010 ................ 7,853 100.0 61.4 (2.12) 8.8 (0.92) 29.8 (1.73) 7.2 (0.86) 22.4 (1.67)

Second birth:

2002.................... 7,116 100.0 71.6 (1.56) 11.3 (1.05) 17.2 (1.35) 8.2 (1.04) 8.6 (1.01)

2006–2010 ................ 7,181 100.0 69.4 (2.00) 11.3 (1.00) 19.2 (1.77) 10.8 (1.40) 8.2 (1.00)

Third or higher-order birth:

2002.................... 5,421 100.0 58.6 (2.24) 26.6 (2.07) 14.8 (1.61) 7.2 (1.14) 7.0 (1.40)

2006–2010 ................ 6,127 100.0 57.1 (2.15) 23.0 (1.74) 19.9 (1.71) 9.6 (1.32) 10.1 (1.19)

1Includes births with intendedness reported as ‘‘don’t know.’’

2The two categories of amount mistimed may not sum to total mistimed due to cases where amount mistimed cannot be calculated.

3Limited to births to women aged 22–44 at time of interview.

4GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.

NOTES: Data are limited to births occurring in the 5 years before the interview. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth.
Page 20 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012

Table 4. Intendedness of births at conception, by Hispanic origin and race and poverty level of mother: United States, 2002 and 2006–2010

Intendedness status

Mistimed

Number of Less than 2 years

births in Total 2 years or more

Characteristic thousands Total Intended1 Unwanted mistimed2 too soon too soon

Percent distribution (standard error)

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latina:

2002......................... 4,242 100.0 56.7 (2.52) 16.8 (2.31) 26.5 (2.08) 10.7 (1.69) 14.2 (1.57)

2006–2010 ..................... 4,546 100.0 57.1 (1.75) 18.1 (1.62) 24.8 (1.58) 7.9 (1.02) 16.7 (1.23)

Not Hispanic or Latina:

White, single race:

2002 ....................... 12,309 100.0 71.2 (1.70) 10.7 (1.05) 18.1 (1.19) 7.9 (0.75) 9.9 (0.90)

2006–2010 ................... 11,600 100.0 69.3 (2.12) 9.3 (1.05) 21.4 (1.65) 10.3 (1.20) 10.8 (1.27)

Black or African American, single race:

2002 ....................... 2,818 100.0 49.1 (3.32) 26.2 (2.18) 24.6 (2.35) 4.9 (1.15) 19.1 (2.16)

2006–2010 ................... 3,256 100.0 46.5 (2.32) 22.9 (1.62) 30.6 (2.20) 8.6 (1.11) 21.8 (1.91)

Income as percent of

poverty level at interview3

0%–149%:

2002......................... 7,789 100.0 55.8 (1.85) 19.8 (1.67) 24.4 (1.59) 9.0 (1.13) 14.9 (1.38)

2006–2010 ..................... 8,589 100.0 53.7 (2.09) 20.7 (1.40) 25.6 (1.57) 9.8 (1.20) 15.6 (1.32)

0%–99%:

2002 ....................... 5,118 100.0 52.8 (2.26) 23.2 (2.04) 24.1 (1.91) 8.9 (1.33) 14.5 (1.81)

2006–2010 ................... 5,460 100.0 52.5 (2.09) 20.3 (1.73) 27.2 (1.71) 9.5 (1.18) 17.6 (1.46)

150%–299%:

2002......................... 5,522 100.0 65.3 (2.52) 14.2 (1.73) 20.5 (1.82) 8.7 (1.35) 11.1 (1.35)

2006–2010 ..................... 6,140 100.0 65.0 (2.31) 11.7 (1.28) 23.3 (2.05) 9.5 (1.40) 13.4 (1.44)

300% or higher:

2002......................... 6,856 100.0 81.4 (1.61) 7.0 (1.15) 11.7 (1.19) 6.4 (0.97) 4.7 (0.80)

2006–2010 ..................... 5,593 100.0 82.3 (1.90) 4.5 (0.93) 13.2 (1.62) 8.5 (1.48) 4.6 (0.90)

400% or higher:

2002 ....................... 3,200 100.0 86.1 (1.78) 3.3 (0.88) 10.6 (1.52) 5.8 (1.17) 4.3 (1.00)

2006–2010 ................... 2,309 100.0 82.2 (2.83) 4.3 (1.53) 13.6 (2.25) 8.4 (2.00) 5.1 (1.47)

1Includes births with intendedness reported as ‘‘don’t know.’’

