FaniIy Pkmning

Visits by

T—mm=:

United States, 1978

Statistics obtained from a national sample of

visits to organized femil y planning clinics are

presented for women under age 20 years.

%saline data are also presented on visits by

women of all ages. Family planning visits by

patient sociodemographic characteristics,

visit status, prior and current contraceptive

method, and medical services provided are

examined by race and geographic region.

Dataon Health ResourcesUtilization

Serii 13,Nom58

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 81-1719

U.S. Departrnant of Health

and Human Servioes

Public Health Sewiae

Office of Hadth Research, Statistics,

and Technology

National Center for Health Statistics

Hyettsville, Md.

August 1981
National Center for Health Statistics

DOROTHY P. RICE, Director

ROBERT A. ISRAEL, Deputy Director

JACOB J. FELDMAN, Ph.D., Assoctite Directorfor Analysis

and Epidemwlogy

GAIL F. FISHER, Ph.D., Associate Directorfor the

CooperativeHealthStatistics System

GARRIE J. LOSEE, Associate Directorfor ~ta tiocessing

and Sewices

ALVAN O. ZAR4TE, Ph.D., Assistant Directorfor

InternationalStatistics

E. EARL BRYANT, Associate Directorfor Interview and

Exanu”nationStatistics

ROBERT C. HUBER, Assoctite Directorfor Management

MONROE G. SIRKEN, Ph.D., Associate Directorfor Research

and Methodology

PETER L. HURLEY, Associate Directorfor Vitaland Health

(Me Statistics

ALICE HAYWOOD, Information Officer

Division of Health Care Statistics

W. EDWARD BACON, Ph.D., Director

JOAN F. VAN NOSTRAND, Deputy Director

STEWART C. RICE, C’hie&Family Planning

Statistics Branch

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 81-11090
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................””

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..s... ..........”....

Aga, race, andethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Visitstatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........””....

Education andincome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pregnancy history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Priorcontraceptive method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contraceptive method adopted orcontinued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Medical services provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Geographicregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Listofdetailed tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendixes

1. Technical notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Il. Definitions ofterms usedinthisreport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

111. ClinicVisit Recordforfamily planningservices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Text Figures

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Number offamily planning visits byfemales underage 20years, byaga: UnitedStates,1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent distribution of family planning visitsby females underaga 20years byrace and visitstatus, according to number

ofvisits: UnitedStates,1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of family planning visitsby females underaga 20years, by number of pregnancies, race, and visitstatus: United

States, 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent distribution of family planning visits by females underage 20 years, by contraceptive method adoptedor

continued: UnitedStates,1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number offamily planningvisitsby females under aga20years, by medical servicas provided: United States, 1978 . . . .

Percent distribution of family planning visits by females under age 20 years, by geographic region, according to number

ofvisits: UnitedStates,1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

3

3

4

4

4

5

6

6

7

9

10

18

22

24

3

4

5

6

7

7

...

III
Symbols

.-. Data not available

. . . Category not applicable

Quantity zero

0.0 Quantity more than zero but less than

0.05

z Quantity more than zero but less than

500

*

Figure does not meet standards of

reliability or precision

# Figure suppressed to comply with

confidentiality requirements
Family Planning Visits by Teenagers

by Jean Foster, formerly of Division of Health Care

Statistics, and Eugenia Eckard, Division of Health

Care Statistics

Introduction

According to 1978 data from the National Reporting System for Family Planning Services, about 32.5

percent of all clinic-based visits for medical family

planning services were made by females under 20

years of age. Teenagers’ utilization of family planning

services is of particular concern in view of the estimated 4.1 million femalesl who constitute the population at risk for this age group, i.e., fecund teenagers

who are sexually active but who are not pregnant nor

seeking to become pregnant.

The National Reporting System for Family Planning Services is an ongoing survey conducted by the

Division of Health Care Statistics of the National Center for Health Statistics. It was begun in 1972 to collect information on clinic-based visits for medical

family planning services in the United States, Guam,

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

The scope of the survey encompasses medical family planning visits in clinic settings. The clinics include

those operated by public health departments, hospitals, and by private organizations, such as affiliates of

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.

Family planning service sites are found in a variety of

settings, from single-purpose clinics to those operating as part of multipurpose health programs. Specifically excluded from the survey are family planning

visits to private physicians’ offices.

Only those visits made specii5cally for medical

services associated with family planning are included

in the survey. Excluded are visits only for obtaining

contraceptive supplies, for counseling, or for pregnancy or venereal disease tests.

From 1972 until mid-1 977, the reporting system operated as a full-count survey; information for

every medical family planning visit at every participating service site was collected. However, beginning

July 1, 1977, the 100-percent reporting system was

converted to a sample survey. The data for the 1977

survey year were collected under both modes, and

1978 marks the frost year in which the sample survey

approach was used for the entire year.

The survey employs a two-stage sampling design.

Out of a universe of 5,619 known family planning

service sit&, 1,195 were randomly selected as sample

sites. This represents about 1 in 4 sites nationally.

Survey participation is required for all facilities

selected for the sample that are supported by Public Health Service grants for family planning services;

however, participation is voluntary for nonfederally

funded service sites selected for the sample. The

proportion of the sample site’s visits that are systematically selected for inclusion in the survey varies

according to the site’s reported annual number of

visits and its geographic location; this averages to

about 1 in 25 visits nationally. Additional information regarding the sampling design may be found in

appendix I. The reader is also referred to appendix H,

which contains deftitions of certain terms used in

this report.

Other data sources from the National Center for

Health Statistics provide related statistics on uWzation of family planning services. For example, data

from the National Ambulatory Medicd Care Survey,

which is also conducted by the Division of Health

Care Statistics, cover visits to office-based physicians’

practices that include family planning services. The

National Survey of Family Growth, conducted by

the Division of Vital Statistics in 1973 and 1976,

provides more detailed statistics on women who

made family planning visits to their physicians or to

organized family planning clinics in the 3 years prior

to the survey. Unlike the other two surveys, data for

the National Survey of Family Growth were collected

by means of personal interviews with a national sample of women age 15-44 years who were ever married

or never married with offspring living in the household.

The data in this report are based on information

collected on the Clinic Visit Record or, in those service sites that collected the survey data through participation in a computerized record system, on locally

1
developed forms that contain the same 14 items as o.n the number of visits made by teenagers .Io family

the Clinic Visit Record. These items cover basic socio- planning service sites, while another report2 discusses

demographic information about the patient and other the number of teenagers who used organized family

information pertaining to family planning (see appen- planning services. Both reports use data from the

dix 111for facsimile). 1978 National Reporting System for Family Planning

It should be emphasized that this report focuses Semites.
Highlights

Age, race, and ethnicity tion is much higher for black teenagers than for white

Table 1 and figure 1 show that the number of teenagem. About 5.8 percent of the visits were made

teenagers’ family planning visits increases with age.

by teenagers of Hispanic origin or descent.’ The visit

The bulk of the visits (56.4 percent) are concentrated rate per 1,000 Hispanic females age 13-19 years is

among those age 18 and 19 years. About 9.1 percent of 152; the visit rate for the non-Hispanic population is

the visits were made by patients under age 16 years.

171.

The proportion of visits by white teenagers is

67.8 per~en~ compared with 30.8 percent by black aHiapanic origin or descent was determined independently of racial

teenagers. However, the visit rate per 1,000 popula- classification.

700

6CKI

500

400

300

200

lm

0

I

13 14 16 16 17 18 19

years years years years years years yaars

or under

Figure 1. Number of family planning visits by females under age 20 years, by age: United Statea, 1978
Visit status

Initial visits are identified on the basis of the

patient’s response to the question, “Have you ever

been a patient of this or any other clinic for family

planning medical services?” Thus initial visits represent the patient’s first contact with the organized

family planning program but do not preclude prior

contact with other providers of medical family

planning services, such as private physicians. Figure

2 shows that about three-fourths of all initial visits

were made by white teenagers, but they account

for a lower proportion (65.2 percent) of the return

visits.b Conversely, the proportion of black teenagers at all return visits (33.6 percent) is higher than

at initial visits (23.7 percent). The proportion of all

visits within each race that are initial visits is about 10

percentage points higher for white teenagers than for

black teenagers (3 1.5 percent and 22.1 percent,

respectively).

