Wonmnwttouse

Organbd Family

Pkn9thg suv&os:

United States,1979

A descriptive analysis is made of woman

who visited organized family planning clinics

in 1979. The social and demographic characteristics of the women are related ‘to their

pregnancy and contraceptive histories and to

the types of services received during their

visits.

Data From tha National Health

Survey, Series 13, No. 62

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 82-1723

U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services

Public Health Service

Office of Health Research, Statistics, and

Technology

National Center for Health Statistics

Hyattsville, Md.

January 1982
National Center for Health Statistics

DOROTHY P. RICE, Director

ROBERT A. ISRAEL, Deputy Director

JACOB J. FELDMAN, Ph.D., Associate Director for Analysis

and Epidemiology

GAIL F. FISHER, Ph.D., Associate Director for the

Cooperative Health Statistics System

GARRIE J. LOSEE, Associate Director for Data Processing

and Services

ALVAN O. ZARATE, Ph.D., Assistant Director for

International Statistics

E. EARL BRYANT, Associate Director for Interview and

Examination Statistics

ROBERT C. HUBER, Associate Director for Management

MONROE G. SIRKEN, Ph.D., Associate Director for Research

and Methodolofl

PETER L. HURLEY, Associate Director for Vital and Health

CareStatistics

ALICE HAYWOOD, Information Officer

Vital and Health Care Statistics Program

PETER L. HURLEY, Associate Director

GLORIA KAPANTAIS, Assistant to the Director for Data

Policy, Planning, and Analysis

Division of Health Care Statistics

W. EDWARD BACON, Ph.D., Director

JOAN F. VAN NOSTRAND, Deputy Director

STEWART C. RICE, ChieK Family Planning Statistics

Branch
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Social and demographic characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contraceptive useand medicalservices provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pregnancies, live births, andfetaldeaths. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contraceptive use according topregnancies, Iivebirths, and fetal deaths.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Method switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Appendixes

Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Technical notesonmethods ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Il. Definitions ofcertain termsusedin this report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ill, Clinic ,,, -,4.m--- ..., f-.. I-_-_, I.. m,- —-,------- ,--- vmTnecoraTarramiiy rlanrrlnyixrvtces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number, percent distributions, and enrollment rates of female family planning patients by age, race, andethnicity:

States, 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

United

. . . . .

1

2

2

2

4

4

5

7

21

22

26

28

3

...

Ill
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 where num hers are rounded to

thousands

*

Figure does not meet standards of

reliability or precision

# Figure suppressed to comply with

confidentiality requirements
Women Who Use Organized

FamilyPlanning Sewices:

United States, 1979

by Eugenia Eckard, Division of Health Care Statistics

Introduction

This report presents data on women who used organized family planning clinics in the United States in

1979. Statistics based on data from the National Reporting System for Family Planning Services are provided to show the sociodemographic characteristics of

the women using family planning clinics and the

types of services women received.

The National Reporting System for Family Planning Services is a sample survey conducted by the Division of Health Care Statistics of the National Center

for Health Statistics. It was begun in 1972 for the

purpose of collecting information on visits to clinics

for medical family planning services in the United

States and some of its territories. Organized family

planning clinics include those operated by public

health departments; hospitals; Planned Parenthood

Affdiates and other agencies, including community

action programs; neighborhood health centers; and

freestanding clinics. Medical family planning visits to

the offices of private physicians are excluded from

the survey. In this survey, family planning patients

are defined as individuals who made a visit for medical family planning services related to contraception,

infertility treatment, or sterilization. Persons seeking

only a pregnancy or venereal disease test are not

counted as family planning patients, nor are persons

interested only in obtaining contraceptive supplies or

counseling.

The Clinic Visit Record is the basic form used to

collect data from these family planning patients in

the National Reporting System for Family Planning

Services (NRSFPS). Other data in this report are

based on information obtained either by observation

or from medical records or, in those service sites that

collected data through participation in a computerized record system, from locally developed forms that

contain the Clinic Visit Record items. There are 14

items on the Clinic Visit Record, covering basic sociodemographic information about the patient and

other questions pertaining to family planning

behavior.

Although the primary sampling ufit in NRSFPS is

the family planning visit, an unduplicated count of

patients can be obtained by identifying new patients

at the time of their f.kst visit and continuation and readmission patients at the time of their first visit in the

survey year (continuation and readmission patients

are referred to as “return” patients in this report).

Data based on patients rather than on visits are inherently limited because NRSFPS data items may change

from one visit to another. For example, the type of

method chosen may not be the same on the patient’s

last visit as it had been on the i%st visit of the year.

Therefore the reader should be cautious when interpreting the data.

Other data sources from the National Center for

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

from the National Ambulato~ Medical 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 1544 years of age who were ever married or never married with offspring living in the

household. Furthur discussion of NRSFPS survey

methodology, the sampling variation associated with

the statistics, definitions of certain terms used in this

report, and a facsimile of the Clinic Visit Record are

included in the appendixes.
Social and demographic characteristics

According to data from the National Reporting

System for Family Planning Services an estimated 4.3

million women visited organized family planning clinics in the United States in 1979, ahnost a 14-percent

increase over the number of family planning patients

in 1978.1 The text table shows that teenagers accounted for about 34 percent of the patients, while

most patients were women in their twenties (53.8

percent) and another 12 percent of the women were

30 years of age or over. The largest group of female

family planning patients were 20-24 years of age,

with an enrollment rate of 156 per 1,000 women in

the total population in that age interval.

Although there were proportionately more white

female patients than black female patients (71.7 percent and 25.9 percent, respectively), the enrollment

rate for the total population in the family planning

clinics is much higher for black women (178 per

1,000 women 15 to 44 years of age) than for white

women (72 per 1,000 women 15 to 44 years of age).

Close to 12 percent of the patients were of Hispanic

origin, with an enrollment rate of 143 per 1,000

women 15 to 44 years of age.

Two out of 3 women patients were returning to a

family planning clinic, while a third of the women

were visiting a clinic for the fiist time. Table 1 shows

that while the majority of the patients had at least a

high school education, ahnost 40 percent did not.

However, a portion of the women who had not completed high school may be represented by the proportion of women who were students at the time of

their visit (29.7 percent).

Within every age group there

tion of black women among the

lNa~iO*~center for Health Statistics:

was a higher proporretum patients than

Patient profile, National

Reporting System for Family Planning Services: Un~ed States, 1978,

by J. E. Foster. Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics, No. 73.

DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 81-1250. Public Health Service. Hyattsville, Md.

June 24, 1981.

.2

among the new patients. Conversely, more than threequarters of the new patients were white women,

while a little more than two-thirds of return patients

were white women. More of the return patients than

the new patients had completed at least 12 years of

education and were not students, which facts suggest,

perhaps, that the return female patients were older

than the new female patients. Close to 14 percent of

the women are from families whose income includes

public assistance, increasing to a little more than 15

percent among women 30 years of age and over.

The data in tables 2 and 3 reveal that white

women and black women differ significantly on several characteristics. For example, a larger proportion

of white women than of black women are of Hispanic

ethnicity (14.9 percent compared with 3.2 percent).

More white women than black women have also had

more than 12 years of education (22.9 percent and

16.2 percent, respectively). More black women were

from families whose income included public assistance (26.6 percent) than were white women (9.0 percent). This latter difference is evident within all age

groups. There is also a significant difference between

the proportions of black and white women under 20

years of age who are students: while 55,1 percent of

the white women under 20 reported having student

status, 62.6 percent of their black counterparts reported the same.

Contraceptive use and medical servicesprovided

Table 4 shows that 23.4 percent of all female patients and as many as 42.8 percent of the women under 20 years of age had not used a method of contraception regularly prior to the visit. This diminished to

8.4 percent for all women and to 9.4 percent for the

younger women who chose no method after the visit.

As expected, the proportion of new patients who had

never used a contraceptive method (54.7 percent) was

much larger than that of women who had been to a

clinic before (7.2 percent). Among those women who
Text table. Number, percent distributions, and enrollment rates of female family planning patients by age, race, and ethnicity: United States, 1979

Age, race, and ethnicity Number in Percent Enrollment

thousands distribution rate per 1,000

population

All female patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,347 100.0 86

Age

Under 15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15-19years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20-24years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25-29years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30-34years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35-39years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40-44years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45yearsandover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50

1#443

1,584

755

312

124

48

31

1.1

33.2 iii

36.4 156

17.4 82

7.2 38

2.9 18

1.1 8

0.7 . . .

Race

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,118 71.7 72

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,128 25.9 178

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 2.3 91

Ethnicity ,;

Hispanicorigin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515 11.8 143

Notof Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,832 88.2 81

1Based on the U.S. civilian, noninstitutional ized female population 15-44 years of age.

NOTE: Numbers maynotadd tototals due to rounding.

hadused amethod prior to the visit ,the largest proportion had used the pill (57.6 percent). This was

true for both new and return patients ;however, more

than twice as many return patients as new patients

hadused the pill (71.2 percent and 31.4 percent, respectively). The intrauterine device (IUD) also had

been used byanother 7.9 percentofthe women prior

to their visit. Other methods usedby women priorto

the visit were the diaphragm and foam, jelly, or

cream, among others.

The source from which the priormethod wasobtained was, formost of the women, the same service

site (43.4 percent). However, for new patients, the

source of the method for the majority of those who

had used a method was a private physician (37.7

percent).

Thepill was the method adopted by64.Opercent

of the women and was the method most often

adopted by womenin all age groups. Althoughitwas

the method most adopted byallwomen, moreofthe

teenagers and fewer of thewomen3 O years andover

chose the method (74.0 percent and 38.3 percent, respectively). The adoption of methods other than the

pill is shown to increase with age.