2The two categories of amount mistimed may not sum to total mistimed due to cases where amount mistimed cannot be calculated.

3Limited to births to women aged 20–44 at time of interview.

NOTES: Data are limited to births occurring in the 5 years before the interview. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth.
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012 Page 21

Table 5. Intendedness of births at conception, by marital status of mother and birth order: United States, 2006–2010

Intended Mistimed

Number of Don’t know Less than 2 years

births in Total Right Wanted or Total 2 years or more

Characteristic thousands Total intended time earlier don’t care Unwanted mistimed1 too soon too soon

Percent distribution (standard error)

Total ................ 21,161 100.0 62.9 (1.51) 52.5 (1.47) 9.5 (0.76) 0.9 (0.23) 13.8 (0.78) 23.4 (1.14) 9.2 (0.75) 14.0 (0.93)

Married at birth .......... 12,635 100.0 76.6 (1.47) 63.0 (1.83) 12.6 (1.08) 1.0 (0.36) 7.2 (0.75) 16.2 (1.20) 10.1 (0.97) 6.0 (0.73)

1st birth ............. 4,063 100.0 83.5 (1.52) 63.0 (2.86) 19.4 (2.42) 1.1 (0.75) 1.7 (0.43) 14.8 (1.44) 7.5 (1.11) 7.1 (1.25)

2nd birth ............ 4,637 100.0 80.3 (2.15) 67.9 (2.58) 11.7 (1.64) * 4.1 (0.82) 15.6 (1.96) 11.7 (1.80) 3.7 (0.80)

3rd or higher-order birth . . . 3,934 100.0 65.1 (2.61) 57.2 (2.63) 6.5 (1.34) 1.4 (0.60) 16.6 (1.97) 18.3 (2.23) 10.7 (1.82) 7.4 (1.32)

Not married at birth ....... 8,527 100.0 42.5 (1.90) 36.8 (1.75) 5.0 (0.88) 0.7 (0.20) 23.5 (1.25) 34.0 (1.52) 7.8 (0.94) 25.9 (1.36)

1st birth ............. 3,790 100.0 37.6 (2.54) 32.4 (2.35) 4.3 (0.91) 1.0 (0.36) 16.4 (1.58) 46.0 (2.15) 6.9 (1.37) 38.7 (2.14)

2nd birth ............ 2,543 100.0 49.6 (3.06) 43.0 (2.84) 6.2 (1.49) * 24.5 (2.12) 25.9 (2.63) 9.3 (1.65) 16.4 (2.12)

3rd or higher-order birth . . . 2,193 100.0 42.7 (3.40) 37.2 (2.98) 4.8 (1.72) 0.7 (0.32) 34.6 (2.91) 22.7 (2.47) 7.7 (1.86) 14.9 (2.20)

* Figure does meet standards of reliability or precision.

1The two categories of amount mistimed may not sum to total mistimed due to cases where amount mistimed cannot be calculated.

NOTES: Data are limited to births occurring in the 5 years before the interview. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth.
Page 22 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012

Table 6. Reasons for not using contraception at conception, among women who had an unintended birth in the 3 years before the

interview: United States, 2006–2010

Did not Did not Didn’t really Worried Male partner Male partner

Number of expect think mind if about side didn’t want didn’t want

births in to have you could you got effects of you to use to use

Characteristic thousands sex get pregnant pregnant birth control birth control birth control

Percent (standard error)

Total1 ......................... 2,442 17.3 (2.35) 35.9 (2.43) 23.1 (2.64) 14.1 (1.65) 5.3 (1.08) 8.0 (1.47)

Unintended status

Unwanted....................... 800 22.3 (4.87) 39.6 (5.11) 7.6 (2.85) 18.9 (3.89) 3.7 (1.15) 5.9 (1.87)

Mistimed2 ....................... 1,641 14.9 (2.36) 34.1 (2.96) 30.7 (3.52) 11.8 (1.72) 6.0 (1.50) 9.1 (2.03)

Less than 2 years too soon .......... 711 9.6 (3.75) 32.9 (5.86) 54.7 (5.74) 9.0 (2.56) 7.0 (2.44) 6.6 (2.78)

2 or more years too soon............ 908 19.0 (3.33) 35.3 (3.50) 12.2 (2.53) 14.3 (2.58) 5.2 (1.93) 10.6 (2.31)