Education and income

Table 2 indicates that the majority of visits by

teenagers (61.5 percent) were made by those who

had not yet completed high school. This finding is

not unexpected, since at least 4 out of 10 such visits

bReturn ~sits include continuation and readmission visits.

were made by females under 18 years of age. Of all

visits, 39.7 percent were made by those with less than

12 years of education. More than half of the teenagers’ visits are associated with those who were students at the time of the visit. A large proportion of

the black teenagers reported less than a high school

education (68.5 percent) than did white teenagers

(58.3 percent). This difference by race is also

apparent for initial visits.

Data on whether the patient’s family receives

public assistance income are indicative of the patient’s need for subsidized medical services. On the

average, visits made by members of families receiving

public assistance income are about as common among

teenagers as among women of all ages, 14.9 percent

and 15.4 percent, respectively. It is also evident that a

higher proportion of visits by black teenagers are

characterized by the family’s receipt of public assistance income (30.8 percent) than is found among

visits by white teenagers (7.8 percent).

Pregnancy history

Table 3 and figure 3 reveal the relatively large

proportion of visits by teenagers who had never been

pregnant (64.3 percent). The comparable figure for

visits by women of all ages is 41.8 percent. A, higher

proportion of the teenagers’ visits were made by

never-pregnant white persons (68. 1 percent) than by

2,000

c.-

:: 1,000

>

%

0

r

Initial visits Return visits

I 100??

65.2%

100%

74.5%

33.6%

23.7%

I 1 —

Total 1 White Black Total 1 White Black

Race

11“C]udes races other than white and bleck.

Figure 2. Percent distribution of family planning visits by females under age 20 years by race and visit status, according to number of visits:

United States, 1978

4
❑

RI

•1

n

2,500

2,000

‘a

500

0

Totall

1I ncludes races other

All visits

I I

White

than white and black.

Black

Initial visits

Total 1

Race

White

Number of pregnancies

None

One

Two or more

.....................:.:.:....

Black

Figure 3. Number of family planning visits by females under age 20 years, by number of pregnancies, race, and visit status:

United States, 1978

never-pregnant black persons (55.9 percent); this populations the survey reveals no apparent differracial differential is also apparent at initial visits,

although the proportions are larger.

About 77.6 percent of all visits and 82.6 percent

of initial visits are associated with teenage patients

who had never had a live birth. Visits by black teenagers were about 1.9 times as likely to be made by

those who had had one live birth, compared with

visits made by white teenagers. At 24.1 percent of

the visits made by women of all ages, the patient

reported two or more live births, but for visits by

teenagers, this figure is much lower–only 3.6 percent.

Table 3 shows that 16.0 percent of the visits by

teenagers were made by those who had had at least

one fetal death, compared with 22.7 percent of the

visits made by women of all ages; the comparable

figures for initial visits are 11.9 percent and 20.1 percent, respectively. Although fetal mortality is generally more common among the other-than-white

ences by race.

Prior contraceptive method

Table 4 shows 28.2 percent of all visits and 65.0

percent of initial visits are associated with teenagers

who had never regularly used a contraceptive method.

The comparable proportions for visits by women of

all ages– 15.3 percent of all visits and 45.5 percent of

initial visits–are clearly lower. There is no statistically

signtilcant difference in the proportions of visits

made by white teenagers and black teenagers who

had never regularly used a method.

About 60.3 percent of all visits were made by

teenagers who reported the oral contraceptive pill as

their prior method. The proportion of initial visits

that were made by teenage users of the pill and the

intrauterine devices (IUD) –24.5 percent–points to

the likelihood of prior contact with other types of

5
family planning service providers, such as private

physicians. Utilization of other contraceptive methods

is minimal; combined, these methods were reported

by teenagers at only 8.6 percent of all visits and 10.4

percent of initial visits.

According to the 1978 survey data, the pill and

the IUD were reported as the most recent regularly

used contraceptive method in 63.2 percent of all

visits by teenagers; the comparable proportion for

visits by women of all ages is 72.8 percent.

Contraceptive method adopted or continued

Adoption or continuation of the oral contraceptive pill occurred at 77.0 percent of the teenagers’

family planning visits (see figure 4 and table 5). The

proportion of initial visits where the pill was adopted

or continued is 71.5 percent. Adoption or continuation of the IUD, diaphragm, and foam/jelly/cream

each accounts for about 4 percent of all teenagers’

visits. At 7.3 percent of all visits by teenagers, no contraceptive method was adopted or continued; the

figure is somewhat higher at initial visits. Compared

with visits by teenagers, visits by women of all ages

show a lower level of pill use, but larger proportions

of their visits are associated with the IUD and diaphragm.

A recent report on characteristics of teenage

wives and mothers shows that ever-mamied teenagers

were much more likely to use the pill than evermarried women 20-44 years of age (51 percent compared with 22 percent, respectively). However, no

significant differences were found between teenagers

and their 2044-year-old counterparts in the percent

trying to become pregnant or using the IUD.4

Patterns of contraceptive utilization differ very

little by race. Nearly equal proportions of the visits

by white and black teenagers are associated with the

No regular method

7.3%

\

Other

0.8%

Relying on partner= \

2.6%

Foam/jelly/cream =

4.2%

Diaphragm /

3.7% /

IUD

4.4%

Figure 4. Percent distribution of family planning visits by females

under age 20 years, by contraceptive method adopted or continued: United States, 1978

6

pill (76.6 and 78.0 percent, respectively), although

preference for the diaphragm appears to be slightly

more common at visits by white teenagers than by

black teenagers. There are no statistical differences

by race in the proportion of visits at which no method of contraception was adopted or continued, either

for all visits or for initial visits.

However, Zelnik and Kanter provide a somewhat

different perspective in their comparison of contraceptive-use status (prior to pregnancy, marriage, or

survey; whichever came first) as reported by sexually

active respondents in 1976 and 1979 surveys. They

report that, although the proportion that never used

a method declined between 1976 and 1979 for each

race, in 1979 a larger proportion of black females

age 15-19 years were never users (36 percent) compared with their white counterparts (24 percemt).5

Table 6 shows number of pregnancies and prior

contraceptive method according to the contraceptive

method adopted or continued at the end of the visit.

Pregnancy history appears to be related to contraceptive method. For example, at visits where the pill was

the chosen method, 65.9 percent of patients reported

they had never been pregnant, whereas at visits where

the IUD was chosen, the proportion was 38.7 percent.

At about 25.7 percent of the teenagers’ visits, the

contraceptive method was “upgraded,” thak is, the

patient adopted either the pill or IUD when she had

previously used no contraceptive method or one of

the less effective methods. In absolute terms, the

largest jump includes approximately 479,000 visits

where the teenage patient opted for the pill ~i lieu of

no method. Proportionally, a somewhat different picture emerges. Looking at visits by each method of

contraception that was adopted or continued, the

sizable proportion “switching over” from the pill is

evident–at least one-quarter of the visits in each

method are associated with the pill as the prior contraceptive method, but this amounts to only about

128,000 visits, or about 5 percent of the total number of visits by teenagers.

Medical services provided

Table 5 and figure 5 show data on the provision of

medical services related to family planning. A total of

10,652,000 medical family planning services were

provided at teenagers’ visits, yielding an average of

4.4 services per visit. If visits by all women are considered, the average number of medical services provided is also about 4.4 per visit. Four of the core

medical services (i.e., pap smear, pelvic exam, breast

exam, and blood pressure test) account for 56 percent

of the medical services provided to teenagers. At initial visits, these procedures account for 55.5 percent

of the medical services provided to teenagers. Only

minor variations are apparent when the provision of

medical services to teenagers is examined by race.
Pap smear I

Pelvic exam I

Breast exam I

~

-0,-

> Blood pressure

o I

k

z Pregnancy test

.-

?

8

V.D. test

~

.-

g

BIood test

Urinalysis 1

Other

I I I I I

o 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

Number of visits in thousands

Figure 5, Number of family planning visits by females under age 20

years, by medical service provided: United States, 1978

Geographic region

It is evident from figure 6 that more clinic-based

family planning visits were made by teenagem in the

South region than in any other region. Table 7 reveals

that in every geographic region except the South there

were more visits by white teenagers than by black

teenagers. In the South, about an equal share of the

visits were made by white and black teenagers (48.6

percent and 50.6 percent, respectively), whereas in

the West the proportion of black teenagers is ordy

7.9 percent. In examining ethnicity by region, the

proportion of visits by teenagers of Hispanic origin is

largest in the West (1 2.0 percent).