The data also indicate that within every age group

a higher proportion of thereturn patients than of the

new patients adopted the pill or continued with it as

a method, although this is not statistically significant

for women 30 years of age and over. The new patients more than the return patients reported adopting the less effective methods (methods other than

the pill, IUD, or diaphragm). The statistics also reveal

that about twice as many new patients as return patients did not adopt any method at the visit, regardless of age. However, ahnost twice as many new

patients adopted some method after their fnst visit

(87.6 percent) as compared with before their visit

(45.3 percent), and more than two-thirds of them

adopted the more effective methods.

Table 4 also shows the types of medical services

provided to the women who visited family planning

clinics. The majority of the women received a Pap

smear, pelvic exam, breast exam, blood pressure, and

urinalysis. The venereal disease test, blood test, and

other medical services were provided to over half of

the women, while a smaller proportion of women received a pregnancy test (10.0 percent). The same general pattern is seen in all age groups. Except for the

blood pressure test and “other medical services,” each

of the medical services was provided to a larger proportion of new patients than of return patients.

Tables 5 and 6 show that black and white patients

do not differ significantly in the proportion of

women among them who had never used a method of

contraception regularly before theti visit (20.9 percent and 24.3 percent, respectively). For both races

the largest proportion of women who had not used a

method before the visit was among the teenagers;

43.9 percent of white teenagers and 39.3 percent of

black teenagers had never used a method regularly.

However, a higher proportion of black women had

used the pill as a method prior to the visit than had

white women (61.4 percent compared with 56.3 percent). Only slight variations exist between the two

racial groups in the use of other methods prior to the

visit.

3
A higher proportion of black women had returned to the same service site from which they obtained their prior method than had white women

(52.4 percent and 40.4 percent, respectively). It also

can be seen in tables 5 and 6 that more of the white

women had obtained their prior method from a private physician (19.9 percent) than had black women

(1 1.6 percent). This difference is also evident within

the different age groups, with over twice as many

white women 30 years of age and over as black

women of this age having visited a private physician

for their previous method.

For both black and white women, the same general pattern is evident with the types of contraceptive

methods adopted or continued. Although the largest

proportion of both groups of women adopted the

pill, its use declines with age. There is a corresponding

increase with age in the proportion of women adopting methods other than the pill. Except for the diaphragm, where a higher proportion of white women

than of black women adopted the method or continued with it, no significant differences exist between the two racial groups in the proportion of

women choosing various methods.

Pregnancies, live births, and fetal deaths

In table 7 the number of pregnancies, live births,

and fetal deaths are shown for women of different

social and economic backgrounds. As expected, a

larger proportion of women under 20 years of age

than women of other ages have had no pregnancies,

no live births, and no fetal deaths. This proportion

decreases as the numbers of pregnancies and live

births increase except among women 30 years of age

and over, for whom the proportion increases. For all

age intervals, the proportion of women having experienced fetal mortality declines as the number of fetal

deaths increases. The same general pattern is evident

for white and black women separately. It is also

evident that a higher proportion of black women than

of white women have had at least one pregnancy and

one live birth, especially among teenage women and

women in their twenties.

Women of Hispanic origin differ significantly

from other women in the proportion of women who

have had at least one pregnancy and at least one live

birth. About half of the Hispanic women under 20

have had at least one pregnancy. However, for both

Hispanic and non-Hispanic women, the largest proportion of them with no children occurs within the

youngest age group, though this is the case for a

larger proportion of the non-Hispanic women. The

number of fetal deaths ever experienced follows the

same general pattern for both Hispanic and nonHispanic women.

As the number of years of their education increases, the proportion of women with more than

two pregnancies or more than two live births decreases. A larger proportion of women who had more

than a high school education than of women with less

education had never been pregnant nor had a child.

However, the number of fetal deaths appears to increase with’ more years of education. As might be

expected, more women who were students have had

neither a pregnancy nor a child than have women

who were not students at the time of their visit. Consistent with this is the finding that a larger proportion

of women who were not students have had at least

one fetal death compared with women who were students. At every level of gravidity and parity except

zero, there is a larger proportion of women who belong to families that receive public assistance than of

women who do not. Also, proportionately more

women whose families received public assistance than

women whose families did not experienced at least

one fetal death.

It may also be seen in table 7 that for all women,

regardless of their socioeconomic characteristics,

more have had a pregnancy than have had a live birth

(although the numbers are not statistically significant

for women 30 years of age and over). Because some

of the women at every socioeconomic level have had

a fetal death, it may be expected that the number of

pregnancies will be higher than the number of live

births. However, the disparity in some cases, such as

for women who have had more than a high school

education, is large enough to suggest that included

among the fetal deaths may be induced abortions.

Table 7 shows that more than half of the new female patients have not had a pregnancy, and about

two-thirds were without children at the time of their

frost visit. Also, a larger proportion of the return patients than of new patients have had at least one pregnancy or one live birth. A larger proportion of black

women than of white women among both the new

patients and return patients have had at least one

pregnancy or at least one child. As with all Hispanic

patients, a larger proportion of the new Hispanic patients have had at least one pregnancy or live birth

than have the non-Hispanic women who were new

patients. Overall, the pattern for new patients shows

that a larger proportion of them have not had a p~egnancy, a live birth, or a fetal death than women have

who are returning to family planning clinics.

Contraceptive use according to pregnancies,

live births, and fetal deaths

Table 8 shows the pattern of use of various contraceptive methods for women according to number

of pregnancies, live births, and fetal deaths. Most

women who have never used a contraceptive method

regularly have also not experienced a pregnamcy, live

birth, or fetal death. This is probably linked to the

finding that the younger women who were less likely

4
to have been pregnant (see table 7) were also the

women who were less likely to have used a method

regularly (see table 4).

More than half of the women who had used some

method of contraception before visiting a clinic had

experienced at least one pregnancy, but the majority

of women who had used either the pill or the diaphragm, despite their pregnancy status, had not had

any children. Women who had used the IUD as a

method prior to visiting a clinic were more likely than

women who had used other methods to have been

pregnant at least once and to have had one or more

children. Most women, regardless of the contraceptive

method used prior to the visit, had not had a fetal

death.

Table 8 also shows data on the source from which

women obtained their prior method of contraception

according to gravidity, parity, and fetal mortality

status at the time of the visit. The most striking statistic seen here is the relatively small prop-ortion of

women having used the hospital as their source of

prior method who had not had a pregnancy (13.0 percent) or who had not borne any children (20.1 percent). This suggests that women who received family

planning services from hospitals may also have been

admitted for a delivery and thus were a handy market

for hospital clinics.

In table 8 it may also be seen that women who

have had no live births represent the largest proportions of women adopting or continuing to use a contraceptive method other than the IUD, and including

women choosing no method. These proportions are

larger still among women who chose the pill, the diaphragm, or no method of birth control than among

women who chose other methods.

Table 8 also shows the distribution of women according to contraceptive history and method adopted

by number of pregnancies, live births, and fetal

deaths for white women and black women separately.

Overall, a larger proportion of white women than

black women who visited a family planning clinic had

not been pregnant or had not had a live birth.

In considering the number of pregnancies, the

largest proportion of white women in every prior contraceptive method group except the IUD and “other”

methods were those women who had never been pregnant, while for black women this was true only

among those who had never used a method regularly.

While a significantly higher proportion of the white

women at every contraceptive status except IUD had

not had a live birth, this was true of only those black

women who had not used any method or who had

used the pill. Another interesting finding is that while

the largest proportion of white women whose prior

method was “other” had not had any children (42.4

percent), the largest proportion of black women using

the same method had three or more children (42.9

percent). There are no significant differences between

the two racial groups in the proportion of women

who had experienced a fetal death.

The largest proportion of white women for every

source of prior contraceptive method except the hospital had not had a pregnancy or a live birth. This was

not the case, however, with black women when looking at the number of pregnancies. Only for black

women whose prior method was obtained from the

same service site was there a larger proportion of

women who had not had a live birth. A larger proportion of white women than of black women, regardless

of contraceptive method adopted or continued, have

had neither a pregnancy nor a live birth. For black

women choosing the pill or no method, a larger proportion have had no pregnancies than have had one

or more. In every category except the IUD, a larger

proportion of the corresponding white women have

had no pregnancies than have had one or more.

Method switching

Table 9 shows the distribution of women according to contraceptive method used prior to the patients’ visit by type of method that was adopted or

continued after the visit. Four out of every 5 women

who used the pill prior to the visit continued with the

same method. Twelve percent of the women who had

previously used the IUD switched to the pill, 64.4

percent stayed with the IUD, and the remaining 23.6

percent switched to other methods or chose no

method.

Most of the women who had used the diaphragm

before the visit continued with that method (65.3

percent), while the next largest group among them

switched to the pill (14.2 percent). Among the remaining 20.5 percent whose prior method had been

the diaphragm, as many as 9.5 percent did not adopt

a method.

Close to one-third of the women whose prior

method had been foam, jelly, or cream adopted the

pill after their clinic visit, while a comparable number

of these women continued with foam, jelly, or cream.

Almost 11 percent of them did not choose any

method; and of those remaining, 8.7 percent chose

the diaphragm, and 5.1 percent chose the IUD.

For “other” unspecified methods of contraception, the largest proportions of women using them

switched to the pill or to sterilization (27.3 percent

for both methods). About 10 percent chose to rely

on their partners, and as many as 8.6 percent chose no

method. The group with the highest proportion of

women who switched to the pill is seen among the

women who had never used a method regularly

before the visit. More than half of these women (59.6

percent) switched to the pill, another 26.2 percent

switched to other methods as shown, and 14.2 percent did not adopt any method.

