Number 73 n January 22, 2014

Infertility Service Use in the United States: Data From

the National Survey of Family Growth, 1982–2010

by Anjani Chandra, Ph.D., Casey E. Copen, Ph.D., National Center for Health Statistics;

and Elizabeth Hervey Stephen, Ph.D., Georgetown University

Abstract

Objectives—This report presents nationally representative estimates and

trends for infertility service use among women aged 15–44 and 25–44 in the

United States in 1982–2010. While greater detail on types of infertility service is

shown for women, basic data on types of infertility service use, as reported by

men aged 25–44, are also presented.

Methods—Data for this report come primarily from the 2006–2010 National

Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), consisting of 22,682 interviews with men and

women aged 15–44, conducted from June 2006 through June 2010. The response

rate for females in the 2006–2010 NSFG was 78%, and for males was 75%.

Selected trends are shown based on prior NSFG cycles.

Results—Twelve percent of women aged 15–44 in 2006–2010 (7.3 million

women), or their husbands or partners, had ever used infertility services. Among

women aged 25–44, 17% (6.9 million) had ever used any infertility service, a

significant decrease from 20% in 1995. Thirty-eight percent of nulliparous

women with current fertility problems in 2006–2010 had ever used infertility

services, significantly less than 56% of such women in 1982. In all survey years,

ever-use of medical help to get pregnant was highest among older and

nulliparous women, non-Hispanic white women, women with current fertility

problems, and women with higher levels of education and household income.

The most commonly used infertility services among women aged 25–44 in

2006–2010 were advice, testing, medical help to prevent miscarriage, and

ovulation drugs. Ever-use of infertility services was reported by 9.4% of men

aged 25–44 in 2006–2010, similar to levels seen in 2002.

Keywords: assisted reproductive technologies (ART) • medical help to get

pregnant • miscarriage services • artificial insemination

Depending on the underlying cause, Introduction

infertility can be treated by

Infertility is a significant public gynecologists, urologists, and

health problem in the United States that reproductive endocrinologists using a

affects women, men, and couples. range of medical options, including

advice on the timing of intercourse,

drugs to stimulate ovulation, surgery,

intrauterine insemination, and assisted

reproductive technology (ART). ART is

defined as treatments that involve the

handling of both eggs and sperm to

establish a pregnancy (1). Based on data

from the National Survey of Family

Growth (NSFG), the percentage of

women aged 15–44 who had ever used

infertility services increased from 9% in

1982 to 15% in 1995, then declined to

12% in 2002, and remained at that level

in 2006–2010 (2,3). The absolute

number of women who reported ever

using any infertility services also

declined, from 9.3 million women aged

15–44 in 1995 to 7.4 million women in

2006–2010 (2,3). To better understand

the patterns in overall use of infertility

services over time, this report describes

the types of infertility services used and

the characteristics of women aged

15–44, focusing specifically on women

aged 25–44, who have ever used

specific types of infertility services,

based on the 1982, 1988, 1995, 2002,

and 2006–2010 NSFGs.

Numerous previous analyses have

shown that women who make use of

medical help for fertility problems are a

highly selective group among those who

have fertility problems. Data from

nationally representative surveys,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Center for Health Statistics 
Page 2	 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 73 n January 22, 2014

primarily NSFG but also clinic-based

studies, have shown that fertilityimpaired women who use infertility

services are significantly more likely to

be married, non-Hispanic white, older,

more highly educated, and more affluent

than nonusers (4–12). Reasons for the

disparities in use of infertility services

may include access barriers such as the

significant cost of medical services for

infertility and the lack of adequate

health insurance to afford the necessary

diagnostic or treatment services (13,14).