Age at birth

Under 25 years ................... 1,239 20.3 (2.94) 34.7 (2.87) 16.1 (2.50) 14.0 (2.07) 6.3 (1.84) 8.2 (1.86)

25–44 years ..................... 1,202 14.2 (3.21) 37.2 (4.36) 30.3 (4.32) 14.2 (3.04) 4.2 (1.11) 7.9 (1.88)

Marital or cohabiting status at birth

Married or cohabiting................ 1,659 10.5 (2.26) 36.1 (3.21) 30.3 (3.46) 14.3 (2.39) 5.6 (1.42) 5.9 (1.30)

Neither married nor cohabiting .......... 783 31.8 (4.40) 35.6 (4.49) 7.9 (1.96) 13.7 (2.50) 4.7 (1.75) 12.5 (2.83)

Education at interview3

High school diploma or GED or less ...... 1,053 17.1 (4.16) 42.0 (4.84) 18.6 (3.01) 16.8 (3.32) 6.0 (1.64) 8.1 (2.03)

Some college or higher .............. 773 12.9 (3.30) 25.7 (4.10) 38.0 (5.89) 12.0 (2.94) 3.2 (1.31) 7.5 (2.60)

Percent of poverty level at interview4

0%–99% ....................... 838 21.4 (4.45) 38.4 (4.49) 16.4 (3.24) 13.3 (2.51) 7.4 (2.00) 7.8 (1.83)

100% or higher ................... 1,258 10.6 (2.60) 34.6 (3.72) 32.5 (4.29) 15.0 (2.79) 2.9 (0.91) 7.6 (2.08)

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latina.................. 654 15.7 (4.45) 49.4 (5.00) 18.9 (4.04) 11.0 (3.33) 3.3 (1.52) 8.3 (1.92)

Not Hispanic or Latina:

White, single race ................ 985 12.3 (2.64) 35.2 (4.62) 33.7 (5.49) 12.2 (2.73) 6.9 (1.94) 6.1 (1.83)

Black or African American, single race.... 608 20.9 (4.79) 25.4 (3.49) 12.4 (3.50) 19.9 (3.63) 5.2 (2.29) 9.4 (3.08)

1Includes women of other or multiple race and origin groups, and women with missing information on contraception used in each month, and reasons for not using contraception, not shown

separately.

2Includes births to women with missing data on length of mistiming, not shown separately.

3Limited to women aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.

4Limited to women aged 20–44 at time of interview.

NOTES: If more than one unintended pregnancy leading to a birth occurred during the time frame, the most recent birth is used in this table. Percentages will not add to 100 because women could

give more than one answer.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth.
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012 Page 23

Table 7. Mean values of the three alternative measures of unintended pregnancy, by the standard measure, whether the mother wanted a

baby with that partner, and whether her partner wanted the baby, for births in the 3 years before interview: United States, 2006–2010

Wanted to get pregnant1 Trying to become pregnant2 Happy to be pregnant3

Number of Mean Number of Mean Number of Mean

births in scale Standard births in scale Standard births in scale Standard

Characteristic thousands value error thousands value error thousands value error

Total4

..................... 14,531 6.2 (0.13) 14,528 5.8 (0.13) 14,532 8.0 (0.08)

Intendedness at conception

Intended................... 9,098 8.2 (0.11) 9,095 7.5 (0.12) 9,098 9.4 (0.05)

Unwanted .................. 1,884 1.9 (0.18) 1,884 2.6 (0.22) 1,885 4.8 (0.21)

Mistimed5 .................. 3,549 3.2 (0.16) 3,549 3.2 (0.15) 3,549 6.3 (0.15)

Less than 2 years too soon...... 1,361 4.6 (0.28) 1,361 4.0 (0.27) 1,361 7.2 (0.27)

2 years or more too soon ....... 2,152 2.3 (0.15) 2,152 2.7 (0.17) 2,152 5.8 (0.14)

Whether mother wanted a baby

with that partner

Definitely yes ................ 10,823 7.3 (0.12) 10,823 6.7 (0.13) 10,823 8.8 (0.06)

Probably yes ................ 1,632 3.8 (0.29) 1,632 3.8 (0.24) 1,632 6.4 (0.20)

Probably no................. 767 2.4 (0.26) 766 3.0 (0.29) 767 5.5 (0.27)