Finally, in table 9 the new female patients can be

5
compared to the return female patients in their patterns of method switching. While the largest proportions of the return patients in each method category

except “never used method regularly” continued with

their previous methods, the largest proportions of

new patients whose prior methods had not been the

most effective methods had switched to these more

effective methods. For example, the largest proportions of new patients whose prior method had been

foam, jelly, or cream or “other” methods sw~.tchedto

the pill after visiting a family planning clinic for the

first time (over 40 percent in each instance). A larger

proportion of the new patients who had never used a

method regularly than of the return patients in the

same group switched to the pill (61.6 percent as

compared with 51.3 percent).
Listof detailedtables

1. Number of female family planning patients and percent distributions by selected characteristics, according to age and

petient status: United States, 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Number of white female family planning patiants and percent

distributions by selected characteristics, according to age:

United States, 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Number of black famale family planning patients and percant

distributions by selected characteristics, according to aga:

United States, 1979, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Number of female family planning patients and parcentdistributions by contraceptive use and medical services provided, according to age and patient status: United States,

1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Number of white female family planning patients and percent

distributions by contraceptive use and medical services provialed, according to age: United Statas,1979 . . . . . . . . . .

6.

8

7.

10

8.

11

9.

12

14

Number of black female family planning patients and percant

distributions by contraceptive use and medical sarvices provialed, according to age: United States, 1979 . . . . . . . . . . 15

Number of female family planning patients and percent distributions by number of pregnancies, number of live births,

and number of fetal deaths, according to patient status and

selected characteristics: United States, 1979 . . . . . . . . . . 16

Number of female family planning patients and percent distributions by number of pregnancies, number of live births,

and number of fetal deaths, according to race and contraceptive use: United States, 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Number of female family pianning patients and percent distribution by contraceptive method adopted or continued,

according to prior contraceptive method and patient status:

United States, 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

7
Table 1. Number of female family planning patients and percent distributions by selected characteristics, according to age and patient status:

United States, 1979

Patient status and selected characteristics

Age

A II ages

Under 20 20-29 :30 years

years years and over

All femaie patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race

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

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

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

Ethnicity

Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,

Notof Hispenic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

Less than 12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13yearsor more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Student status

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

Notastudent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public assistance income

Income includespublic assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Income doesnot includepublic assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Newfemalepatients

Total . . . . . . . . . .

White . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . .

Hispanic origin , . . ,

Notof Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

Less than 12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12years, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years ormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.

Student status

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

Notastudent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public assistance income

Income includespublic assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Income does notincludepublic assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

See noteat end of teble.

4,347

100.0

71.7

25.9

2.3

11.9

88.1

39.7

39.2

21.2

29.7

70.3

13.7

86.3

1,489

100.0

78.4

18.7

2.9

11.8

88.2

44.8

35.5

19.7

40.0

60.0

11.3

88.7

Number in thousands

1,493 2,338

Percent distribution

100.0 100.0

73.2 71.8

25.1 25.7

1.7 2.5

7.0 12.7

93.0 87.3

61.9 25.1

31.1 44.0

7.0 30.8

57.0 17.4

43.0 82.6

12.5 14.1

87.5 85.9

Number in thousands

762 606

Percent distribution

100.0 100.0

77.7 79,0

20.1 17.4

2.2 3.5

7.5 15.0

92.5 85.0

63.9 22.8

29.0 42.6

7,0 34.6

61.7 19.1

38.3 80.9

10.4 11.8

89.6 88.2

516

100.0

67.2

29.5

3.3

22.2

77.8

40.9

40.5

18.6

6.7

93.3

15.3

84.7

121

100.0

79.0

16.5

*4.5

22.7

77.3

34.9

40.1

25.1

8.7

91.3

14.5

85.5

8
Tablel. Number of female family planning patients andpercent distributions byselected characteristics, according toageand patient status:

United States, 1979–Con.

Age

Patient status and selected characteristics

All ages

Under 20 20-29 30 years

years years and over

Return female patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race

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

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

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

Ethnicity

Hispanicorigin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Notof Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

Lessthan12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13yearsormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Student status

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

Notastudent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public assistance income

Income includespublicassistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Income does notincludepublic assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2,858

100.0

68.3

29.7

2.0

11.9

88.1

37.0

41.1

22.0

24.4

75.6

14.9

85.1

Number in thousands

731 1,732

Percent distribution

100.0 100.0

68.5 69.2

30.3 28.6

1.2 2.2

6.5 11.8

93.5 88.2

59.8 26.0

33.3 44.5

7.0 29.5

52.1 16.9

47.9 83.1

14.7 14.8

85.3 85.2

100.0

63.6

33.4

2.9

22.0

78.0

42.7

40.6

16.6

6.1

93.9

15.5

84.5

NOTE: Numbers meynotaddtototels dueto rounding.

.
Table2. Number ofwhite female family planning patients andpercent distributions byselected characteristics, according to age:

United States, 1979

Age

Selected characteristics

——

All ages

Under 20 20-29 30 years

years years and over

Number in thousands

White female patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,118 1,093 1,679 347

Percant distribution

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

Ethnicity

Hispanicorigin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.9 8.6 15.9 30,4

Notof Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.1 91.4 84.1 69.5

Education

Lassthan 12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.2 59.6 25.2 42.2

12years . . . . . . ...”..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.9 32.6 41.5 37.8

13yearsor more.....,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.9 7.7 33.3 20.1

Student status

Student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.8 55.1 17.9 7.4

Nota student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.2 44.9 82,1 92.5

Public assistance income

Income includespublic assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 7.4 9.5 11.9

Incomedoes notincludepublic assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.0 92.6 90.5 88.1

NOTE: Numbers may notaddtototals dueto rounding.

.

10
Table3. Number of black female family planning patients andpercent distributions byseletied characteristics, according to age:

United States, 1979

Age

Selected characteristics

All ages

Under 20 20-29 30 years

years years and over

Numbar in thousands

Black female patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,128 375 600 152

Percent distribution

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

Ethnicity

Hispanicorigin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 2.0 3.6 * 4.4

Notof Hispanicorigin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.8 98.0 96.4 95.5

Education

Lessthan 12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.4 68.7 25.0 38.2

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.5 26.4 51.3 47.2

13yearsor more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2 4.8 23.7 14.5

Student status

Student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.1 62.6 16.1 5.1

Notastudent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.9 37.4 83.9 94.9

Public assistance income

Income includespublicassistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.6 27.4 27.0 23.4

Income does notincludepublic assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.4 72.6 73.0 76.6

NOTE: Numbers may notaddtototals dueto rounding.

11
Table4. Numbrof female family planning patients andpercent distributions bycontraceptive useandmediml services provided, according to age

and patient status: United States, 1979

Age

Patient status, contraceptive use, and medical sewices provided

All ages

Under 20 20-29 30 years

years years and over

All female patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Prior contraceptive method

Never used methodregularly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pill

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

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

Foam,jelly, orcream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Source of prior method

Sameservicesite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Anotherservice site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Private physician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Contraceptive method adopted or continued

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

IUD:::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Foam,jelly, orcream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

Pregnant or seekingpregnancy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other reason . . . .

Papsmear . . . . . . . .

Pelvic exam . . . . . . .

Breast exam . . . . . .

Blood pressure . . . . .

Pregnancy test . . . . .

Venereal disease test .

Urinalysis . . , . . . , .

Bloodiest . . . . . . . .

Other medical services

New female patients .

Total . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Medical services provided

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

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

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

prior contraceptive method

Never used methodregularly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pill

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

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

Foam,jelly,orcream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Source ofprior method

Sameservicesite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Anotherservice site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Private physician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

See footnote and nota at end of table.

4,347

100.0

23.4

57.6

7.9

4.2

3.8

3.2

43.4

8.7

2.4

17.8

4.3

64.0

7.8

6.8

5.7

7.3

8.4

4.9

3.6

61.0

69.8

62.7

89.3

10.0

53.5

61.1

54.8

55<1

1,489

100.0

64.7

31.4

3.6

2.6

4.2

3.6

37.7

7.6

Number in thousands

1,493 2,338

Percent distribution

100.0

42.8

48.8

2.0

1.2

3.0

2.1

33.7

5.9

1.1

12.5

4.0

74.0

2.8

3.6

4.9

5.2

9.4

5.5

3.9

61.6

69.0

63.3

89.5

11.6

54.5

63.2

56.7

55.1

100.0

13.7

65.5

8.9

5.5

3.6

2.8

48.5

10.5

2.7

20.3

4.2

63.3

8,5

8.3

5.4

6.7

7.8

4.8

3.0

59.3

69.1

61.0

89.0

9.6

52.6

59.3

53.2

55.1

Number in thousands

762 606

Percent distribution

100.0 100.0

73.6 36.2

18.9 45.2

*0.6 5.8

*0.6 4.2

3.2 5.1

3.0 3.5

20.2 54.7

6.2 9.1

.

516

100.0

11.4

46.9

20.2

6.7

6.7

8.1

48.4

8.3

4.8

22.2

4.9

38.3

18.9

9.0

9.6

15.9

8.3

3.4

4.8

66.8

75.9

68.2

90.2

6.6

54.7

63.5

56.8

54.7

121

100.0

28.2

40.7

10.9

6.6

6.4

7.2

62.2

9.5

12
Table4. Numbarof female family planning patients andpercent distributions bycontraceptive useandmedical sewices provided, according to age

and patient status United Statesr1979—Con.