In every region, as is true overall, the proportion of

visits by teenagers with less than 12 years of education is higher than for those who have completed at

least 12 years of education. The difference is as high

as 40 percentage points in the South, where more

visits were made by black teenagers than in any other

region. The South is the only region where visits by

teenagers who were students did not outnumber visits

by teenagers who were not students.

For every region, a much larger proportion of visits

are associated with teenagers whose families do not

receive public assistance than are associated with

teenagers whose families do receive such assistance;

however, the proportions vary slightly among the

regions. About 18 percent of the teenagers’ visits in

the Northeast and South regions were made by members of families receiving public assistance, compared

with only about 9 percent in the West. In fact, the

1,000

r

38.6%

800 —

%

?+

~ 600

. 23.2%

c.-

ln

.=

.9

> 18.3% 18.9%

z

& 400 —

+

s

200 —

o

North- North South West

east Central

Geographic region

Figure 6. Percent distribution of family planning visits by females

under age 20 years by geographic region, according to number of

visits: United States, 1978

West had the smallest proportion of visits associated

with teenagers whose families receive public assistance.

Looking at the status of visits by region, it can be

seen that the proportion of visits that are initial visits

is larger in the West (39.9 percent) and Northeast

(31.9 percent) than in the other regions (about 23

percent for both). Conversely, the proportions of

return visits are larger in the South (77.0 percent) and

North Central (76.3 percent) regions than in the other

two regions.

As noted previously, the proportion of visits made

by teenagers with less than a high school education is

higher for black persons than for white persons. This

difference is not statistically significant, however,

when comparing the figures for black and white teenagers within regions (tables 8 and 9). The proportion

of visits by students is significantly higher than by

nonstudents in every region for black teenagers

except in the West and for white teenagers in two out

of four regions (South and West).

Another racial difference can be seen by comparing the proportion of visits by black teenagers whose

families receive public assistance income with the

proportion of visits by their white counterparts. With7
in three of the four geographic regions, a larger proportion of visits by black teenagers than by white

teenagers are associated with families that receive

public assistance income; the difference between the

two racial groups in the West is not statistically significant.

With regard to visit status shown in tables 8 and

9, there are a few differences between the two racial

categories, but they are not statistically significant.

Within races, however, there is a significantly higher

proportion of initial visits by both white and black

teenagers in the West than in the South.

Table 10 shows the proportion of teenagers’ visits

by prior contraceptive method and method adopted

or continued at the end of the visit according to geographic region. The only major difference in the distribution of visits according to prior contraceptive

method among the regions is the higher proportion

of visits associated with the pill in the North Central

region (67.0 percent) and the South (63.6 percent)

as compared with the Northeast (51.8 percent) and

the West (56.0 percent). In all regions, the pill is the

prior method associated with the largest percentage

of teenagers’ visits. The next largest proportion of

visits were made by teenagers who had never used a

method regularly. A rather small proportion of visits

are associated with each of the other methods, which

include the diaphragm, foam/jelly/cream, and the IUD.

The pill was the method adopted or continued

by teenagers most often at visits in all the regions and

especially in the South, where the pill was accepted

at almost 82 percent of the visits. Furthermore, the

pill was adopted at a significantly higher proportion

of the visits in the South than in the Northeast and

West. Looking at the IUD and diaphragm together, a

higher proportion of visits in the Northeast (14.4

percent) were associated with these methods than in

the North Central and South regions. However, the

proportion of the visits associated with these methods

in the North Central region was higher than that of

the South. There are no statistically significant differences among the regions in the proportions associated

with the other contraceptive methods.

Tables 11 and 12 show only slight variations by

region between visits by black and white teenagers

according to prior contraceptive method and contraceptive method adopted or continued. For white

teenagers, the proportion of visits associated with

pill use as prior method is higher in the Ncmth Central than in the Northeast or West regions, and it is

higher in the South than in the Northeast. Also, the

proportion of visits by those who had never used a

method regularly is higher in the Northeast region

than in the North Central region.

There are no statistically significant differences

among the regions for visits by black teenagers with

regard to contraceptive methods adopted or continued.

8
References

1The Ma Guttmacher Institute: Contraceptive Services for

Adolescents: United States, each State and County, 1975.

New York. 1978.

2National Center for Health Statistics: Teenagers who use

organized family planning services: National Reporting System

for Family Planning Services, United States, 1978, by Eugenia

Eckard. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 13–No. 57. DHHS

Pub. No. (PHS) 81-1718. Public Health Service, Hyattsville,

Md. In preparation.

3National Center for Health Statistics: Health, United States,

1980. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 81-1232. Public Health Service.

Hyattsville, Md. p. 32.

4National Center for Health Statistics: Selected demographic

characteristics of teenage wives and mothers: United States, by

S. Millman and W. D. Mosher. Advance Data from Vital and

Health Statistics, No. 61. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 80-1250. Public Health Service. Hyattsville, Md. Sept. 26, 1980.

5Zelnik, M., @d Kanter, J. F.: Sexual activity, contraceptive use

and pregnancy among metropolitan-area teenagers: 1971-79.

Fare. Plann. Perspectives 12(5). Sept.-Ott. 1980, pp. 230-237.

6Final Report of Data Quality Study for the National Reporting System for Family PIanning Services. Aug. 1980, Informatics (Unpublished).
List of detailed tables

1. Number, percent distribution, and rate per 1,000 population

of family planning visits by females under age 20 years, by

age, race, and ethnicity: United States, 1978 . . . . . . . . . .

2. Number of family planning visits by females and percent

distribution, by visit status and selected characteristics,

according to age and race: United States, 1978 . . . . . . . . .

3. Number of family planning visits by females and parcent

distribution, by visit status and pregnancy history, according

toage and race: United States, 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Number of family planning visits by femalas and percent

distribution, by visit status and prior contraceptive method,

according to age and race: United Statas, 1978 . . . . . . . . .

5. Number of family planning visits by females and percent

distribution, by visit status, contraceptive method adopted or

continued, and medical servicas provided, according to aga

andrace: United Stetes,1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. Number of family planning visits by females undar age 20

years and percent distribution by number of pregnancies

and prior contraceptive method, according to contraceptive mathod adopted or continued: Unitad States,

1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7.

11

8.

11

9.

12

10.

12

11.

13

12.

13

Number of family planning visits by females under age 20

years and parcent distribution by selected characteristics,

according to geographic ragion: lJnitad States, 1978 . . . . . 14

Numbar of family planning visits by white females under age

20 years and parcent distribution by selacted characteristics,

according to geographic region: United States, 1978 . . . . . 14

Numbar of family planning visits by black femalas under aga

20 years and percent distribution by salactad characteristics,

according to geographic region: United Statas, 1978 . . . . . 15

Number of family planning visits by femalas undar aga 20

years and parcant distribution by prior contraceptive method

and contraceptive method adopted or continued, accalrding

to geographic region: United States, 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Number of family planning visits by white famalas under age

20 years and percent distribution by prior contraceptive

method and contraceptive mathod adoptad or continued,

according to geographic ragion: United States, 1978 . , . . . 16

Number of family planning visits by black females under age

20 yaars and percant distribution by prior contraceptive

method and contraceptive method adopted or continuadr

according to geographic region: Unitad States, 1978 . . . . . 16

10
Table 1. Number, percent distribution, and rate per 1,000 population

of family planning visits by females under age 20 years, by age,

race, and ethnicity: United States, 1978

Table 2. Number of family planning visits by females and percent

distribution by visit status and selected characteristics,according

to age and rata: United States, 1978

Number of Petcent Visit rate

Age, race, and ethnicity visits in distri- per 1,000

thousands bution population

Patients under

Visit status and All age 20 years

selected characteristics patients

Totall White Black

All visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age

13years orunder . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ethnicity

Hispanic origin or dascent . . . . . . .

Non-Hispanic origin ordescent . . . .

2,410

~

148

322

510

671

688

1,635

742

34

139

2,271

100.0 170

0.8

2.2 2;

6.1 74

13.3 158

21.2 246

27.8 324

28.6 327

67.8 138

30.8 368

1.4 131

5.8 2152

94.2 171

lBa~d~n the u.S. civilian nonlnstitutionalized famalepoPubtiona9e

43-19 years.

Population for denominator ofrateic estimated from available Census

Bureau figures for the Spanish-origin population.

NOTE: Numbers maynotadd tototals due to rounding.

All visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

All visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

Lessthan12years . . . . . . . . . .

12yearsormore . . . . . . . . . . .

Studentstatus

Student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nonstudent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public assistanceincoma

Income includes public

assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Incomedoesnot include public

assistance . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .

Initielvisits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Initial visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

Lessthan12years . . . . . . . . . .

12yeersormore . . . . . . . . . . .

Student status

Student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nonstudant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public wistance income

Income includes public

asswtance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Income does not include public

assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number in thousands

7,425 2,410 1,635 742

Percent distribution

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

39.7 61.5 58.3 68.5

60.3 38.5 41.7 31.5

29.0 54.4 52.0 58.7

71.0 45.6 48.0 40.3

15.4 14.9 7.8 30.8

84.6 85.1 92.2 69.2

Number in thousands

1,466 691 515

Percent distribution

100.0 100.0 100.0

42.7 63.1 60.4

57.4 36.8 39.4

37.9 60.2 58.2

62.1 39.7 41.8

12.4 11.9 7.4

87.6 88.7 92.6

164

100.0

72.0

28.0

66.8

33.2

26.2

73.2

1, nclud~ rat= otier than whita and black.

NOTE: Numbere may notaddtototals dueto rounding.

11
Table3. Number of family planning visits by females and percent

distribution byvisit status andpregnancy history, according toa~

and race: United States, 1978

Patients under

Visit status and All age 20 years

pregnancy history patients

Totall White Black

Alivisite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

All visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of pregnancies

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Twoor more . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of live births

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Two ormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of fetal deaths

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Initial visits . . .. m........ . .

Initial visits . . . . . . . . . . . . .m.

Number of pregnancies

Non. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Twoor more . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Numbar of live births

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Twoormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of fetal deaths

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Two ormore . . . . . . . . . . . . .,

Number in thousands

7,425 2,410 1,635 742

Percent distribution

100.0

41.8

26.8

31.4

53.2

22.6

24.1

77.3

17.4

5.3

100.0

64.3

27.6

8.2

77.6

18.8

3.6

64.0

14.1

1.9

100.0

68.1

25.2

6.7

82.4

14.9

2.8

83.6

14.5

1.9

100.0

55.9

33.0

11.3

66.8

27.8

5.5

84.8

13.1

1.9

Number in thousands

1,466 691 515 164

Percent distribution

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

52.6 72.3 75.5 62.2

24.3 22.1 19.4 31.1

23.2 5.5 5.0 7.3

63.6 82.6 86.0 71.3

19.6 15.1 12.0 25.6

16.7 2.3 *1.9 *3.7

79.9 88.1 88.2 87.8

15.5 10.6 10.5 11.0

4.6 *1.3 ++1.4 *1.2

Table4. Number of family planning visits by females and percant

distribution by visit status and prior contraceptive method,

according toage and race: United Stetes,1978

Patients under

Visit status and prior All age 20 years

contraceptiveme thod patiants

TotalT White Black

All visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

All visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

prior contraceptive method

Pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Foam/jelly/cream.. . . . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Noregularmethod . . . . . . . . . .

Initial visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Initial visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

prior contraceptive method

Pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Foam/jelly/cream . . . . . . . . . . .

0ther2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Noregularmethod . . . . . . . . . .

Number in thousands

7,425 2,410 1,635 742

Percent distribution

100:0 100.0 IOCLO 100.0

64.3 60,3 59.1 63.2

8.5 2.9 2!,4 3.8

3.9 1.6 1.9 *1.O

3.3 2.5 2!.6 2.3

4.7 4.5 5.3 2.6

15.3 28.2 28.7 27.0

Number in thousands

1,466 691 515 164

Percent distribution

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

36.8 23.6 24.5 20.7

4.4 *0.9 *0.8 *1.2

2.7 *0.6 *0.6 ‘0.6

3.8 2.6 2,9 *1.8

6.9 7.2 8.6 ++3.0

45.5 65.0 62.5 72.5

I Includes races other than white and black.

zlnciude~ natural contraceptive methods and ateri[ization,, as well as

other contraceptive methods.

NOTE: Numbera maynotadd tototals due to rounding.

1 In=lud~ racea other than white and black.

NOTE: Numbers maynotadd tototals due to rounding.

12
Table5. Number of family planning visits by females and percent distribution by visit status, contraceptive method adopted orcontinued, and

medical services provided, according toage and race: United States, 1978

Visit status, contraceptive

Patients under

Visit status, contraceptive

Patiarrts under

All method con n“nued or adopted, age 20 years All method continued or adopted, age 20 years

and medical sewices provided

patienti patients

Tote17 White Black and medical services provided Total’ Mite Black

Number in thousands Number in thousands

7,425 2,410 1,635

Percent distribution

742

100.0

Initial visits . . . . . . . . . . 1,466 691 515

Percent distribution

163

100.0

72.4

*3.7

*2.5

8.6

*3.7

‘0.6

8.6

75.3

85.4

80.2

93.1

9.4

71.4

70.4

71.4

49.8

All visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

100.0

67.1

9.5

6.4

4.8

3.2

2.0

6.9

48.2

63.2

50.2

86.1

7.9

44.1

48.3

41.8

51.0

Allvisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contraceptive method

adopted or continued

Pill

IUD:::::::::::::::::

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Foam/jelly/cream. . . . . . . . .

Relying on partner . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No regular method . . . . . . . .

Medical services provided

Pap smear . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pelvic exam . . . . . . . . . . . .

8reastexam . . . . . . . . . . . .

8100d prassure. . . . . . . . . . .

Pregnancy test. . . . . . . . . . .

V. D. test . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urinalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Blood best . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

100.0

77.0

4.4

3.7

4.2

2.6

0.8

7.3

48.0

60.8

49.7

87.0

9.0

44.8

49.4

42.6

50.7

100.0

76.6

3.9

4.4

3.7

2.7

0.9

7.6

48.6

61.0

49.3

85.9

9.7

44.7

50.9

43.1

50.8

Initial visits . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0

71.5

3.0

4.6

6.1

3.6

●1.O

10.3

74.1

83.1

75.8

90.7

11.0

67.0

72.9

69.5

48.9

100.0

71.3

2.9

5.2

5.4

3.7

“0.8

10.3

74.0

82.5

74.8

90.1

11.1

65.8

74.2

69.1

48.5

Contraceptive method

adopted or continued

Pill

IUD:::::::::::::::

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . .

Foam/jelly/cream. . . . . . .

Relying on partner . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No regular method . . . . . .

78.0

5.4

2.0

5.3

2.4

‘0.7

6.2

60.8

6.8

8.0

6.5

4.6

2.1

11.0

Medical services provided

46.5

60.2

50.7

89.6

7.4

45.1

46.1

41.4

49.6

Papsmear . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pelvic exam . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Breast exam . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Blood pressure. . . . . . . . . . . .

Pregnancy test. . . . . . . . . . . .

V. D. test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urinalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Blood best . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69.4

81.5

70.8

88.2

11.1

62.2

67.7

63.7

49.2

Ilncjudes races otier than white and black.

NOTE: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

Table 6. Number of family planning visits by females under age 20 years and percent distribution by number of pregnancies and prior contraceptive

method, according to contraceptive method adopted or continued: United States, 1978

Number of pregnancies and

prior contraceptive method Foam/ No

Total Pill IUD Diaphragm jelly/ Other regular

cream method

Number in thousands

All visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,410 1,856 107 88 101 83 176

Percent distribution

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

Number of pregnancies

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.3 65.9 38.7

One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.6 27,0 42.5

Two ormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 7.1 18.8

66.3 56.6

25.3 31.0

●8.4 12.4

58.8

29.5

11.7

69.3

22.4

8.3

Prior contraceptive method

Pill 60.3 67.5 31.3

IUD::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::: 2.9 0.8 38.5

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,6 *0.5 *1.9

Foam/jelly/cream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 1.7 *4.2

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,5 3.7 *3.8

No regularmethod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.2 25.8 20.1

NOTE: Numbers maynotadd tototals dueto rounding.