Definitely no ................ 1,291 1.8 (0.22) 1,292 2.7 (0.26) 1,292 4.7 (0.28)

Mother’s perception of

baby’s father’s intendedness

Intended................... 9,398 7.9 (0.11) 9,399 7.2 (0.12) 9,399 9.1 (0.06)

Unwanted .................. 1,879 2.7 (0.23) 1,877 3.1 (0.22) 1,879 5.8 (0.22)

Mistimed................... 2,700 3.4 (0.22) 2,700 3.2 (0.17) 2,700 6.5 (0.18)

Don’t know ................. 554 3.1 (0.43) 551 3.2 (0.39) 554 5.5 (0.34)

1Based on valid (nonmissing) responses on a 0–10 scale, with 0 being ‘‘you wanted to avoid a pregnancy’’ and 10 being ‘‘you wanted to get pregnant.’’ 2Based on valid (nonmissing) responses on a 0–10 scale, with 0 being ‘‘trying hard not to get pregnant’’ and 10 being ‘‘trying hard to get pregnant.’’ 3Based on valid (nonmissing) responses on a 1–10 scale, with 1 being ‘‘very unhappy to be pregnant’’ and 10 being ‘‘very happy to be pregnant.’’ 4Includes births to women with missing data on intendedness at conception, length of mistiming, or wanted with this partner, not shown separately. 5Includes births to women with missing data on length of mistiming, not shown separately.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth.
Page 24 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012

Table 8. Selected maternal and infant characteristics for births in the 5 years before the interview, by intendedness status of the

pregnancy: United States, 2006–2010

Intendedness status

Number of

births in

thousands

First prenatal

care visit

after

first trimester

or no care

Smoked

cigarettes

during

pregnancy

Paid for

delivery

with

Medicaid

Did not

breastfeed

Low

birthweight

(less than

2,500 gm)

Percent (standard error)

Total .......................... 21,161 12.2 (0.79) 12.2 (0.99) 46.1 (2.05) 30.7 (1.72) 7.9 (0.63)

Intended1 ....................... 13,303 8.2 (0.78) 9.9 (1.08) 35.2 (2.38) 25.9 (1.82) 7.2 (0.73)

Total unintended2 .................. 7,859 19.0 (1.50) 16.1 (1.52) 64.6 (1.90) 39.0 (2.36) 9.0 (1.12)

Unwanted ..................... 2,915 21.2 (2.35) 17.7 (2.31) 65.4 (3.11) 43.7 (3.56) 12.0 (1.99)

Mistimed2

:

Less than 2 years too soon ......... 1,935 16.1 (3.39) 11.9 (3.07) 47.7 (4.24) 25.2 (3.91) 6.0 (2.31)

2 years or more too soon .......... 2,963 18.7 (2.21) 16.9 (2.45) 75.2 (2.50) 43.7 (3.35) 8.2 (1.23)

1Includes births with intendedness reported as ‘‘don’t know.’’ 2Includes births to women for whom length of mistiming cannot be calculated.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth.
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012 Page 25

Table 9. Profile of births in the 5 years before the interview, within intendedness categories, by maternal characteristics: United States,

2006–2010

Total Total

Characteristic births Intended unintended Unwanted Mistimed

Number of births in thousands ................. 21,161 13,303 7,859 2,915 4,944

Percent distribution (standard error)

Total ................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Age at birth

15–19 years ............................ 10.8 (0.78) 3.9 (0.51) 22.4 (1.41) 15.2 (2.00) 26.7 (2.09)

20–24 years ............................ 24.8 (1.18) 19.7 (1.29) 33.4 (1.74) 29.8 (2.25) 35.6 (2.13)

25–29 years ............................ 28.2 (1.11) 32.2 (1.46) 21.5 (1.41) 25.4 (2.20) 19.1 (1.82)

30–34 years ............................ 22.1 (0.98) 27.2 (1.26) 13.4 (1.12) 16.9 (2.12) 11.3 (1.40)

35–44 years ............................ 14.2 (0.93) 17.0 (1.23) 9.3 (1.14) 12.8 (2.03) 7.3 (1.42)

Marital status at birth

Not married ............................. 40.3 (1.61) 27.2 (1.64) 62.4 (1.89) 68.7 (2.43) 58.7 (2.34)