Patient status, contraceptive use, and medical services provided

Age

All ages

Under 20 20-29 30 years

years years and over

Contraceptive metho&adopted or continued

Pill

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

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

Foam,jelly,orcream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

None, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pregnant orseeking pregnancy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Otherreason . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Madical services provided

Papsmear . . . . . ..<...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pelvicexam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Breastexam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bloodpressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Venereal diseasetest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Bloodiest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Othermedical services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Returnfemale patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

prior contraceptive method

Neverused methodregularly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

Foam,jelly,orcream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Otherl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Source of prior method

Sameaervicesite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Anotherservicesite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Privatephysician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Contraceptive method adopted or continued

Pill

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

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

Foam,jelly,orcream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

Pregnantorseekingpregnancy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Otherreason . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Medical services provided

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

Peivicexam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Braastexam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

Venereai diseasetest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Bloodiest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Othermedical services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60.2

4.4

7.3

7.1

8.6

12.4

7.1

5.2

73.2

80.6

74.9

89.4

13.4

62.5

72.8

67.1

55.3

2,858

100.0

7.2

c 71.2

10.1

5.0

3.5

3.0

66.0

13.2

3.7

7.5

2.5

66.0

9.5

6.5

5.0

6.6

6.3

3.7

2.7

54.6

64.2

56.3

89.2

8.2

48.8

55.0

48.4

54.9

Percent distribution

69.3 54.6

1.7 6.5

4.3 10.1

6.1 7.6

6.7 9.0

12.0 12.2

6.9 7.4

5.1 4.7

75.9 70.2

81.4 79.4

77.8 71.6

90.5 88.4

13.4 13.8

66.0 59.2

76.7 69.1

70.4 63.9

56.2 54.1

Number in thousands

731 1,732

Percent distribution

100.0 100.0

10.8 5.9

79.9 72.6

3.4 10.0

1.9 5.9

2.7 3.1

1.3 2.5

68.8 65.5

12.1 14.1

2.3 3.7

4.3 8.3

1.7 2.5

79.0

4.0

2.9

3.7

3.8

6.6

4.0

2.6

46.6

56.1

48.2

88.4

9.9

42.5

49.0

42.3

53.8

66.4

9.1

7.7

4.6

5.9

6.3

3.7

2.4

55.5

65.4

57.3

89.2

8.2

50.3

55.9

49.5

55.5

30.9

11.3

12.2

11.0

19.2

15.4

6.7

8.8

70.8

82.0

72.8

87.3

11.2

56.9

67.3

62.2

54.1

395

100.0

6.2

48.8

23.1

6.8

6.7

8.4

63.2

10.9

6.2

10.0

3.4

40.6

21.3

8.0

9.2

14.7

6.2

2.5

3.7

65.6

74.0

66.7

91.1

5.2

54.1

62.4

55.1

54.9

Ilnc,udes “a~uraI methods and sterilization.

NOTE: Numbers maynotadd tototals due to rounding.

13
Table5. Number ofwhite female family planning patients andpercent distributions bycontraceptive useandmedical sewices provided, according

to age: United States, 1979

Age

Contraceptive use and medical services provided

All ages

Under 20 20-29 30 years

years years and over

White female patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Prior contraceptive method

Neverused methodregularly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

IUD : : : : : : : : : :::::..,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Foam,jelly, orcream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Source of prior method

Sameservicesite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Anotherservice site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Privatephysician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Contraceptive method adopted or continued

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

IUD : : : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Foam,jelly, orcream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

Pregnant orseeking pregnancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other reason . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Medical services provide~

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

Pelvicexam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Breastexam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bloodpressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Venereal diseasetest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urinalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,

Bloodiest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other medical services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3,118

100.0

24.3

56.3

7.3

4.7

4.0

3.4

40.4

.8.7

1,9

19.9

4.9

63.8

7.1

7.7

5.1

7.5

8.9

5.3

3.7

61.6

69.9

62.9

88.2

10.9

52.3

63.1

55.8

55.8

Number in thousands

~

1,093 1,679

Percent distribution

100.0

43.9

47.3

1.6

1.4

3.3

2.5

31.2

5.8

*0.8

13.6

4.7

73.7

2.4

4.3

4.3

5.4

10.0

6.0

4.0

62.6

69.2

63.7

88.2

12.8

53.7

65,1

58.0

55.9

100.0

14.0

64.3

8.7

6.4

3.9

2.9

45.9

10.6

2.1

22.6

4.8

62.5

8.0

9.6

4.9

6.9

8.2

5.1

3.1

59.8

69.0

61.1

87.7

10.5

51.5

61.3

54.1

55.7

347

1Clo.o

12.4

46.5

18.5

7.0

6.7

8.9

43.2

8.2

4.2

26.4

5.5

38.7

17.0

!9.5

:B.9’

1 ‘7.1

18.9

:3.9

!5.1

67.6

76.5

69.1

90.1

7.2

52.5

65.8

57.6

56.4

lln~lude~natural methods andstarilization.

NOTE: Numbers maynotadd tototals due to rounding.

14
Table6. Number of black female family planning patients andpercent distributions bycontraceptive useandmedical services provided, according

to age: United States, 1979

Contraceptive use and medical services provided

Age

All agas

Under 20 20-29 30 yaars

years years and over

Black female patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

prior contraceptive method

Neverused methodregularly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

Foam,jelly,orcream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Source of prior method

Sameservicesite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Anotherservice site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Privatephysician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Contraceptive method adopted or continued

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

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

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

Foam,jel[y, orcream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

Pregnant or seekingpregnancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other reason . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Medical services provided

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

Pelvicexam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Breastexam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Pregnancytest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Venereal diseasetest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Bloodiest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Othermedical services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,128

100.0

20.9

61.4

9.3

2.7

3.2

2.5

52.4

8.7

4.0

11.6

2.3

65.5

9.2

4.4

7.5

6.5

6.9

3.6

3.2

59.9

70.5

63.2

93.0

7.2

57.5

56.5

52.8

52.5

Number in thousands

375 600 152

Percent distribution

100.0

39.3

53.7

3.1

+0.7

2.1

*1.1

41.7

6.4

2.1

8.6

1.9

75.4

3.9

*1.7

6.7

4.9

7.4

4.1

3.4

59.0

68.6

62.9

93.5

8.1

57.5

57.8

53.0

52.3

100.0

12.6

69.5

9.3

3.1

3.1

2.4

56.7

10.3

4.6

13.3

2.4

66.4

9.0

5.1

7.0

6.0

6.6

3.7

3.0

56.9

70.3

62.0

93.0

7.2

56.7

54.9

51.9

52.9

100.0

6.5

47.8

24.3

6.4

6.5

6.5

61.6

8.5

6.1

12.3

*3.1

37.8

22.9

8.5

11.5

12.3

6.9

*2.4

*4.5

66.3

76.4

68.4

91.7

5.1

60.9

59.6

55.8

51.4

lln~lude~ natural methods andsteri[ization.

NOTE: Numbers meynotadd tototals due to rounding.

15
Table7. Number of female family plannlng patients andpercent distributions by number of pregnancies, number of Iivebirths, and number of fetal deaths,

according topatient status and selected characteristics: United States, 1979

Number of Number of pregnancies Number of live births Number of fetal deaths

Patient status and selected female Total

charac teris tics patients /n

o 1 2

3or o

1 2

3or o 3 or

thousands 1more

2

more more

All female patients

Race and age

Al I races

Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Under 20 years . . . . . . . . . . . .

20-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . .

30yearsand over . . . . . . . . . . .

White

Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Under 20 years.....,..,,. ,,

20-29 years . . . . . . . . .

30years and over . . . . . . . . .

Black

Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Under 20years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20-29 years ,. . . . . . . . . . . .

30 years and over . . . . . . . . . . .

Ethnicny and age

Hispanic origin

Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Under 20years . . . . . . . . . . . .

20-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30years and over . . . . . .

Not of Hispanic origin

Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Under 20years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30years and over . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

Lessthan12 years . . . . . . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years ormOre . . . . . . . . . . . .

Student status

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

Not a student . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public assistance income

Income includes public

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

Income does not include

public assistance . . . . . .

New female patients

Rata

All races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.,

Ethniclty

Hispanicorlgin . . . . . . . . . .

Notof Hispanic origin . . . . .

Education

Less than 12 years . . . . . . . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13year50r mare . . . . . . . . . . . .

See note at end Of table.

Percent distribution

4,347

1,493

2,338

516

3,118

1,093

1,679

347

1,128

375

600

152

515

104

296

114

3,832

1,388

2,042

402

1,724

1,703

921

1,293

3,054

594

3,754

1,489

1,167

279

175

1,314

667

528

294

100.0

100.0

100,0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100,0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100,0