31.4 37.2

*2.4 *4.1

24.4 *0.8

*4.5 13.8

●8.8 * 5.0

28.5 39.1

34.4

*2.9

*1.3

*2.6

16.0

42.8

42.8

*2.5

*1.7

*2.5

5.6

44.9

13
Table7. Number of family planning visi@by females under age20yeam andpercent distribution byselected characteristics, according tc) geographic

region: United States, 1978

Geographic region

Selected characteristics

Total Northeast North Central South West

Number in thousands

All visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,410 441 455 954 560

Percent distribution

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

Race

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.8 72.3 78.3 48.6 68.6

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.8 27.3 20.9 50.6 7.9

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 ●0.4 *0.8 *0.9 3.5

Ethnicity

Hispanic originordescent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8 5.7 2.5 3.7 12.0

Non-Hispanic originordescent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.2 94.3 97.5 96.3 88.0

Education

Lessthan 12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.4 55.6 55.8 70.0 56.0

12yearsor more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.6 44.4 44.2 30.0 44.0

Student status

Student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.4 60.6 57.0 50.0 54.8

Nonstudent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.6 39.4 43.0 50.0 45.2

Public assistance income

Income includespublicassistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.9 17.8 13.9 17.5 9.0

Incomedoes notincludapublic assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85,1 82.2 86.1 82.5 91.0

Visit status

Initial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.7 31.9 23.7 23.0 39.9

Return . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.3 68.1 76.3 77.0 60.1

NOTE: Numbars maynotadd tototals due to rounding.

Table8. Number of family planning visits by white females under aga20 years and percent distribution byselacted characteristics, according to

geographic region: United States, 1978

Geographic region

Selected characteristics

Total Northeast North Central South West

Number in thousands

All visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,635 319 356 463 496

Percent distribution

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

Education

Lassthan 12yaars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.3 51.7 53.3 69.1 56.1

12yearsormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.7 48.3 46.7 30.9 43.9

Student status

Student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.0 59.1 55.6 41.8 54.4

Nonstudent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.0 40.9 44.4 58.2 45.6

Public assistance income

Income includespubiicassistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 10.7 7.9 5.7 7,8

Income does notincludepublic assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.2 68.3 92.1 94.3 92.2

Visit status

Initial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.5 33.7 24.4 27.4 38.9

Retur n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.5 66.3 75.6 72.6 61.1

NOTE: Numbare maynotadd tototals dueto rounding.
Table9. Number of family planning visits by black females under age 20 Years and parcent distribution by sekctedc haracteristics, accordingto

geographic region: United States, 1978

Geographic region

Selected characteristics

Total Northeast North Central South West

All visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742 121

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

Education

Lessthan12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.5

12yearsormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.5

Student status

Student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.7

Nonstudent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.3

Public assistanceincome

Income includespublicassistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.8

Incomedoes notinclude publicassistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.2

Visit status

Initial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.0

Return . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.0

100.0

65.9

34.1

S4.8

35.2

36.7

63.3

26.7

73.3

Numberin thousands

95 . 482 44

Percent distribution

100.0 100.0 100.0

64.8 70.9 57.2

35.2 29.1 42.8

63.0 58.0 57.4

37.0 42.0 42.6

36.2 29.1 *2 I .4

53.8 70.9 78.6

20.5 18.8 48.2

78.5 81.2 51.8

NOTE: Numbers may notaddtototals dueto rounding,

Table IO. Number of family planning visits by females under a@20yeam andpement distribution byprior contraceptive mathod and contraceptive

methdadopted orcontinued, according togeqraphic region: United States, 1978

Prior contraceptive method and contraceptive Geographic region

methodadopted orcontinued Total Northtxmt North Central south west

Ail visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,410 441

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

Prior contraceptive method

Pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.3

IUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6

Foam/jally/cream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5

No regularmethod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.2

Contraceptive method adoptad or continuad

Pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.0

IUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7

Foam/jelly/cream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2

Relyingon partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6

Other, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8

Noregularmethod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3

100.0

51.8

4.1

3.7

2.8

5.4

32.2

68.0

z

4.7

3.8

‘0.6

8.5

Numberinthousands

455 954 560

Percant distribution

100.0 100.0 100.0

67.0 63.6 56.0

2.0 2.6 3.0

●1.4 ‘0.5 1.9

●2.O 2.7 2.4

4.0 5.1

23.6 2= 31.5

78.9 81.8 74.3

2.9 4.1 5.0

2.9 ●I .2 4.7

2.6 4.5 4.6

3.2 1.9 2.3

●1.2 *0.8 *0.8

8.4 5.7 8.2

NOTE: Numbers may notaddtototals dueto rounding.

15
Table Il. Number of family planning visits by white females under aga 20 years and percent distribution by prior contraceptive method and

contraceptive method adopted orcontinued, accordng togeographic ragion: United States, 1978

Prior contraceptive method and contraceptive

method adopted or continued

Geographic region

Total Northeast North Central South West

Number in thousands

356 463 496

Percent distribution

100.0 100.0 100.0

All visits, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,635 319

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

Prior contraceptive method

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..0..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pill . . . . ...<..

IUD . . . . . . . . . .

Diaphragm . . . . .

Foam/jelly/cream .

Other . . . . . . . . .

No regu Iar method

. . . . . . . . . 58.1 51.2

. . . . . . . . . 2.4 2.7

. . . . . . . . . 1.9 4.0

. . . . . . . . . 2.6 2.9

. . . . . . . . . 5.3 6.5

. . . . . . . . . 28.7 32.7

67.2 61.3 56.3

*1.8 *2.2 2.8

++ 1.4 *0.7 “2.0

*1.9 3.3 2.4

4.4 5.3 5.1

23.4 27.2 31.4

Contraceptive method adopted or continued

Pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Foam/jelly/cream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Relying on partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Noragularmethod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . 76.6 69.6

. . . . . . . . . 3.9 4.6

. . . . . . . . . 4.4 9.4

. . . . . . . . . 3.7 3.5

m.,... . . 2.7 3.8

. . . . . . . . . 0.9 ‘0.8

. . . . . . . . . 7.6 8.4

79.8 81.3 74.6

2.5 3.6 4.8

3.0 *1.5 4.8

*2.3 4.0 4.7

2.9 2.4 2.2

*0.7 *1 .2 *0.9

8.2 6.4 8.2

NOTE: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

Table 12. Number of family planning visits by black females under age 20 years and percent distribution by prior contraceptive method and

contraceptive method adopted orcontinued, accordng togeographic region: United States, 1978

Pn”or contracaptiva method and contraceptive Geographic region

methodadopted orcontinued

Total Northeast North Central South Wast

Number in thousands

All visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742 121 95 482 44

Parcent distribution

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

Prior contraceptive method

Pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.2 53.5

IUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 *7.7

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *1.O *2.7

Foam/jelly/cream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 ●2.7

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 * 2.3

Noregularmethod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.0 31.1

66.4

*2.9

*1.6

*2.3

*2.8

24.0

65.7

3.0

*0.4

*2.2

2.6

26.1

55.9

*4.4

*1.3

‘3.0

*3.3

32.1

Contraceptive method adopted or continued

Pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.0 63.9

IUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 *9.8

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 * 5.8

Foam/jelly/cream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 *7.6

Relyingon partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 *3.9

Other, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ●0.7 “0.3

Noragularmethod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 *8.7

75.3

*4.3

*2.4

*3.7

*4.3

*1.1

●8.8

82.4

4.5

*0.8

5.0

*1.5

*0.7

5.1

74.2

*6.7

*4.2

*4.9

*3.7

*0.8

*5.6

NOTE: Numbers maynotadd tototals due to rounding.

16
Appendixes

Contents

1. Technical notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............”o”.”s.”””” ““” o.” ‘8

Survey methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Data collection andprocessing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Reliability ofestimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘g

Il. Definitions ofterms usedinthisreport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

111. ClinicVisit RecordforFamily Planning Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

List of appendix tables

1.

Il.

Ill.

Iv.

v.

Estimated number of family planning visits, byageand race: United States, 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Relative standard error of estimated number of family planning visits, by age and race: United States, 1978 . . . . . . . . . . 19

Number of sample (i.e., unweighed) family planning visit records, by age and race: United States, 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Range ofrecommended design effects forpropotiion estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Number of sample (i.e., unweighed) family planning visits by female patients under age 20 years, by visit

status, race, and geographic region: United Stetes, 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

.

17
Appendix L Technical notes

Survey methodology

The National Reporting System for Family

Planning Services covers family planning visits to

nonmilitary service sites in the United States, Guam,

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands that offer medical

family planning services. The survey specifically

excludes family planning visits to office-based private

physicians’ practices; these visits are included in the

National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, which is

also conducted by the Division of Health Care

Statistics of the National Center for Health Statistics

(NCHS).

Sampling design. –The data presented in this

report are based on a two-stage stratified sample survey. The first-stage sampling frame was completed

during the summer of 1976. The frame consisted of a

list of family planning service sites enrolled in the

full-count survey (the mode in which the survey operated prior to the adoption of the sampling approach

on July 1, 1977). The frame was augmented by lists

of family planning service sites compiled by the Bureau

of Community Health Services of the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services and by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which, at that time, wasthe research

and development division of the Planned Parenthood

Federation of America, Inc. Family planning service

sites that were identified on more than one list were

deleted from the frame prior to sample selection.