Currently, 15 states have passed

insurance mandates to cover ART and

other infertility treatments; however,

there is evidence to suggest that these

mandates have not ameliorated the

differences in rates of infertility

treatment by race or ethnicity and

socioeconomic status (15). Some studies

looking at ‘‘equal-access’’

subpopulations, such as women in the

military who have the same level and

type of health insurance coverage, have

found no disparities in use by race and

Hispanic origin, particularly between

non-Hispanic white and black women,

though Hispanic women still appear to

use services at lower levels than

non-Hispanic white women (16).

Continued efforts to develop new,

safe, and effective treatment strategies

for infertility are part of the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC)

focus on developing a National Public

Health Action Plan for the Detection,

Prevention, and Management of

Infertility (17,18). Data from NSFG

contribute to these efforts by providing

a nationally representative source of

information on infertility, impaired

fecundity, and use of medical services to

have a baby in the United States. Topics

in this report focused on the most recent

trends through 2006–2010 include:

+ Trends in ever-use of any infertility

services among women (or their

husbands or partners) (Tables 1–3 and

Figures 1–2).

+ Ever-use of infertility services among

women (or their husbands or

partners) and specific types of

services among population subgroups

(Tables 4–5 and Figure 3).

+	 Percent distribution by overall

infertility service experience among

women (or their husbands or

partners) (Table 6).

+	 Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for

ever-use of infertility services among

women (or their husbands or

partners) (Table 7).

+	 Ever-use of infertility services among

men (or their wives or partners)

(Table 8 and Figure 4).

Methods

Data source

NSFG has been conducted seven

times by CDC’s National Center for

Health Statistics: in 1973 and 1976 with

samples of married and formerly

married women aged 15–44; in 1982,

1988, and 1995 with samples of women

of all marital status categories; and in

2002 and 2006–2010 with samples of

both women and men of all marital

status categories aged 15–44. Each time,

NSFG has been based on nationally

representative, multistage area

probability samples, with interviews

conducted in person by trained female

interviewers in the selected persons’

homes. The current report is primarily

based on information provided by

female respondents in the 2006–2010

NSFG, with interviews conducted from

June 2006 through June 2010. Selected

trends are shown since 1982, the first

NSFG to ask about medical services to

help women have babies. Ever-use of

infertility services, as reported by men

in 2002 and 2006–2010, is also

presented. The 2006–2010 NSFG was

based on 22,682 face-to-face

interviews—12,279 with women and

10,403 with men aged 15–44 in the

household population of the

United States. The response rate for the

2006–2010 NSFG was 77% overall,

78% for women, and 75% for men.

Further details of the NSFG methods

and procedures have been published

elsewhere (19–21).

Measures of infertility

service use

Since 1982, NSFG has asked

women separate questions about their

use of medical services to help them get

pregnant and to help prevent

miscarriage. Taken together, these

services are referred to as ‘‘infertility

services,’’ but are not contingent on any

reporting of infertility or other fertility

problems. The questions are asked

regardless of marital, cohabitation, or

relationship status, and for adult women

aged 18–44, they are also asked

regardless of experience with vaginal

intercourse. In the surveys since 1995,

the infertility services data have been

summarized in several constructed

variables (or ‘‘recodes’’) on the

public-use files. ANYPRGHP indicates

whether the woman or her husband or

partner ever received any medical

services to help her get pregnant.

ANYMSCHP indicates use of medical

help to prevent miscarriage, beyond

what would be part of routine prenatal

care. INFEVER indicates use of medical

help either to get pregnant or to prevent

miscarriage.

The detailed infertility service

questions have expanded over the

survey years to keep pace with currently

available diagnostic and treatment

options. For all women in the 1995

NSFG or later surveys, those who

reported any medical help to get

pregnant were asked to indicate what

specific types of medical help they ever

used, either alone or in any of their

relationships. Women could select as

many of the following types of medical

help to get pregnant as applied to them:

+	 Advice (such as timing of sexual

intercourse)

+	 Infertility testing (on either female or

male partner)

+ Drugs to improve ovulation

+ Surgery to correct blocked tubes

+	 Artificial insemination, including

intrauterine insemination

+ Other medical help to get pregnant
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 73 n January 22, 2014	 Page 3