100,0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

44.9

69.6

36.7

10.4

48.7

73.4

40.6

9.7

34.2

58.4

25,2

10.4

21.4

49.1

18.2

‘4.2

48,1

71.2

39.4

12.2

42.4

40.5

57,5

71,4

33.7

21.7

48.6

57.1

59.2

48.7

33.0

60.4

60.5

50.9

60.7

24,9

23.8

28.3

12.4

23.7

21.3

27.6

12.4

28.6

31,4

30.8

12.6

24.7

36.9

26.8

“8.1

24,9

22.8

28.6

13.6

23.2

27.8

22.8

19.3

27.3

30.9

23.9

21.9

20.6

27.8

26.2

21.4

20.3

24.8

20.4

14.8

5,2

19.7

20.8

14.0

4.3

18.7

22.0

17.3

8.0

22.7

18.9

21.6

10.4

26.5

19.1

13.9

4.8

18.7

21.3

4.6

7.0

1.3

5.7

8.7

ZI .4

13.8

10.4

10.1

11.5

17.2

9.5

8.9

12.4

10.2

15,4 55.0

1.4 80.2

15.3 48.1

56.4 13.5

13.6 59.6

1.1 84.2

13.1 53.2

55.9 13.0

19.9 42.1

2.2 68.3

21.3 33.2

58.1 12.6

32.3 27.6

* 3.6 58.9

28.5 25.0

68.6 *5,6

13.1 58.7

1.2 81.8

13.4 51.4

52.9 15.7

19.8 49.4

14.7 50.9

8.5 72.9

3.5 83.2

20.4 43.1

26.0 26.0

13.7 59.6

10.5 66.0

10.1 68.3

12.0 56.6

23.7 39.9

8.8 69.5

10.3 67.0

11.9 60.7

8.7 73.5

21.2

16,5

25.6

14.7

18.7

13.4

23.1

14.4

28.3

25.7

33.0

16.0

25.5

32.5

28.6

11.3

20.6

15.3

25.2

15.6

21.1

24.6

14.9

11.3

25.4

36.0

18.8

18.2

16.3

26.2

25.8

17.2

17.4

21.1

14,6

13.4

2.8

17.5

25.1

12.4

2.1

16.3

26.1

16.1

5.0

21.1

23.4

22,6

*6.5

27.4

24.9

12.1

2.6

16.1

25.1

14.4

15.3

7.9

3.6

17.5

20.6

12.2

9.2

8.9

10.0

17.0

8.1

8.2

11.2

7.6

10.4

‘0.5

8.8

46.8

9.3

‘0.4

7.4

46.5

13.5

‘0.9

12.7

48.0

24.3

*2.1

19.0

58.2

8.6

“0.4

7.3

43.5

15.0

9.1

4.3

2.0

14.0

17.4

9.3

6.6

6.4

7.2

17.3

5.2

7.4

7:1

4.3

78.7

86.9

75.6

59.1

79.3

87.2

76.2

69.1

77.3

85.9

74.0

69.0

73.6

85.4

72.9

64.6

79.4

87.0

76.0

70.4

81.0

77.6

76.4

84.7

76.2

74.9

79.3

82.5

82.9

81.4

77.7

83.2

86.0

80.2

78.7

16.1

11.5

18.2

19.8

15.8

11.2

17.9

20.2

16.7

12.3

18.9

18.9

18.8

12.4

19.9

21.7

15.7

11.4

18.0

19.3

14.2

17.1

17.8

12.6

17.6

17.6

15.9

13.5

13.2

14.1

16.8

13.0

10.8

15.3

16.1

3.8

1.4

4.6

7.1

3.6

1.3

4.5

6.8

4.3

‘1.6

5.1

8.1

5.4

*2.O

5.3

*8.7

3.6

1.3

4.6

6.7

3.4

3.9

4.4

2.2

4.5

5.3

3.6

2.9

2.8

3.3

*4.3

2.7

2.3

3.3

3.7

1.4

“0.2

1.5

3.9

1.3

*0.3

1.4

3.9

1.6

‘0.2

1.9 ,

*4.O

2.3

+0.2

*1.9

“5.0

1.2

‘0.2

1.5

3.6

1.3

1.4

1.4

*0,5

7.7

2.2

1.2

1.1

1.0

1.2

‘1.8

1.0

*0.8

1.2

*1.4

16
Table7. Number of female family planning patients andpercent distributions bynumhrof pregnancies, number of Iivebirths, andnumbar of fetal deaths,

according topatient stamsand selected characteristics: United States, 1979–Con.

Number of Number of pregnancies Number of live births Number of fetal deaths

Patient status and selected female Total

characteristics patients in

o 1 2

3or o

1 2

3or o 3 or

thousands

T 2

more more more

New female patients–Con.

Student status

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

Nota studant . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public assistance income

Income includes public

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

Income does not include

public assistance . . . . . . . . . . .

Return femele patients

Race

Allr;ces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

Ethnicity

Hispanicorigin . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Notof Hispanic origin . . . . . . . .

Education

Lessthan12years . . . . . . . . . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13yearsormore . . . . . . . . . . . .

Student status

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

Nota student . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public assistance income

Income includes public

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

Income does not include

public assistance . . . . . . . . . . .

596

893

168

1,321

2,858

1,951

849

340

2,518

1,056

1,174

627

697

2,161

426

2,433

Percent distribution

100.0 80.7 13.7

100.0 41.4 27.5

100.0 32.7 31.7

100.0 60.2 20.7

100.0 38.5 26.4

100.0 42.4 25.5

100.0 29.5 28.8

100.0 15.4 23.9

100.0 41.6 26.7

100.0 31.3 24.9

100.0 35.8 29.1

100.0 56.0 23.8

100.0 63.5 24.1

100.0 30,5 27.2

100.0 17.4 30.6

100.0 42.2 25.7

3.2

15.2

16.6

9.6

17.2

16.4

19.2

23.9

16.3

18.2

19.1

11.8

8.0

20.1

23.2

16.1

2.5 88.8 7.7 2.0

15.9 50.8 25.2 13.9

19.0 37.6 35.2 ‘15.5

9.5 69.7 16.0 8.3

17.9 49.3 22.7 15.6

15.8 54.3 20.2 14<5

22.5 37.4 29.0 18.0

36.8 21.2 25.4 25.5

15.4 53.1 22.4 14.2

25.6 38.4 23.4 18.3

16.0 46.6 26.2 17.2

8.5 72.6 15.0 8.0

4.4 78.4 14.3 4.9

22.2 39.9 25.4 19.0

28.8 21.5 36.3 22.6

16.0 54.1 20.4 14.3

1.4 89.6 8.8

10.1 77.8 16.6

11.8 77.9 15.8

6.0 83.1 13.2

12.4 76.7 17.5

11.0 77.1 17.3

15.6 76.0 17.6

27.9 71.8 19.8

10.3 77.4 17.2

19.9 77.9 16.4

10.1 76.5 17.9

4.3 75.3 18.6

2.4 80.6 15.9

15.7 75.5 18.0

19.6 73.7 18.3

11.2 77.3 17.3

1.3

4.0

4.4

2.8

4.3

4.1

4.7

5.9

4.1

4.0

4.2

4.8

2.9

4.7

5.7

4.0

*0.3

1.5

*1.9

‘0.9

1.5

1.4

1.8

*2.5

1.4

1.7

1.4

1.4

‘ 0.6

1.8

2.3

1.4

NOTE: Numbers maynotadd tototals due to rounding.

17
Tabla8. Numbarof famalefamily planning patients andpercent distributions by number of pregnancies, numlwof Iivebirths, andnumbarof fetal deaths,

according toraceand contraceptive use: United States, 1979

Number of Number of pregnancies Number of live births Number of fetal dea ths

Race and contraceptive use

female Total

patients in o 1 2

30r o

1 2

3or o 3 or

thousands 1 2

more more more

Percent distribution

All racea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Prior contraceptive method

Never us@d method regularly . . . .

Pill

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

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

Foam,jelly, orcream . . . . . . .

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

Source of prior method

Sameservicesite . . . . . . . . . . . .

Anothersewicesite . . . . . . . . . .

Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Private physician . . . . .’. ,

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

Contraceptive method adopted

or continued

Pill

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

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

Foam, jelly,orcream . . . . . .

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

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

Pragnant or seeking

pregnancy . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Otherreason . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Prior contraceptive mathod

Never used mathod regularly . . . .

Pill

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

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

Foam,jally, orcream . . . . . . . . .

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

Source of prior method

Samesewiceslte . . . . . . . . . . . .

Anothersewicesite . . . . .

Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Privatephyaician . . . . .

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

Contraceptive mathod adopted

or continued

Pill

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

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

Foam, jelly,orcream . . . .

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

None . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pregnant or seeking

pregnancy . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Otherreason . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Saa footnota and nota at end of table