Married ............................... 59.7 (1.61) 72.8 (1.64) 37.6 (1.89) 31.3 (2.43) 41.3 (2.34)

Age and marital status at birth

15–19 years:

Not married ........................... 9.2 (0.66) 2.8 (0.42) 20.0 (1.32) 14.6 (1.99) 23.2 (1.84)

Married .............................. 1.6 (0.38) 1.1 (0.28) 2.4 (0.70) * 3.5 (1.05)

20–24 years:

Not married ........................... 14.7 (0.90) 9.7 (0.89) 23.1 (1.52) 24.2 (2.09) 22.4 (1.83)

Married .............................. 10.1 (0.80) 10.0 (0.97) 10.4 (1.00) 5.5 (1.01) 13.2 (1.49)

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

Not married ........................... 9.0 (0.59) 8.1 (0.81) 10.6 (0.94) 16.9 (1.76) 6.9 (1.02)

Married .............................. 19.2 (1.13) 24.1 (1.44) 10.9 (1.18) 8.5 (1.61) 12.3 (1.81)

30–34 years:

Not married ........................... 4.7 (0.47) 4.2 (0.59) 5.4 (0.74) 8.5 (1.30) 3.6 (0.95)

Married .............................. 17.4 (0.95) 23.0 (1.27) 7.9 (0.95) 8.4 (1.56) 7.7 (1.17)

35–44 years:

Not married ........................... 2.8 (0.42) 2.5 (0.42) 3.3 (0.80) 4.4 (1.17) 2.6 (1.07)

Married .............................. 11.4 (0.90) 14.6 (1.23) 6.1 (0.83) 8.4 (1.35) 4.7 (1.07)

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latina ......................... 21.5 (2.67) 19.5 (2.67) 24.8 (2.92) 28.3 (3.89) 22.8 (2.87)

Not Hispanic or Latina:

White, single race ....................... 54.8 (2.61) 60.4 (2.83) 45.3 (3.00) 37.2 (3.69) 50.1 (3.32)

Black or African American, single race ........... 15.4 (1.61) 11.4 (1.11) 22.2 (2.73) 25.6 (3.62) 20.2 (2.61)

Other single race or multiple race .............. 8.3 (1.31) 8.7 (1.27) 7.7 (1.83) 8.9 (2.69) 6.9 (1.61)

Percent of poverty level at interview1

0%–149% .............................. 42.3 (1.72) 34.9 (1.95) 55.9 (2.13) 64.6 (3.02) 50.4 (2.53)

0%–99%............................. 26.9 (1.52) 21.7 (1.55) 36.4 (2.07) 40.2 (3.27) 34.1 (2.58)

150%–299% ............................ 30.2 (1.32) 30.2 (1.60) 30.2 (1.86) 26.2 (2.94) 32.8 (2.23)

300% or higher .......................... 27.5 (1.59) 34.9 (1.94) 13.9 (1.68) 9.2 (1.80) 16.9 (2.26)

How delivery was paid for

With Medicaid ........................... 46.1 (2.05) 35.2 (2.38) 64.6 (1.90) 65.4 (3.11) 64.2 (2.23)

Without Medicaid ......................... 53.9 (2.05) 64.8 (2.38) 35.4 (1.90) 34.6 (3.11) 35.8 (2.23)

* Figure does meet standards of reliability or precision. 1Limited to births to women aged 20–44 at time of interview.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth.
Page 26 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012

Technical Notes

Definitions of Terms

Further detail on many of these

variables is provided in previous

National Survey of Family Growth

(NSFG) reports (e.g., refs 6, 23,

and 52).

Age at birth (Tables 2, 6, and 9). The

age of the woman at the time the baby

was born. The recode variable in the

NSFG data file was AGEPREG.

Birth order (Tables 3 and 5). A variable

that measures whether the baby was the

mother’s first, second, or third birth. All

births after the third are combined with

third births to form the category ‘‘third

or higher-order birth.’’ Thus, a firstorder birth was the mother’s first baby.

The recode variable was BIRTHORD.

Birthweight (Table 8). The baby’s

weight when it was born. Babies are

generally classified as ‘‘low

birthweight’’ if they weighed less than

5.5 pounds (2,500 grams) when they

were born. The recode variable was

LBW1, which dichotomizes babies into

low birthweight/not low birthweight.

Breastfeeding (Table 8). A variable

indicating whether the baby was

breastfed at all, as reported by the

mother. The recode variable was

BFEEDWKS.