All women who reported ‘‘other

medical help to get pregnant’’ were

asked a follow-up question with another

list of services, and again, they could

report as many types of medical help to

get pregnant as applied to them:

+ Surgery or drug treatment for

endometriosis

+ In vitro fertilization (IVF) (or other

forms of ART)

+ Surgery or drug treatment for uterine

fibroids

+ Some other female pelvic surgery

+ Other medical help to get pregnant

Women who reported any medical

help to prevent miscarriage also were

asked a follow-up question about types

of services they received. The response

choices included: instructions to take

complete bedrest, instructions to limit

physical activity, testing to diagnose

problems related to miscarriage, drugs to

prevent miscarriage (such as

progesterone suppositories), and cervical

stitches (also known as cervical cerclage

or ‘‘purse-string’’ procedure). While the

public-use data file includes the detailed

information on specific types of medical

help to prevent miscarriage, this report

focuses only on the use of any medical

help to prevent miscarriage. With regard

to medical help to get pregnant, this

report only presents percentages for

the most prevalent such services

(Tables 1–4) from among those services

asked about and listed above.

In addition, using available

information on the dates of most recent

visits for medical help to get pregnant

and numbers of visits in the past 12

months, a measure has been constructed

for overall experience with infertility

services (Table 5). Because numbers of

visits were only asked about for medical

help to get pregnant, this measure is

comprised of the following categories

shown as a percent distribution:

+ Never had any infertility visit

+ Only had medical help to prevent

miscarriage; no medical help to get

pregnant

+ Had medical help to get pregnant, but

not within the last 12 months

+ Had one or more visits in the last 12

months for medical help to get

pregnant

Women in the latter two categories

above may have also had medical help

to prevent miscarriage, and as a result,

the percentage that ‘‘only had medical

help to prevent miscarriage’’ is lower

than the percentages seen in Table 4 for

‘‘any medical help to prevent

miscarriage.’’

In the 2002 and 2006–2010 NSFGs,

both of which included nationally

representative samples of men, all men

who ever had sexual intercourse with a

woman were asked about their or their

wife or partner’s use of the following

medical services to help them have a

child together, a list similar, but not

identical to the services asked about in

the female survey:

+ Advice

+	 Infertility testing (on either female or

male partner)

+	 Drugs to improve ovulation (in their

female partners)

+	 Surgery to correct blocked fallopian

tubes (in their female partners)

+	 Artificial insemination (including

intrauterine insemination)

+	 Treatment for varicocele (enlargement

of the veins within the scrotum)

+	 Other types of medical help

(including ART, miscarriage

prevention services, etc.)

For services that apply only to

women (e.g., ovulation drugs), the

percentages reflect men’s reports of their

wives’ or partners’ experience.

Demographic and

socioeconomic

characteristics

The data on infertility service use

presented in this report are shown with

respect to the following key social or

demographic characteristics: age, parity,

marital or cohabiting status, educational

attainment, percentage of poverty level

of household, and Hispanic origin and

race. These characteristics have been

chosen because prior studies have

documented their association either with

current fertility problems (see below for

further explanation) or the use of

medical services to have a baby. All

characteristics reflect the respondent’s

status at the time of interview.

Age and parity: Age is generally

shown in 5-year age groups for women

aged 25–44 to document the pattern of

service use by age. Given the relative

rarity of infertility service use among

younger women, those aged 15–24 are

grouped in selected tabulations and

shown for overall trends, but the report

focuses on ever-use among women aged

25–44, as they are most likely to have

used infertility services. Parity, or the

number of live births a woman has had,

is dichotomized as ‘‘no births’’

compared with ‘‘one or more births.’’

Given the absence of specific dates for

services in the NSFG surveys, this

approach for parity is taken partly to

address the temporal sequencing of

infertility service use and childbearing

experience; among nulliparous women,

it can be certain that all services were

received prior to any births. In addition,

a combined age and parity measure is

used in some tables to highlight the

association of service use with age

among nulliparous women.