4,347

1,019

2,502

342

181

164

139

1,888

377

105

775

1S4

2,784

338

294

249

317

365

210

154

3,11s

757

1,756

227

147

124

lD6

1,260

271

58

620

152

1,989

220

241

160

231

27S

164

113

100.0

100,0

100,0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100,0

100.0

100,0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

44.9

65.5

41,6

18.6

42.S

35.6

31.3

41.3

37.4

13.0

34.5

45.1

49.2

20.1

49.s

32.6

33.4

49.3

49.2

49.4

48.7

69.7

44.8

21.6

47.2

37.6

35.4

45.6

42.4

14.9

35.5

47.5

52.9

22.5

55.4

35.3

35.4

51.9

52.1

51.5

24.9

19.2

27.9

24,6

24,5

23.2

16.0

25.6

28.8

27.5

28.9

22.6

25.9

24.6

22.9

24.9

19.9

23.4

25.1

21.2

23.7

16.6

26.9

25.1

24.2

23.9

16.0

24.4

28.2

27.7

28,6

22.5

24.1

25.2

22.1

24.3

19.8

23.4

24.7

21.5

14.8

7.4

16.4

23.4

16,0

16.5

16.9

16,5

17<0

24.0

18.3

15.0

13.8

23.1

13.2

17.5

17.1

12.9

13.4

12.2

14.0

6.5

15.6

23.8

15,6

16.2

16.2

15.6

15.4

24.2

18.4

14.7

12.9

23.3

12.1

17.7

16.9

12.0

12,5

11,4

15.4 55.0

8.0 72.1

14.1 53.1

33.4 27,3

16.7 60.7

24.6 44.5

35.8 37.8

16.6 51.1

16.9 53.5

35.5 20.1

16.2 47.2

17.3 56.2

11.1 59.5

32.3 28.8

14.1 64.8

25.0 40.3

29.6 40.3

14.4 59.6

12.2 60.3

17.3 58.6

13.6 59.6

7.1 76.4

12.7 57.4

29.5 31.5

13.0 66.1

22.3 46.8

32.4 42.4

14.4 56.5

14.1 59.8

33.2 22.6

17.6 48.8

15.4 59.0

10.1 64.0

29.0 32.3

10.4 71.1

22.8 43.2

27.8 42.8

12.7 62.6

12.4 61.1

15.7 61.5

21,2

16.1

23.1

25.7

18.2

21.9

14.7

22.1

21.9

29.8

24.6

1S.6

21.2

25.1

17.4

24.4

19.1

20.3

22.0

18.0

1s.7

13.0

20.7

25,0

16.2

22.0

14.2

19.4

19.1

28.2

23.5

17.8

18.3

24,3

14.8

23.2

18.0

19.0

20.7

16.7

13.4

6.2

14.6

23.1

12.2

16.3

18.2

15.1

13.8

23.7

16.8

14.1

12.1

22.9

10.0

17.2

17.2

11.3

11.0

11.7

12.4

5.5

13.7

22.6

11.1

15.5

17.4

13.9

11.9

24.0

16.8

13.5

11,1

23.0

8.3

16.6

17.0

10.5

10.7

10.8

10.4

5,5

9.2

24.0

9.0

17.3

29.3

11.6

10.9

26.4

11.4

11.1

7,2

23.2

7.8

18.0

23.4

8.8

6.7

11.6

9.3

5,1

8.3

21.0

6.5

15.7

26.1

10.2

9.2

25.3

10.9

9.7

6.5

20.3

5.8

17.0

22.2

7.9

7.6

11.1

78.7

87.4

77.8

68.2

67.8

75.2

75.8

78.7

70.7

69.7

73.1

76.4

81.1

69.1

73.0

76.1

76.6

77.8

77.1

78.7

79.3

88.5

77.9

69.1

69.4

76.2

76.7

79.1

71.4

71.9

73.1

77.1

81.2

69,4

75.3

77.3

77.8

79.3

78.9

80.1

16.1

9.7

17.4

22.0

22.0

17.7

16,3

16.3

21.9

20,3

20.5

17.1

15.0

21.6

19.2

16.7

16.1

16.3

16.9

15,4

15,8

8.9

17.5

21,6

21.4

17.3

15.6

16,1

21.9

19.0

20.5

16.5

15.0

21,3

18.5

16,3

15.2

15.2

15.4

14.8

3.8

2.1

3.7

6.6

7.4

5.0

4.8

3.7

5.5

7.0

4.8

4.3

3.0

6.5

5.6

4.9

5.0

4.3

4.4

4.0

3.6

1.9

3.6

6.4

6.9

+4.7

●4.7

3.6

5.1

‘6.3

4.7

4.2

3.0

6.4

4.5

4.4

4.8

4.0

4.2

‘3.6

1.4

“0.8

1.1

3,2

●2.8

●2.1

●3.1

1.3

‘1.8

●2.9

“1.7

● 2.3

0.9

2.8

2.3

‘2.3

2.3

1.7

“1.6

●1.9

1.3

+0.7

1.1

* 2.9

2.3

●1.8

● 2.9

1.2

‘1.6

●2.8

1.7

+2.1

0.8

*2.9

‘1.8

*2.O

*2.2

●1.5

●1.4

+1.5

18
Table8. Number of female family planning patients andpercent distrihtions bynum&r ofpregnancies, numbrof Iivebirths, and number of fetal deaths,

a.xordingto race and contraceptive use: United States, 1979-Con.

Number of Number of pregnancies Number of live births Number of fetal deaths

Race and contraceptive u=

female

Total

patienta in o 1 2

3or o

1 2

30r o 3 or

thousands

1

more

2

more more

Slack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Prior contraceptive method

Nwerused method regularly . . . .

Pill

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

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

Foam,jelly,orcream . . . . . . . . .

Otherl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Source of prior method

.%mesewicesite . . . . . . . . . . . .

Anothersewicasite . . . . . . . . . .

Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Private physician . . . . . . . . . .

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

1,128

236

692

104

31

36

29

590

99

45

131

26

739

104

50

85

73

78

41

37

Percent distribution

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

34.2

52.1

33.3

11.6

20.3

28.0

● 14.9

32.1

24.1

“9.7

28.1

30.8

Contraceptive method adopted

or continued

Pill

IUD::::::;:::;::;:::;: ::

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

Foam,jelly, orcream . . . . . . . . .

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

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

Pregnant or seeking

rxegnancy . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Otherraascm . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ilnclu,jesnaturat methods andstariliZatiOn.

NOTE: Numbers maynotadd tototals due to rounding.

39.0

12.2

23.6

27.6

24.9

40.5

38.3

42.7

28.6

27.5

30.8

23.2

25.7

21.5

● 15.0

28.3

30.6

27.6

31.4

23.7

30.9

24.3

26.5

26.1

20.2

24.2

27.7

20.5

17.3

10.1

18.7

23.1

● 18.8

18.6

19.4

18.6

21.6

24.3

18.6

● 17,6

16.3

23.4

18.2

17.4

18.9

16.1

17.4

‘1 4.8

19.9 42.1 28.3

10.3 58.9 26.2

17.3 41.8 30.0

42.0 17.7 27.0

35.2 32.0 29.1

31.9 35.8 21.9

50.7 19.2 ● 16.3

21.0 39.4 28.2

23.6 36.0 30.1

38.3 15.9 32.6

21.8 37.9 30.3

28.0 40.0 24.3

13.7 47.1 29.3

40.1 1S.6 27.8

31.7 35.1 30.0

28.9 34.5 27.0

36.0 30.6 22.4

19.2 49.8 24.9

16.7 49.5 27.8

22.1 50.1 21.9

16.1

8.2

16.9

24.8

‘$17.7

20.0

21.6

17.7

18.8

23.7

17.7

“17.3

14.6

23.8

17.3

18.8

18.4

13.8

*13.O

*14.7

13.5 77.3 16.7 4.3

6.7 84.2 12.0 *2.7

11.3 77.9 16.9 4.1

30.5 66.2 22.6 7.1

21.1 60.5 23.7 ‘10.3

22.3 72.2 19.1 ●5.9

42.9 72.1 19.0 ‘5.3

14.6 78.0 16.5 4.0

15.1 69.0 21.8 ●6.8

27.8 67.3 21.3 ●8.1

14.0 72.6 20.2 5.5

“1 8.3 72.1 ●19.4 *5.O

9.0 81.1 14.9 3.2

29.8 67.3 22.8 *6.8

17.7 62.7 22.0 ●IO.?

19.7 74.1 17.0 ●5.9

28.6 72.4 19.4 ●5.7

11.5 72.8 19.8 ●5.2

*9.7 71.3 22.1 “4.9

‘13.3 74.2 17.4 ●5.4

1.6

+1.1

1.1

“4.0

● 5.6

●2.9

*3.6

1.5

● 2.4

●3.2

‘1.6

●3.4

0.9

●3.1

“4.7

+3.0

● 2.6

*2.3

●1.7

“3.1

19
Table9. Number of female family planning @tients and~rcent diwribtion bycontracaptive method adopted orcontinuad, according to prior

contraceptive method and patient status: United States, 1979

Patient status and contraceptive method

adopted or continued

Prior contraceptive method

Total Foem, Never used

Pill IUD Diaphragm jelly, Otherl method

or cream regularly

All female patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contraceptive method adopted or continued

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

IUD ” : : : : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Foam, jally, orcream, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Netural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ralyingon partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

Newfemale patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contraceptive method adopted or continuad

Pill

IUD”::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: :

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

Foam,jelly,orcream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Natural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Relyingon partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

Return femalepatients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contraceptive mathod adopted or continued

Pill

IUD”::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: :

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

Foam,jelly, orcream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Natural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Relying onpartner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

4,347

100.0

64.0

7.8

6.8

5.7

0.5

4.3

1.6

0.9

8.4

1,489

100.0

60.2

4.4

7.3

7.1

*0.5

6.0

1.1

1.0

12.4

2,858

100.0

66.0

9.5

6.5

5.0

0.5

3.5

1.8

0.8

6.3

2,502

100.0

80.7

2.7

3.2

3.5

‘0.2

2.7

0.6

0.5

5.9

468

100.0

70.5

4.0

5.2

4.9

*0.3

4.3

‘0.8

‘0.8

9.2

2,035

100.0

83.0

2.4

2.7

3.2

*0.2

2.3

0.6

*0.4

5.2

Number in thousands

342 181 164

Parcent distribution

100.0 100,0 100,0

12.0 14.2 32.6

64.4 4.0 5.1

4.8 65.3 8.7

5.8 *2.8 35.0

‘0.3 *0.4 *0.6

4.0 *2.4 4.5

*0.6 *0.5 *1.6

*0.9 “0.9 *1.1

7.2 9.5 10.9

Number in thousands

53 38 63

Percent distri but ion

100.0 100.0 100.0

18.0 16.5 42.7

45.4 ‘6.4 *4.2

‘8.4 55.8 11.8

*9.1 *3.6 22.9

“0.3 *0.2 *0,2

*5.5 *3.O “4.9

*1.O *1.O *0.9

+1.9 *0.5 *0.7

*1 0.4 *1 3.0 “11 .7

Number in thousands

289 143 100

Percent distribution

100.0 100.0 100.0

10.9 13.6

67.9 *3.4

4.1 67.9

5.2 *2.6

*0.3 *0.5

3.7 *2.2

*0.5 ‘0.4

*0.7 *1.O

6.6 8.6

26.2

*5.7

6.7

42.6

*0.8

*4.3

*2.O

*1.3

10.4

139

100.0

27.3

*2.9

5.8

5.0

4.3

10.1

27.3

5.8

8.6

53

100.0

43.4

*1.9

9.4

*7.5

*3.8

9.4

9.4

*3.8

13.2

86

100.0

19.8

,*3.5

*3.5

*3.5

*4.7

10.5

38.4

7.0

7.0

1,019

100.0

59.6

2.9

5.6

7.1

*0.6

7.9

*0.9

1.2

14.2

814

I IQoro

61.6

2.1

5.6

7.2

“0.5

7.0

‘*0.7

1.0

‘14.4

205

100.0

’51.3

6.3

5.8

6.6

*1.2

11.7

“1.5

“2.2

13.4

llnclude~ natural methods and sterilization.