Prior to selection of the sample service sites, the

sampling frame was arranged into six State groups,

which were formed by combining States with similar

numbers of family planning service sites. Within each

State group, each family planning service site was

classified into one of the following three classes according to reported information for the facility’s

annual number of family planning visits: sites with

less than 1,000 visits, sites with 1,000-3,999 visits,

and sites with 4,000 visits or more. Within each of the

sampling strata defined by the six State groups and

the three visit-size classes, the service sites were

ordered by State, type of sponsorship (i.e., public

health department, afffiate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., hospital, and

other), and county. The sample service sites were systematically selected from these strata after a random

start, with the probability of selection ranging from

certainty to 1 in 18. The 1978 U.S. sample comprised 1,195 sites, with 85.1 percent of the sites participating in the survey.

In the second stage, family planning visits at each

sample site were systematically selected. NCHS

assigned to each sample site a sampling rate dependent on the site’s reported visit volume and the State

in which the site was located. Overall, 14 visit sampling rates were used to determine the proportion of

each site’s family planning visits needed for the survey; the visit sampling rates ranged from certainty to

1 in 30.

Data collection and processing

Visit data were either abstracted from the

patient’s medical file or obtained by interviewing the

patient. The primary data collection form is the

Clinic Visit Record, which consists of the survey’s

minimum basic data set (see appendix III).

Each sample service site had the option of collecting data for the survey by participating in a computerized record system, provided NCHS criteria for data

collection were met. NCHS required that (1) the record system’s data be based on a source document that

included the survey’s minimum basic data set, and

(2) the procedures and definitions used to collect

such data be consistent with those specified for the

survey. About 3 out of 4 sample service sites participating in the 1978 survey collected data by participating in a computerized record system. The remaining sites collected survey data on Clinic Visit Records,

which were submitted to NCHS for processtig.

The procedure for sampling visits was done in one

of two ways. Sample service sites that collected visit

data for the survey by participating in a computerized

18
record system usually opted to have the sample visits

selected by computer. The remaining sites selected

sample visits through their staffs’ maintenance of visit

logs used to list every patient making a family planning visit. Individuals who answered ‘Yes” to the

screening question (“Are you here to see a health provider [physician, nurse, allied health personnell

about obtainkg health services related to contraception, infertility treatment, or sterilization?”) were

listed consecutively on the visit log. Those individuals

whose names appeared on the last line of each page

in the visit log were selected and data for those visits

were collected. The total number of lines used to list

patients on the family planning visit log was equal to

the reciprocal of the sampling fraction used by the

site; different versions of the family planning visit

logs corresponded to each of the 14 sampling rates

employed to select sample visits.

Data processing. –Data processing differed according to the mode of data submission. Visit data received on Clinic Visit Records had to be keyed to

machine-readable form prior to computer processing.

Keying for all data items was independently verified

for 100 percent of the Clinic Visit Records. Visit data

received on a computer tape or on punched cards

from a computerized record system did not require

precomputer processing.

All visit data–regardless of the form of data submission—were edited by NCHS for completeness and

consistency. Visit records with errors, inconsistencies,

or item nonresponse were corrected, if possible,

through followup with the service site or the computerized record system. Imputation was used for specific data items when the overall level of nonresponse

for an item was small.

is referred to the section titled “Nonsampling error”

for additional information on measurement error.

The chances are about 0.68 that the interval

specified by the estimate plus or minus one standard

error contains the figure that would be obtained

through a full-count survey of the sampling frame.

The chances are about 0.95 that the interval specified by the estimate plus or minus two standard

errors contains the figure that would be obtained

through a full-count survey of the sampling frame.

In order to derive standard errors at moderate

cost that would be applicable to a wide variety of

statistics, several approximations were required.

It is necessmy to utilize the estimates of domain

sizes, relative standard errors, and sample sizes

shown in tables I-III; table IV ,provides the range of

recommended design effects. Also, the following

distribution of the 94,350 sample family planning

visits by teenagers is needed to determine the standard error for the percentage estimates in table 6: in

Table 1. Estimated number of family planning visits, by age and race:

United States, 1978

Age

Race Total Under 20-24 25-29 30 years

20 yaars yews years and over

Number of visits in thousands

Allreces’ . . . . . . 7,425 2,410 2,831 1,321 864

White . . . . . . . . . 4,938 1,635 1#934 842 527

Black . . . . . . . . . 2,356 742 848 449 317

1I “Clud= races other than white and black.

Table 11. Relative standard error of estimated number of family

planning visits, by age and race: United States, 1978

Reliability of estimates

Estimation. –The survey statistics are derived by a

complex estimation procedure used to produce essentially unbiased data. The procedure’s two principal

components are inflation by the reciprocal of the

probability of sample selection and adjustment for

nonresponse.

Sampling error. –The statistics presented in this

report are based on a sample survey and therefore differ from those that would be based on a full-count

(100-percent) survey that used the same data collection definitions and procedures. The probability sampling design allows calculation of estimated standard

errors from the sample data.

The standard error is primarily a measure of the

variability that occurs by chance because a sample

rather than the entire sampling frame is surveyed.

While the standard errors calculated for this report

reflect some of the random variation inherent in the

measurement process, they do not measure any systematic error, or bias, that is present in the data. One

Age

Total Under 20-24 25-29 30 y&’t3

20 years yews years and over

Relativa standard error in percent

All races’ . . . . . . 3.4 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.3

White . . . . . . . . . 3.8 4.6 4.0 3.7 3.1

Black . . . . . . . . . 4.5 4.7 4.0 5.3 6.4

1,nclud= racesother than white end black.

Table I I 1. Number of sample (i.e., unweighed) familv Plannin9 visit

records, by age and race: United States, 1978

Age

Race TotaI Under 20-24 25-29 30 yt7WS

20 years years years and over

All races’ . . . . 276,619 94,350 106,085 47,587 28,597

White . . . . . . . 186,897 68,721 76,993 32,524 18,669

Black . . . . . . . 72,841 23,761 26,513 13,576 8,881

1Includes racesother than white and bleck.

19
Table IV. Range of recommended design effects for proportion

estimates

Estimatad number of visits

Range of Design affect used

recommended in this report

in base of proportion

(domain size)

design to detarmina

effects reliability

Less than 1 million . . . . . . . . 1-6 6

l-3miilion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 7

More than 3 million . . . . . . . 2-8 8

D.E. = the design effect corresponding to the

size of the estimated base of the proportion p (see table IV).

For example, 77.0 percent @ = 0.7710) of the

2,410,000 family planning visits by teenagers were

made by patients who adopted or continued use of

the oral contraceptive pill. The following computation may be used to determine the standard error for

this estimated proportion:

Table V. Number of sample (i.e., unweighed) family planning visits

by females under age 20 years, by visit status, race, and geographic

region: United States, 1978

Standard error = 7

d

(0.770) (1 – 0.770) ,= 0010

94,350 .

Geographic region

Visit status and race Total lvortfr- North

east Central south West

All visits

All races’ . . . . . . . . 94,350 17,701 19,883 33,836 22,930

White . . . . . . . . . . . 68,721 15,101 16,329 16,969 20,322

Black . . . . . . . . . . . 23,761 2,544 3,279 16,570 1,368

Initial visits

All races’ . . . . . . . . 26,130 5,059 5,188 7,951 7,932

White . . . . . . . . . . . 20,043 4,355 4,279 4,612 6,797

Black . . . . . . . . . . . 5,260 681 751 3,275 553

‘ Includes races other than black and white.

72,550 sample visits, teenagers reported continuation or adoption of the pill; 3,422 reported an IUD;

3,186 reported the diaphragm; 3,778 reported foam/

jelly/cream; 3,193 reported other methods (including sterilization, natural methods, injection, or relying on partner’s method); and 8,221 reported no

contraceptive method. The number of teenagers’

sample (unweighed) visits by region, visit status, and

race is presented in table V.

The standard error of proportion estimates may

be approximated by use of the design effect approach. For data from the National Reporting System for Family Planning Services, the design effect

varies with the size of the base of the proportion

(see table IV). With the selection of larger values

in the range of recommended design effects, fewer

comparisons of survey parameters will result in significant differences. The largest value in each range

of recommended design effects was used to determine reliability for this report.