Marital or cohabiting status: The

measure of marital or cohabiting status

used in this report is based only on

relationships with opposite-sex spouses

or partners, in keeping with the marital

or cohabiting status variables that have

been defined across all NSFG surveys to

date. As noted earlier, the questions on

infertility services are asked regardless

of marital or cohabiting status.

Education and poverty level:

Educational attainment is categorized in

some tables with a top category of

‘‘master’s degree or higher’’ to

document the generally higher levels of

infertility service use at higher levels of

education. In the 1982 NSFG, only

years of education were obtained, not

highest degree earned, so education

tabulations are not presented for this

survey year. Percentage of poverty level

is based on a comparison of each

respondent’s household income with the

poverty threshold for a family of the

respondent’s household size, as defined

by the U.S. Census Bureau; adjustments

are not made for variations in cost of

living in the place where the respondent

resides. For both education and poverty

level, collapsed categories are used in
Page 4	 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 73 n January 22, 2014

some tables when sample sizes do not

permit fuller detail.

Hispanic origin and race: The

definitions of Hispanic origin and race

used in this report comply with the 1997

guidelines from the U.S. Office of

Management and Budget (22), taking

into account multiple-race reporting. The

groups shown are Hispanic, nonHispanic white (single race), and

non-Hispanic black (single race);

non-Hispanic women of other or

multiple races are included in the totals,

but not shown separately due to small

sample sizes, particularly when showing

specific types of infertility services.

Current fertility problems: Trends in

two population-based measures of

fertility problems based on NSFG have

been described in a recently published

report (23). A summary measure of

current fertility problems, defined as

having either of the two NSFG-based

measures, 12-month infertility or

impaired fecundity, is included in the

current report to show the association of

these problems with ever-use of

infertility services. To summarize,

12-month infertility is defined for

married or cohabiting women aged

15–44, and reflects an absence of

pregnancy after at least 12 consecutive

months of unprotected intercourse with

their husbands or cohabiting partners.

Impaired fecundity is defined for all

women aged 15–44 and encompasses

nonsurgical sterility as well as physical

difficulties in getting pregnant or

carrying a baby to live birth. Further

details on these measures and their

correlates over time have been published

(4,7,23,24).

Statistical analysis

All estimates in this report are

based on sampling weights designed to

produce unbiased estimates of men and

women aged 15–44 in the United States.

All estimates of percentages and

numbers in this report were produced

using SAS software, version 9.3

(http://www.sas.com). SAS

SURVEYFREQ procedures were used to

estimate the sampling errors of the

statistics because these procedures take

into account the use of weighted data

and the complex design of the sample in

calculating estimates of standard errors

and significance tests. Each table in this

report, with the exception of Table 7,

which shows logistic regression results

for ever-use of infertility services,

includes standard errors as measures of

the precision of each point estimate

(percentage) presented.

Statistical significance of

differences among demographic

subgroups was determined by standard

two-tailed t tests using point estimates

and their standard errors. For these

selected subgroup comparisons and to

test changes in infertility service use

over time, Wald chi-square tests of

overall association were also performed

within SAS PROC SURVEYFREQ, and

symbols denoting these test results are

included in selected tables. No

adjustments were made for multiple

comparisons. Terms such as ‘‘greater

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

statistically significant difference was

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

difference’’ indicate that the statistics

(for example, the percentages or

proportions) being compared were not

significantly different. Lack of comment

regarding any difference does not mean

that significance was tested and ruled

out.

In the description of the results

below, when the percentage being cited

is below 10% or above 90%, the text

will show the percentage to one decimal

point. To make reading easier and to

remind the reader that the results are

based on samples and subject to

sampling error, percentages between

10% and 90% will be shown rounded to

the nearest whole percentage. In this

report, percentages are not shown if the

denominator is fewer than 100 cases, or

if the numerator is fewer than 5 cases.