NOTE: Numbers may notaddtototals dueto rounding.

20
Appendixes

Contents

1. Technical notes on methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Survey methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Datacoliection andprocessing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Reliability ofestimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Il. Definitions ofcertain termsused in this report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Terms relating tothesurvey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Terms relating to medicalservices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

111. Clinic Visit RecordforFamily Planning Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

List of appendix tables

1. Estimated number of femaiefamiIy planning patients, byage and race: United States, 1979. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Il. Relative standard error ofestimated number of female family planning patienk, byageand race: United States, l979. . . 24

[11. Number ofsample (that is, unweighted) female family planning patient records, byageand race: United States, l979. . . 24

IV. Range of recommended design effects for proportion estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

21
Appendix L Technicalnotes

on methods

Survey methodology

Scope of the. survey. –The Nationzd Reporting

System for Family Planning Services covers all family

planning visits to nonmilitary service sites that offer

medical family planning services in the United States,

American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, trust territories, and the Virgin Islands. The survey specifically

excludes family planning visits to office-based private

physicians’ practices: these visits are included in the

scope of 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). A family planning patient is

an individual making one or more family planning visits to a family planning service site.

Sampling design. –The data presented in this report are based on a two-stage stratified sample survey.

The original, first-stage sampling frame for NRSFPS

was completed during the summer of 1976 and was

updated in 1979. 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 was the 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

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 (that is, public health department, affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., hospital, and other), and

county. The sample service sites were systematically

selected frdm these strata after a random start, with

the probability of selection ranging from certahty to

1 in 18. The 1979 U.S. sample comprised 1,389 sites,

with 78.9 percent of the sites participating in the

survey.

In the second stage, family planning visits at each

sample site were systematically selected. NC.HS 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 family

planning visits needed in each site for the survey; the

visit sampling rates ranged from certainty to 1 in 30.

Although the survey is based on a sample of family planning visits, estimates for family planning patients are derivable from survey data. Each patient

(that is, an individual making one or more family

planning visits) can be uniquely associated with the

first visit made during the calendar year.

The date of the prior family planning visit, if any,

for each individual making a sample family planning

visit is recorded in item 8 of the Clinic Visit Record

(see appendix III). With this information, sample family planning visits that correspond to an individual’s

f~st family planning visit during the calendar year can

be identified. Of the 376,472 sample family planning

visits in the United States in 1979, some 191,656 reflect data for the individual’s first family planning

visit during that year. The patient estimates presented

in this report are based on those 191,656 sample family planning visits (or, equivalently, sample .Family

planning patients).

Data collection and processing

Visit data were either abstracted from the patient’s medical fde, obtained by interviewing the patient, or determined by observation. The primary

data collection form is the Clinic Visit Record, which

22
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 1979 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 processing.

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

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 personnel) about

obtaining 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. Different versions of the family planning

visit log corresponded to each of the 14 sampling

rates employed to select sample visits: 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.

Data processing differed according to the mode of

data submission. Visit data received on Clinic Visit

Records had to be keyed to machine-readable forms

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.

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 probabilityy 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. The

reader 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 ,

necessary to use the estimates of domain sizes, relative standard emors, and sample sizes shown in tables

1-111.

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 patients is approximated by the following formula:

Standard error (p) = (D.E.) 4

p(l -p)

n

where

p = the estimated proportion

n = the number of sample (that is, unweighed)

patients in the base of the proportion (see

table 111)

23
Table 1. Estimated number of female family planning patients, by age and race: United States, 1979

Age

Race

All ages

Under 20-24 25-29 30 years

20 years years years and over

Number in thousands

Allracesl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,347 1,493 1,584 755 516

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,118 1,093 1,156 523 347

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,128 375 393 208 152

IIncludes races other than white and black.

Table [l. Relative standard error ofestimated number of female family planning patients, byage and race: United States, 1979

Age

Race

All ages

Under 20-24 25-29 30 years

20 years years years and over

Relative standard error in percent

Allracesl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 5.3 4.8 4.0 4.7

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 6.5 5.7 4.2 5.1

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 4.9 4.8 5.3 6.6

ll”cludes races other than white and black.

Table ill. Number ofsample (that is, un~eighted) female family planning patient records, byage and race: United States, 1979

Age

Race

All ages

Under 20-24 25-29 30 years

20 years years years and over

Allracesl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191,656 67,685 69,966 32,758 21,247

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139,306 49,991 51,691 23,186 14.,438

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45,811 15,926 15,871 8,148 5,866

IInclu,jes races other than whita and black.

D.E. =the design effect corresponding to the size

of the estimated base of theproportionp

(see table IV).

For example, 40.9 percent (p= O.409) of the

516,000 female family planntigpatients30 years of

age and over had less than 12 years ofeducation. The

following computation may be used to determine the

standard error for this estimated proportion:

Table IV. Range of recommended design affects for proportion

estimates

Design effect

Estimated number of patients Range of usedin this

in baseofproportion recommended report to

(domain size) design effects determine

reliability

Lessthanl million . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5 5

l-3million . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 7

Morethan3million . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 7

Standard error= 5

J

(0.409)( 1.0-0.409)= 00 ~~

21,247

where

p = 0.409

D.E. = 5

n=21,247

and

0.017

0.409 = 0“042”

relative standard error=—

Onemay also wish to compute thestandarcl error

associated with national aggregate estimates. To calculate the approximate standard error ofan aggregate

estimate X, first compute the relative standard error

(RSE)of the proportion (X/Y),whereYis theaggregate estimate for the smallest category of patients

listed in table I containing Xpopulation (for example,

ifXis the estimated number of female patients who

are30years ofageand over with less than 12 years of

education, then Y is the estimated number of female

patients 30 years of age and over).

24
Then

relative standard error (X) = RSE (X)

= @E(Wy))2 -I-(RSE (Y))2

and

standard error (X) = X RSE (X).

To continue with the example, one may calculate the

standard error of the estimated 211,000 female patients 30 years of age and over with less than 12 years

of education.

First, the relative standard error of the proportion

estimate (the estimated proportion of female patients

30 years of age and over with less than 12 years of

education) is calculated. This was determined to be

0.042. The relative standard error for the base of the

proportion is provided in table II.

Therefore

RSE (21 1,000)= 0.042)2 + (0.047)2 = 0.063.

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

Standard error (21 1,000) =(2 11,000)(0.063)=

13,000.

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.

During early 1980 the”National Center for Health

Statistics conducted a study to identify and measure

nonsampling error associated with 1980 data from

the National Reporting System for Family Planning

Services.’

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 nonmedical family planning

visits. Other problems associated with adherence to

NRSFPS definitions and procedures were identified,

and evidence suggests that patient data were not

always updated in the site’s record system at every

visit. The study indicated patient totals are probably

underestimated.

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

Because the percents were computed according to

unrounded estimates, the figures may not add to the

totals.

2Final Report of Data Quality Study for the National Reporting System for FamiIy Plarming Services, August 1980, Informatics.

(Unpublished.)

25
Appendix II, Definitionsof certain

terms used in this report

Terms relating to the survey

Clinic. –See family planning service site.

Clinic Visit Record. –The Clinic Visit Record is

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 a facsimile.

Continuation visit. –A continuation visit is a visit

by a patient who made at least one visit to any family

planning service site during the last calendar year.

Contraception .–Contraception is the conscious

use of medication, devices, or any practice that permits coitus with reduced likelihood of conception

(commonly known as birth control).

Contraceptive method. –A contraceptive method

is any medication, device, or practice that permits

coitus with reduced likelihood of conception.

Education. –Education signifies 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 so forth are excluded unless credits

are granted toward an elementary school certificate,

high school diploma, or college degree.

Family planning service site. –A family planning

service site is 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 support

through a U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services grant for the provision of family planning

services. Military service sites are excluded from the

survey.

Family planning services. –Medical services that

are primarily related to the regulation of conception

are known as family planning services. They enable a

person either to reduce the risk of conception (contraceptive services) or to induce conception (infertilityy services) as desired.

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

contraception, sterilization, or infertilityy treatment is

a family planning visit.

Fetal death. –Fetal death refers to the 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, are referred to as

being of Hispanic origin or descent.

Infertility. –Infertility is a diminished or absent

ability to conceive.

Live births. –A live birth refers to a child. born

alive any time after conception. 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.

New patients. –All patients whose first visit (that

is, initial visit) to a family planning service site occurred during the survey year are new patients. This

does not preclude an individual’s having visited a

private physician.

Public assistance income. –The patient’s family

income includes money from any Federal, State, or

local public assistance program (for example, Aid for

Dependent Children or general assistance). Scholarships, education grants, unemployment benefits, and

Social Security pensions are not considered public

assistance income.

Readmission visit. –A family planning visit if the

last visit occurred more than 1 year before the survey

year is known as a readmission visit.

Region. –Each of the family planning service sites

is classified by location in one of the four geographic

regions of the United States, which correspond to

26
those used by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The following framework is used:

Northeast. . . . . .

North Cantral. . .

South . . . . . . .

West . . . . . . . . .

Maine,NevvHampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New

York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and

Kansas.

Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia,

Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina,

South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi,

Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and

Texas.

Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New

Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, and

Alaska.

Terms relating to medical services

Pap smear. –The Pap smear is Papanicolaou’s test

to detect cervical cancer.

Pelvic exarnimztiorz. –Speculum examination of

the vagina and bimanual examination of internal

pelvic organs constitute a pelvic examination.

Breast examination. –Inspection and palpitation

of the breast and axillary glands

examination.

Blood pressure. –A patient’s

routinelv measured.

constitute a breast

blood pressure is

Preg~ancy testing. –Any diagnostic test performed to determine pregnancy constitutes pregnancy testing.