Accordingly, the standard error of an estimated

proportion of visits is approximated by the following formula:

Standard error (p) = (D.E.) F

where

p.

n=

the estimated proportion.

the number of sample (i.e., unweighed)

visits in the base of the proportion.

where

p = 0.770

D.E. = 7

n = 94,350

and

0010 Relative standard error = ~ = 0.013,

.

One may also wish to compute the standard

error associated with national aggregate estimates.

To calculate the approximate standard error of an

aggregate estimate X, fwst compute the relative

standard error (RSE) of the proportion (X/Y), where

Y is the aggregate estimate for the smallest category

of visits listed in table I containing X population

(e.g., if X is the estimated number of family pkmning visits by teenagers where the oral contraceptive

pill was adopted or continued, Y is the estimated

number of family planning visits by teenagers).

Then

RSE (X)= J(RSE (x/Y))z + (RSE(Y))Z

and

Standard error (X) = X RSE (X).

To continue with the example, one may calculate

the standard error of the estimated 1,856,000 family

planning visits by teenagers where the oral contraceptive pill was adopted or continued.

First, the relative standard error of the proportion

estimate (the estimated proportion of family planning visits by teenagers where the oral conixaceptive

pill was adopted or continued) is calculated. This was

determined to be 0.013. The relative standard error

for the base of the proportion (i.e., the estimated

total number of family planning visits by teenagers) is

provided in table II.

Therefore

RSE (1 ,856,000) = (0.013)2 + (0.037)2 ‘=0.039.

20
The standard error is the aggregate estimate multiplied by the RSE:

Standard error (1,856,000)=(0.039) (1,856,000) = 72,384.

The standard error of a regional aggregate estimate is approximated by multiplying the standard

error of the corresponding national estimate by the

appropriate value of k (where k = 0.422 if the aggregate estimate is for the Northeast, k = 0.411 for the

North Central, k = 0.661 for the South, and k =

0.471 for the West).

For example, there were an estimated 441,000

family planning visits by teenagers in the Northeast.

The corresponding national aggregate estimate is the

total number of visits by teenagers in the United

States (2,4 10,000). The standard error of the national aggregate is approximately 89,000 (computed

by multiplying the relative standard error of the

estimate, shown in table II, by the estimate). Therefore, the standard error of the estimated 441,000

family planning visits by teenagers in the Northeast

is approximately 38,000 (89,000 x 0.422).

Nonsampling error. –The data presented in this

report are also subject to nonsampling error, including that due to service site nonresponse, item

nonresponse, information incompletely or inaccurately recorded, and processing error.

A major component of nonsampling error is

associated with the gap between the survey sampling

frame and the universe. The frame only partially covered those sites that had inaugurated the provision of

family planning services since early 1976.

During early 1980 the National Center for Health

Statistics conducted a study to identify and measure

nonsampling error associated with data from the

National Reporting System for Family Planning

Services.G The study included site visits to 174 family

planning facilities in the 1980 sample. The study revealed that it was not generally possible to verify the

number of medical family planning visits. For example, service sites frequently did not differentiate between medical and nonrnedical family planning visits.

The study indicated visit totals are probably underestimated. Other problems associated with adherence

to survey definitions and procedures were identified,

and evidence suggests that patient data were not always updated in the site’s record system at every visit.

Rounding.–Aggregate estimates of family planning visits are rounded to the nearest thousand.

21
Appendix IL Definitions of terms

used in this report

Clinic. –See family planning service site.

Clinic Visit Record. –The primary data collection

form used by the National Center for Health Statistics for the National Reporting System for Family

Planning Services. See appendix III for facsimile.

Continuation visit. –A visit by a patient who

made at least one visit to any family planning service

site during the last calendar year.

Contraception. –Conscious use of medication,

devices, or practices that permit coitus with reduced

likelihood of conception (commonly known as birth

control).

Contraceptive method. –Any medication, device,

or practice that permits coitus with reduced likelihood of conception.

Education. –The highest grade of “regular” school

completed (not the highest grade entered). “Regular”

school refers to any institution in which a person can

earn credits toward an accredited elementary school

certification, high school diploma, or college degree.

Trade schools, beauty schools, business schools, and

the like are excluded unless credits are granted toward an elementary school certificate, high school

diploma, or college degree.

Family planning service site. –A location providing family planning services on a regular basis under

the supervision of a physician. Private physicians’

offices and group medical practices are excluded

unless they receive a U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services grant for the provision of family

planning services. Military service sites are also excluded from the survey.

Family planning services. –Medical services that

are primarily related to regulation of conception;

that is, they enable a person either to reduce the risk

of conception (contraceptive services) or to induce

conception (infertility services) as desired.

Family planning visit. –A visit to a family pkmning service site to receive medical services related to

contraception, sterilization, or infertilityy treatment.

Fetal death. –Death of a product of conception

prior to complete expulsion or extraction from its

mother. This includes miscarriages, stillbirths, and

induced abortions.

Hispanic origin or descent. –Individuals who consider themselves to be of Mexican, Puerto Rican,

Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish

origin or descent, regardless of race.

Infertility. –Diminished or absent ability to conceive.

Initial visit. –A visit at which the patient receives

medical family planning services from a family planning service site for the first time.

Live birth. –A child born alive any time a~fterconception. In the event of a multiple birth, each child is

counted as one birth. For example, twins count as

two live births, and triplets count as three live births.

Medical services. –These include the provision of

contraceptive methods, general physical examinations, and other tests involved in maintaining the

health of the patient. The following services are included:

Pap smear: Papanicolaou’s test to detect cervical

cancer.

Pelvic exam: Speculum examination of the vagina and

bimanual examination of internal pelvic organs.

Breast exam: Inspection and palpation of the breast

and axillary glands.

Blood pressure: Routine measurement of a patient’s

blood pressure.

Pregnancy testing: Any diagnostic test performed to

determine pregnancy.

V.D. testing: Test to detect the presence of venereal

disease.

Urinalysis (not elsewhere specified): Any test done

on the patient’s urine sample other than for venereal

disease detection or a pregnancy test.

Blood test (not elsewhere specified): Any test of a

patient’s blood except for venereal disease detection

or a pregnancy test.

Sterilization: Any procedure or operation that results

22
in permanent incapability of a person to reproduce.

Examples of such operations or procedures are vasectomies and tubal ligations.

Infertility treatment: Performance of tests to determine causes of infertility and/or treatment to attempt

a reversal of the patient’s inability to reproduce.

Other medical services: Medical family planning services not specified on the Clinic Visit Record. Examples include X-rays and immunizations.

Public assistance income. –The patient’s family income ticludes money from any Federal, State, or

local public assistance program. Scholarships, education grants, unemployment benefits, and Social Security pensions are not considered public assistance income.

Readmission visit. –A family planning visit when

the last visit occurred more than 1 year before the

survey year.

Regibn. –The family plaming service sites are

classified by location in one of the four geographic

regions of the United States, which correspond to

those used by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The

following framework is used:

Northeast . . . . .Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York,

New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

North Central . .Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota,

South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.

South . . . . . . . .Delaware, Maryland, Distict of

Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina,

South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.

West . . . . . . . . .Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, and Alaska.

23
Appendix Ill. ClinicVisit Record

for Family PlanningServices

I

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDuCATION, ANO WELFARE

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

HEALTH RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS

Clinic Wit Record for Family Planning Services

1,SERVICE NUMBER I I I I I I I J

N. m Mr

2 ‘AT’ENT‘UMBER ~

3. DATE OF THIS VISIT Qlnn

4. PAT IENT’S SEX

a G ,.rn,l, b ~ ‘aiO

5. ARE YOU OF HISPANIC ORIGIN OR OESCENT7

HANO CARD A ●DYm bnNO

6. PAT IENT’S RACE (13cck one box)

0 ❑ Black ‘“‘ a ❑ Am*rican I.dla. or AI* SICWI 1.J,W9

7. WHAT IS YOUR elRTH OATE7

a oat. —Q Q U

la ❑ If unknown .Sk–WlOw old .,. yo.,,~

[No. ofVursl

a. PATIENT STATUS

Have YQUggv been a putent or thta or any other clinu for family

planninc m- mwices”

I

B O.M.B. 68-RI 137

EXPIRATION DATE

ASSURANCE OF cONFIOENTIALITY+I1 information amen woula c4,rnlt M.ntl.

fl”tlon of an Inelvidual, ● Dract(ca, or an euabl, $kmmt wIII be n.td c.a”ftee”tml,

‘/all be used .a”ty by D.,, On, e“qaqed ,“ ●“a Pm tile Du,ooses Of tne survey ,“0 ‘+/,11

mat m U,%l.ased 0, mlea.ed to .atner perw.. w .Sed 10. any Ott)., P.mow Prwmmn

.f S.WIGM Is (n .0 way c.antmge. t 0“ me pat!e. t.s IX.avIcIin.qany l“form. t,o” fOr

ml,form.