When a percentage or other statistic is

not shown for this reason, the table

contains an asterisk to signify that the

statistic does not meet standards of

reliability or precision. For most

statistics presented in this report, the

denominators are much larger than 100.

While this report is primarily

intended to provide basic descriptive

statistics for key population subgroups

that may guide future multivariate

analyses, Table 7 shows multiple logistic

regression (PROC SURVEYLOGISTIC)

results for any use of infertility services

among women aged 25–44. AORs for

ever-use of any infertility services and

any medical help to get pregnant are

shown, controlling for age, parity,

marital or cohabiting status, education,

percentage of poverty level, and

Hispanic origin and race. These

regression results are intended to show

the adjusted effects of these key

demographic and socioeconomic

correlates of infertility service use,

which, in turn, may guide more in-depth

multivariate analyses. Given sample size

constraints, some of these variables are

dichotomized at key cut points based on

bivariate results. Table 7 shows 95%

confidence intervals for each AOR,

along with a p value indicating the

statistical significance of the AOR.

Results

Trends in ever-use of

infertility services

Table 1 and Figure 1 show the

percentages of all women aged 15–44

who had ever used or whose husbands

or partners had ever used infertility

services, based on all NSFG surveys in

which these questions were asked. The

full age range is shown in Table 1 and

Figure 1 to facilitate comparison to

earlier trend analyses; however, most

tables and figures in this report focus on

women aged 25–44 to better capture

ever-use of infertility services among

women most likely to use these services.

Women could report either medical help

to get pregnant, medical help to prevent

miscarriage, or both. Table 1 also

presents the age pattern in ever-use of

these types of services, based only on

1982, 1995, and 2006–2010 data, as

these surveys reflect different decades.

+	 The percentage of women aged

15–44 who had ever used any

infertility service increased

significantly from 1982 to 1995 (12%

to 15%) and then decreased to 12%,

or 7.4 million women, in 2006–2010.

+	 The percentage of women who had

ever used medical help to get
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 73 n January 22, 2014	 Page 5

NOTE: Infertility services or “Any medical help to have a baby” includes medical help to get pregnant 

or to prevent miscarriage. Women could report both types of medical help. 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 1982, 1988,1995, 2002, and 2006–2010. 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

Any medical help to 

prevent miscarriage 

Any medical help to 

get pregnant 

Any medical help to 

have a baby 

Percent 

1982 1988 1995 2002 2006–2010 

12 12 12 12 

15 

9.4 9.2 

8.3 8.3 8.7 

4.7 

3.9 

9.3 

5.5 

4.9 

Figure 1. Ever-use of infertility services among women aged 15–44: United States,

1982, 1988, 1995, 2002, and 2006–2010

pregnant was 8.7% in 2006–2010,

relatively unchanged from 1982.

Ever-use of medical help to prevent

miscarriage was 4.7% in 1982, and

after a significant rise in 1995 to

9.3%, fell to 4.9% in 2006–2010.

+ Ever-use of medical help to get

pregnant was higher among older

women in all survey years 1982 to

2006–2010. For example 15% of

women aged 40–44 in 2006–2010

had ever used such medical help,

compared with 1.3% of women aged

15–24. Ever-use of medical help to

prevent miscarriage showed a similar,

but less steep association with age,

particularly in 1982 and 2006–2010.

+ In 2006–2010, roughly one in five

women aged 35–44 had ever used

any infertility services, similar to

levels of ever-use seen in this age

group in 1982 and 1995.

Given the rarity of infertility service

use among women under age 25, the

remaining tables in this report focus on

ever-use of these services among

women aged 25–44. Table 2 shows the

percentage of women aged 25–44 who

had ever used infertility services by

selected socioeconomic and

demographic characteristics for selected

NSFG years.