V.D. testing. –Any test to detect the presence of

venereal disease constitutes V .D. testing.

Urinalysis (not elsewhere specified). –Urinalysis is

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 constitutes a blood test.

Other medical services. –Other medical services

are medical family planning services not specified on

the Clinic Visit Record. Examples include X-rays and

immunizations.

27
Appendix Ill. Clinic Visit Record

for Family Planning Services

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

HEALTH RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS

Clinic Visit Record for Family Planning Sarvicas

1. SERVICE NUMaER I I I I 1

Numb.,

2 ‘ATIENTNuMaER~

N“ mbw

3. DATE OF THIS VISIT

DQO

4. PATIENT’S SEX

I ❑ Female b D Malo

5. ARE YOU OF HISPANIC ORIGIN OR DESCENT?

HAND cARD A a u V.a, bnNO

a, PATI ENT’S RACE (Ciwck one box)

a ❑ w,,,. c ❑ Ada. or Paclflc Islander

b ❑ Black d ❑ Am*rlcao !ndlan or AI.,kan N.tl.e

7. WHAT IS YOUR BIRTH DATE?

a oat. —---0 D Q

b ❑ If unknown ●-’’How O1d ●* YoU”?

(No. of Yedr$)

a. PATIENT STATUS

Have You •~r been a patient of thla or any other clinic for family

planning m- services?

● c1 Yes bnNO

If ,-Ye%,,, when were you ~ B patient at any On

did. for famUy pl.nning medical servtces?.+ f.qwMh

9. EDUCATION

A. What h the hishest ade (or year) of reg.lm school you have complete<

(Circle 0“.3 number $

O1234567891O 11121314151617+

(If “zero,’”go to 10 J

s. Are YO” presently 86tudont in a regular school?

, ❑ Y*,

bnNo

10. FAMILY INCOME ANO FAMILY SIZE

HAND CARD a ●nd HANO CARO C

A. Which of the following uoupa mprmonts yow total combined gros$

(before deductions) fmnity Income for the prtst 12 months?

aO 0- S1,249 d ❑ $6,250-$8,749 9 ❑ $18,750+

b ❑ $1,250-$3,749 . H $.5,750-s13,74~ h ❑ U“knomm

C Q $3.750-$6.249 f D $13,750-$18,749

B. How mmy people are in your fmnuy, that is, the number

supported hy this Incom.?

C. Doe& this income include any publk 8aai$tarIce1

a ❑ Yes baNo

D, What k your relatlomhlp to the chief mmer?

* ❑ Ch$-f *-n*r c u m~ughter-n

b m WlfO/HUsba”d a ❑ otn.r r.tatw.

AGENCY USE ONLY

A 8 c D E F

1.

2.

3.

—

4.

5.

6.

AN’? 1204:i!RR&%E 12/31/77 -

ASSURANCE OF CONFIDENTIALITY-411 Information Which would Wrmlt ldantlflmtlon of . . Indlvtdual. . Pra.tlce, or an estabtkhment wIII t.. held .Onfldentl.1,

will b. used only by Persons enga9ed In and for the mIrPosei of the mIr.9Y ●nd wIII

“ot be dlsctos.d or released to other Persons m used fov any other ourpose. Provlslon

of services k In no waY Co. tlngent on the Patient Ss Provldlng anY information for

,.1< f.rm

11. PREGNANCY HISTORY (Females only)

A. Have y.cmwar been pregmr.t?

J ❑ Y*5 b ❑ No- Gotof2

B. How IYUny line births have YoU had7

C. Of these, how m8ny are now living?

D. How many of your prqnancies wore ended by stillbirth,

Induced abortion, or mkcsrri.~e? (If ‘hero, “go to F )

E. How many of these pregnancies wore ended by induced

abortion since January 1973?

F. In what month and Yesr did Your last pregnancy end

(r.v~.sk of how it ended)? I 1

Month Y*M

12, CONTRACEPTIVE HISTORY

A. H.ve YOU ever used a method of bkth control regularly?

●n-f- b D No- Go1o73

HAND CARD D

a. Wh.t method did you hat uw re2ululy? (Check all mothmk that ●ppiy)

a I_J Sterluzatlon f ❑ Co#dom

b ❑ Oral (Pull g ❑ Foam/Jelly/Craam

c ❑ IUo h ❑ Natural Oncludkm rhythm)

d ❑ Oiaphragm J ❑ Othar

● ❑ lnl*ctlOn

C. Oa you currently um that method (primary method checked in 12B)?

. ❑ Y.,--Go to E bmNO

D. In what month znd year did You stop using that method? I I I

Month war

S. HOVJ Ions did you “m that method?

. Day, (If 1.$s than a nm”th)

_ Mo”tM (N less than a y*8r)

— Y*ars

F. where was fhe method prescribed or obtained?

i ❑ T.lswrvlc.slt. ● ❑ Dru9 store (nonpr~crlptiwt)

b ❑ C18111COf oth*r than thh sit.] f ❑ other

. •l m.Dlt.l (lf oth.r than thk site) g ❑ u.wmw”

d ❑ Prl..ta physlclan

13. MEDICAL SERVICES PROVIOEO AT THIS VISIT

● IJ Pap smear s ❑ LJrlnalysk (n.o.s.]

b ❑ ~lvIc exam h ❑ Blood test [n...).)

c ❑ Bromt exam j D 3terlllzat10n

d ❑ Blood pressura k ❑ In fertility traatm9nt

. n Pregnancy t.,tl”g m ❑ Oth.r In.dlmfsarvle.s

f ❑ V. D- t~tln9

14. CONTRACEPTIVE METHOD AT THE END OF THIS VISIT

A. Method (Ckk s// thaf ●ppfv)

a H starlllzatlcm t ❑ condom

b ~ oral (F211) g ❑ FoamtJ@lYlcroam

c ❑ IUD h D Natural (Includln.j rhythm)

d ❑ Dlaohragm I ❑ Ofhar

● ❑ Injection k ❑ Nom

S. [f “None,” 2h’e rewm (C%=k one onlvl

a ❑ Pregnant d ❑ Othw medical rowans

b ❑ I“f.rtlllty patient ● ❑ R*lYln9 on p.rtn.r% m.thod

c ❑ ~kfinu PI*gnanGY f ❑ Othw

HRA-192-1

6/77

28
Vital and Health Statistics series descriptions

SERIES 1.

SERIES 2.

SERIES 3.

SERIES4.

SERIES 10.

SERIES 11.

SERIES 12.

SERIES 13.

Programs and Collection Procedures. -Reports descrtblng

the general programs of the National Center for Health

Statistics and its offices and d!vlslons and the data COI.

Iecticm methods used. They also Include definitions and

other material necessary for understanding the data.

Data Evaluation and Methods Research. –Stud!es of new

statistical methodology includlng experimental tests of

new survey methods, studies of wtal statistics collection

methods, new analytical techniques, objecttve evaluations

of reliability of collected data, and contributions to statistical theory.

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

and health statistics, carrying the analysis further than the

expository types of reports in the other series,

Documents and Committee Reports.–Flnal reports of

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

registration laws and rewsed birth and death certificates.

Data from the National Health Interview Survey .-Stat[stics on illness, accidental injuries, dlsabll!ty, use of hospital, medical, dental, and other services, and other

health-related topics, all based on data collected In the

contlnutng national household Interwew survey.

Data From the National Health Examination Survey and

the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.–

Data from d]rect examination, testing, and measurement

of national samples of the clvillan non{nstltu tlonallzed

population provide the basis for ( 1) estrmates of the

medically defined prevalence of specIf Ic diseases in the

Unib?d States and the distributions of the population woth

respect to physical, physiological, and psychological

characterlsttcs and (2) analysis of relationships among the

various measurements without reference to an e:<pl!clt

finite universe of persons.

Data From the I nstitutionalizt?d Population Survey s.– Dls -

contlnued m 1975. Reports from these surveys are included in Series 13.

Data on Health Resources Utii!zation. –Stattstlcs on the

utilization of health manpower and facllltles provldlng

SERIES 14.

SERIES 15.

SERIES 20.

SERIES 21.

SERIES 22.

SERIES 23.

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

planrrlng services.

Data on Health Resources: Manpower and Facilities.–

Statistics on the numbers, geographic distribution, and

characteristics of health resources including physicians,

dentists, nurses, other health occupations, hospitals,

nurs]ng homes, and outpatient facilities.

Data From Special Surveys. –Statistics on health and

health-related topics collected in special surveys that are

not a part of the continuing data systems of the National

Center for Health Statistics.

Data on Mortality.–Varlous 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 available from

the vital records based on sample surveys of those records.

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

Included in regular annual or monthly reports. Special

analyses by demographic variables; geographic and time

series analyses; studies of fertility; and statistics on

characterlst!cs of births not available from the wtal

records based on sample surveys of those records.

Data From the National Mortality and Natality Surveys.–

Dlscontlnued !n 1975. Reports from these sample surveys

based on wtal records are included In Series 20 and 21,

respective y.

Data From the National Survey of Family Growth.–

Statistics on fertlllty, family formation and dissolution,

family planntng, and related maternal and infant health

top!cs derwed from a pertod!c survey of a nationwide

probab!lny sample of ever-married women 1544 years of

aga.

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

Scientific and Techn!cal Information Branch

Natlonai Center for Health Statistics

Publlc Health Service

Hyattswlle, Md, 20782
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service

Off Ice of Health Research, Statlstlcs, and Technology

National Center for Health Statistics

3700 East-West Highway

Hyattswlle, Maryland 20782

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

from the Office of Health Research, Statistics, and Technology

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 82-1723. Series 13, No. 62

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HHS

~]

.

HHS 396

Th!rd Class U. S.MAIL

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