Education (Tables 3 and 6). The

woman’s education, as measured by the

highest degree she had finished at the

date of interview. The recode variable

was HIEDUC.

Hispanic origin and race (Tables 1, 4,

6, and 9). This characteristic is

classified according to Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

guidelines for the presentation of race

and origin data in federal statistics. For

Table 1, which includes 1982 data, the

1977 OMB guidelines for race reporting

are used as denoted in the recode

variable HISPRACE. For Tables 4, 6,

and 9, the 1997 OMB guidelines are

followed, and the recode variable

HISPRACE2 is used. The 1997

guidelines allow respondents to report

more than one race or ethnic origin. In

this report, the categories Hispanic,

non-Hispanic white, and non-Hispanic

black are used. Non-Hispanic members

of other races, and those reporting two

or more race or origin groups, are not

shown separately because of small

sample sizes. For further details, see

page 154 in reference 6.

Intendedness at conception (all tables).

This characteristic is captured by the

recode WANTRESP, which yields six

categories that are then grouped to form

the three most basic categories of the

traditional intendedness measure:

intended, mistimed, and unwanted. The

questions and responses leading to this

classification, and a description of two

additional categories defined within the

mistimed category, can be found in the

‘‘Measuring Unintended Pregnancy in

Surveys’’ section of this report. Table 1

is created with a recode that yields

nearly identical results but is

comparable to older cycles of the

NSFG: OLDWANTR. Starting with

1995 data, a confirmation question was

added for respondents under age 20, to

verify a ‘‘no’’ response to the question

asking if she ever wanted a(nother) baby

at any time in the future. WANTRESP

takes into account this verification

question; OLDWANTR does not.

Marital status at birth (Tables 1, 2, 5,

6, and 9). FMAROUT5 is a recode

variable that indicates the mother’s

formal (legal) marital status at the time

the baby was born and is used in

Tables 1 and 9. It is dichotomized into

ever-married or never-married in Table 1

because the 1982 survey did not contain

sufficient detail to classify marital status

at birth as married, cohabiting, formerly

married, or never married. In Tables 2,

5, and 6, which use 2002 and 2006–

2010 data, recode variable RMAROUT6

is used because it classifies births to

cohabiting women separately.

Payment for delivery (Tables 8 and 9).

The PAYDELIV recode variable was

used to classify births as to whether

they were paid for, in whole or in part,

by Medicaid. Payment for the birth by

Medicaid indicates that the mother’s

household had a low level of income at

the time of the birth.

Poverty level (Tables 4, 6, and 9). The

woman reported her total family income

for the previous calendar year in the

self-administered audio computerassisted self-interview (ACASI) portion

of the interview. Her reported household

income, in conjunction with the number

of persons living in the household, is

compared with the annual weighted

poverty threshold table for families of

the same size as published by the U.S.

Census Bureau. Poverty level is the

household’s income expressed as a

percentage of the poverty level threshold

for a household of that size. For

example, for a family of four in 2007,

the poverty level was $21,203. If a

family of four had an income of

$50,000, the woman’s family income

relative to the poverty level would be

$50,000/$21,203 × 100 = 236, or 236%

of the poverty level. The recode variable

was POVERTY.

Prenatal care (Table 8). Women were

asked whether they had visited a doctor

or other medical care provider for

prenatal care, and how many weeks

pregnant they were when they first went

for prenatal care. Women who were

more than 13 weeks pregnant at their

first visit, or who never got prenatal

care, were classified as having ‘‘late or

no’’ prenatal care. The variable that

measured when during the pregnancy a

woman began prenatal care was the

recode variable, PNCAREWK.

Smoked cigarettes during pregnancy

(Table 8). Women were asked whether

they smoked cigarettes at all during

their pregnancy (questionnaire variable

postsmks).

Wanted with this partner (Table 7).

This variable reflects the respondent’s

answer to the interview question Right

before that pregnancy, did you want to

have a baby with that partner? The

answer categories were definitely yes,

probably yes, probably not, and

definitely not (questionnaire variables

wthpart1 and wthpart2).
A Note on Intendedness

Data From the 1995 National

Survey of Family Growth

The estimates for 1995 on the

intendedness of births differ by a few

percentage points from the estimates

from the other National Survey of

Family Growth (NSFG) surveys, for

methodological reasons. This difference

is large enough that it suggests that

factors within the 1995 data or sample

may have made this particular measure

unreliable. This section summarizes why

the 1995 data were not interpreted

substantively in Table 1 or used further

in this report.