I 11. PREGN ANCY HISTORY i Females only)

A. Have you ever been pregnant?

* ~ Y*S b nNO-’3Qr0~2

B. How many live births hav. you had?

C. Of these, how many are now livIns?

D. How nutty of your pregnancieswere ended by stdlbwth,

induced abort, on, or mmcarriase?(If “zsro, “go to F )

E. How ms”y of these pmgna”cies wme ended by induced

abortion since January 1973?

F. In whm month and year did your Iau pregnancy .“d

(resardlesi of how’ 81ended)?

Month Y*W

12. CONTRACEPTIVE HISTORY

A. Have YOUever u~d a method of birth ccmtml regularly?

.Qvm b ❑ No-- Garof3

HAND CARD O

B. Wh.t method did you Ias2use refularly? (Chak 8// mfhoc6 tfm a@v)

a ~ st*,lllz*tlml f ❑ Conaom

~ D oral (pill) 9 ❑ Foam/J.lly@r..m

c ❑ Iuo h ❑ Natural (Includln.q rhythm)

a ❑ Oiaohragm J ❑ Ot Imr

● ~ lnl*cf la”

,0,03 bn~ C. O@you currently use thst method (primary method checked in 12B)?

N .-Yes, s-when were you 1- a patte”t a: my no a ❑ v.s_Go ,. f bDNO clink ror fmnuy PISIIIII”S medical servtces?--g Month

9. EOUCATION

D. I. what month and year dtd you %1OPusing that method? 1 Mo”tll v.,,

A. What is the highest Sr.de (or year) of regular school you have completed

/Cirolr ons numlwd

012345678910 11121314151617.

(If ‘2*r0..’ S0 to ?0 )

B. Me YOUpfe19ntlys student In ● WUIU school?

●DYos

~ci~

10. FAMILY INCOME ANO FAMILY SIZE

HANO CARO B ●nd HANO CARO C

A. Which of tho fallowing uoups mprwnnts your total combined g.ass

(boforo deductions) family income for tht past 12 months?

●cl 0.s1.249 d ❑ $6.25~s@.7a9 Q ❑ $1S,750+

e ❑ *1 ,250.*3.749 ● ❑ SS.7S0-$13.749 h a unwmwn

C ❑ s3,7S0-S6,249 f a 813,750-s18 .749

B. HOW MSnY p90flh ,fB t“ YQW fmrl13y,that Is, thmnumb.,

supportad by thk incom.?

C. 00QSthb incom* include any public udsssnc.’l

●avm ~n~

O. What is your relationship 10 tfw cbi.f csrn.r?

● ❑ Cnl*f*afn*r c u Owghtwtsa”

b ❑ ‘if*/Husmnd a ❑ Otll*r **l*f l”*

AGENCY USE ONLY

I A e c 0 E F

1.

2,

3.

4.

5.

6.

E, How [onS did you U19thaf method?

. Days (ItI*SS than● month)

— Months [if lmssthan a yanrl

— Y*ars

F. Where was Ihe method prescribed or obtained?

13, MEOICAL SERVICES PROVIDED AT THls VISIT

a H Fsoimaar q ❑ urlnaiytm (n.w.l

B rJ Rl”lc ●um h ❑ stood t-tIn.ws.)

c ❑ Brmit cairn , ❑ St.rflkstion

d ❑ Blood PfWWf9 k ❑ Infwtlllty traatrmnt

● ❑ Pmg.ancy twttnq m ❑ Othar m,*i.,t SW”(C”

f ❑ V.o. mating

14. CONTRACEPTIVE METHOO AT THE ENO OF THIS VISIT

A. M*thod (Chsck d! NIX #@V)

t ❑ starItIzatlan f IJ COnaom

D ❑ C2miWill) g ~ Foam/J@Y/CrOzm

c ❑ Iuo h D ?wtural (inctudln9 rhythm)

d ❑ Olaplwagm ; I-J Otnw

* ❑ lnj*ctlon k ❑ ~n”

!3. If 6-N0..,,, SW. rwm (&6zk one only)

, ❑ FT.,”,”, d ❑ Oth*r medical r9asons

b ❑ Infwtlllty IIatl.nt

“ ❑ R*lY4n9 on Partnu’s memos

c ❑ snklng orcgnancy f ❑ Ottwr

HRA-192-2

6/77
Vital and Health Statistics series descriptions

SERIES1.

SERIES 2.

SERIES 3.

SE RI ES4.

SERIESIO

SERIES 11

SERIES 12.

SERIES 13.

Programs and Collection Procedures–Reports describing

the general proryam$ of the National Center for Health

Statistics and its offices and divisions and the data collection methods used. They also include definitions and

other material necessary for understanding the data.

Data Evaluation and Methods Research.-Studles of new

statistical methodology including experimental tests of

new survey methods, studies of vital statistics coiie~tion

methods, new analytical techniques, objectw? evaluations

of rel]abil ity of collected data, and contributions to statistical theory.

Analytical and Epidemiological Studies. –Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies based on vlta[

and health statistics, carrying the analysis further than

the expository types of reports in the other series.

Documents and Committee Reports. –Final reportz of

major committees concerned with vital and health statistics and documents such as recommended model vital

registration laws and revised birth and death certificates.

Data From the National Health Interview Survey .–Statmtlcs on Illnes$, accidental injuries, disablllty, use of hospital, medical, dental, and other services, and other

health-related toptcs, all based on data collected in the

continuing national household lntervlev~ survey.

Data From the National Health Examination Survey and

theNational Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.–

Data from direct exammation, testing, and measurement

of national samples of the civilian nomnstitutlonal lzed

population provide the basis for (1) estimates of the

medically defined prevalence of speclflc diseaces m the

United States and the distributions of the population

with respect to physical, physlologlcal, and psychological characterlsttcs and (2) analysis of relationships

among the various measurements uwthout reference to

an expliclt fmlte universe of persons.

Data From the Institutionalized Population Surveys.-Discontinued in 1975, Reports from these surveys are !ncluded in Series 13.

Data on Health Resources Utilization.–Statistlcs on the

utilization of health manpo;wer and facilities provid[ng

SERIES 14.

SERIES 15.

SERIES 20.

SERIES 21.

SERIES 22.

SERIES 23.

long-term care, ambulatory care, hospital care, and family

planning services.

Data on Health Resources: Manpower and Facilities.–

Stamsdcs on the numbers, geographic distribution, and

characteristics of health resources including physicians,

dentists, nurses, other health occupations, hospitals,

nursing homes, and outpatient facilities.

Data From Special Survey s.-Statistics on health and

health-related topics collected m special surveys that

are not a part of the continuing data systems of the

National Center for Health Statistics.

Data on Mortality .–Various statistics on mortality other

than as included in regular annual or monthly reports.

Special analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables; geographic and time series analyses;

and statistics on characteristics of deaths not availab!e

from the vital records based on sample surveys of those

records.

Data on Natality, Marriage, and Divorce. –Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce other than as

included in regular annual or monthly reports. Special

analyses by demographic variables; geographic and time

series ana!yses; studies of fertility; and statistics nn

characteristics of births not available from the vital

records based on sample surveys of those records.

Data From the National Mortality and Netality Surveys.–

Discontinued in 1975. Reports from the:: sample surveys

based on vital records are included in Series 20 and 21,

respectively.

Data From the National Suwey of Family Growth. –

Statistics on fertili~, family formation and dissolution,

family planning, and related maternal and infant health

topics derived from a periodic survey of a nationwide

probability sample of ever-married women 1!5-44 years

of age.

For a list of titles of reports published in these series, write to:

Scientific and Technical Information Branch

National Center for Health Statistics

Public Health Service

Hyattwille, r~~d.207.S2
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service

Office of Health Research, Statistics, and Technology

National Center for Health Statistics

3700 East-West Highway

Hyattsville, Maryland 20782

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HHS

HHS 396

Third Class

[%)

U.S.MAIL

from the Office of Health Research, Statistics, and Technology

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 81-17’19, Series 13, No. 58

for listings of publications in the VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS series, call 301-436-NCHS