The Table I shows estimates of the

percentage of births that were intended,

as calculated from the 1988, 1995, 2002,

and 2006–2010 NSFG, for births ending

within several time periods. The Figure I

displays similar time periods.

Note that the estimate of the

percentage of births intended in

1983–1987 is 60% from the 1988 NSFG

and 60% from the 2002 NSFG, but 70%

from the 1995 NSFG. For births in

1988–1992, the percentage of births

intended is estimated to be 62.5% from

the 2002 NSFG, but 69.5% from the

1995 NSFG. For births in 1993–1997,

the estimate is 62.4% from the 2006–

2010 NSFG and 65.6% from the 2002

NSFG. From the 1995 NSFG, the

estimate for births in 1993–1995 is

67.9%.

In sum, for the time periods for

which comparisons are possible between

the 1995 and earlier and later NSFGs,

the percentages of births that were

intended are higher for the 1995 data

than for any of the other surveys (with

the exception of 1973–1977, for which

the 1995 NSFG percentages are lower).

In contrast, the estimates from the other

NSFG surveys are more consistent with

each other for estimates within 10–15

years of the interview.

The most likely explanation for this

finding in the 1995 survey involves the

skip patterns through the computerized

questionnaire, within the series of

questions ascertaining pregnancy

wantedness. A programming error

caused a smaller-than-expected

percentage of respondents to receive one

of the questions leading to the question

that captures whether the pregnancy was

unwanted. So it is possible that this

difference resulted in a smaller

percentage of pregnancies classified as

unwanted, and a larger percentage

intended, in 1995 compared with the

other NSFGs.

Because the questions in this series

are compiled to create a recoded

variable that is used in these analyses,

missing data are imputed for this

measure. The missing data on this

recoded variable in the 1995 survey

stem from the issue noted above and

also from other programming errors.

The percentage of cases imputed on this

recoded variable was 5% overall and

3% for pregnancies in the 5 years before

the survey. This is a relatively high

percentage compared with the other

NSFGs and could contribute to small

differences in the estimates. Therefore, it

was decided to omit the 1995 data from

further consideration in this report. The

authors remain confident of the quality

and usefulness of the 1995 data for all

other purposes.

1988 (Cycle 4) 1995 (Cycle 5) 2002 (Cycle 6) 2006–2010 

75 

70 

65 

60 

55 

0 

70.2 69.5 

67.9 67.2 

65.1 64.4 

Percent 

62.5 65.6 65.0 

63.3 60.4 62.4 

60.1 

58.0 

56.1 

1973–1977 1978–1982 1983–1987 1988–1992 1993–19971 1998–2002

1

For cycle 5, 1995, the birth cohort is 1993–1995. 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth. 

Figure I. Percentage of births to women aged 15–44 that were intended: National Survey

of Family Growth 1988 (Cycle 4), 1995 (Cycle 5), 2002 (Cycle 6), and 2006–2010, for birth

cohorts 1973–2002

National Health Statistics Reports n Number 55 n July 24, 2012 Page 27

Table

2002,

I. Estimated percentage

and 2006–2010

of births that were intended: United States, 1988, 1995,

NSFG 1 year

Birth occurring in:

1983–1987 1988–1992 1993–19972

1988 ..................

1995 ..................

2002 ..................

2006–2010 ..............

........

........

........

........

60.4

70.2

60.1

--­

- - ­

69.5

62.5

56.1

- - ­

67.9

65.6

62.4

- - - Data

1NSFG is 2Estimate

not available.

National Survey of Family Growth.

from the 1995 NSFG is for births occurring in 1993–1995.
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 55 n July 24, 2012

Acknowledgments

The 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) was conducted by CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, 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 the Division of Vital Statistics (DVS), and Stephanie J.
 

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

Ventura; Julia Holmes, DVS Associate Director for Science; and Jennifer Madans, NCHS Associate Director for Science. The report was edited
 

and produced by CDC/OSELS/NCHS/Office of Information Services, Information Design and Publishing Staff. Barbara J. Wassell edited the
 

report; typesetting was done by Zung T. Le; and graphics were produced by Odell D. Eldridge and Jesse Guay (contractors).
 

Suggested citation

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.

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 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) 2012–1250 • CS232062