+	 In 2006–2010, 17% of women aged

25–44 (6.9 million) had ever used

any type of infertility service, a

significant decrease from 20% among

women aged 25–44 in 1995.

+	 In 1982, similar percentages of

nulliparous and parous women (18%)

had ever used infertility services, but

in 1995 and 2006–2010, parous

women were more likely to have ever

used infertility services. It is possible

that infertility service use preceded

births for these parous women, but

the NSFG data do not include

sufficient detail on the dates of

infertility service use to establish the

exact temporal sequencing of

pregnancies and service use.

+	 In all 3 NSFG years included in

Table 2, higher levels of infertility

service use were seen among

currently married and formerly

married women, in comparison with

never married, not cohabiting women,

who are on average younger than

these other groups, even within the

25–44 age group. Ever-use of

infertility service over these years

among currently cohabiting women

was less consistent, but in 2006–

2010, the level of ever-use among

cohabitors (8.9%) was closer to the

level seen among never married, not

cohabiting women (5.0%).

+	 In 1982, 1995, and 2006–2010,

41%–46% of women aged 25–44

who had current fertility problems

had ever used any type of infertility

service, and there was no significant

change during this period. Looking

just at nulliparous women aged 25–44

with current fertility problems

(Figure 2), a smaller percentage

(38%) in 2006–2010 had ever used

infertility services than in 1982

(56%). This may partly reflect the

greater delays in childbearing over

this time period (25), such that

women in 2006–2010 were more

likely to be older than women in

1982 when trying to have their first

child, and also more likely to use

services beyond age 44. While these

women aged 25–44 with current

fertility problems in 2006–2010 may

show lower percentages of ever-use

than their counterparts in 1982, some

of them may ultimately use infertility

services beyond age 44; however, the

NSFG age range cannot assess this.

+	 A comparable measure for

educational attainment was not

available in 1982 NSFG; however, in

1995 and particularly in 2006–2010,

ever-use of infertility services was

significantly associated with

educational attainment. In 2006–2010,

21% of women aged 25–44 with a

bachelor’s degree and 23% of those

with a master’s degree or higher had

ever used infertility services,

compared with 10% of women with

less than a high school diploma or

General Educational Development

(GED) high school equivalency

diploma.

+	 A similar pattern was seen for

percentage of poverty level, with

higher reporting of infertility service

use among women aged 25–44 with

higher household incomes. For

example, in 2006–2010, 21% of

women whose household incomes

were 400% of the poverty level or

higher had ever used infertility
Page 6	 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 73 n January 22, 2014

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

Nulliparous women with 

current fertility problems 

All women with 

current fertility problems 

Percent 

NOTES: Infertility services include medical help to get pregnant or to prevent miscarriage. Current fertility problems 

include either 12-month infertility or impaired fecundity. See Methods for further details. 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 1982, 1995, and 2006–2010. 

42 

46 

41 

56 

46 

38 

1982 1995 2006–2010 

Figure 2. Ever-use of infertility services among women aged 25–44 with current fertility

problems: United States, 1982, 1995, and 2006–2010

services, compared with 13% of

women whose household incomes

were below the poverty level.

+ Among the Hispanic origin and race

groups, a higher percentage of

non-Hispanic white women aged

25–44 had ever used infertility

services compared with Hispanic and

non-Hispanic black women, a

consistent trend across all 3 survey

years.

The percentages of women aged

25–44 in 1995 and 2006–2010 who had

ever used (or whose husbands or

partners had ever used) infertility

services are shown by parity and age in

Table 3.

+ In both 1995 and 2006–2010,

ever-use of any infertility services

was closely associated with age

among nulliparous women aged

25–44. In 2006–2010, 24% of

nulliparous women aged 40–44 had

ever used any infertility services,

more than twice the level seen among

nulliparous women aged 25–29

(8.6%). No clear age pattern was seen

among parous women.

+	 In 2006–2010, 13% or 5.1 million

women aged 25–44 had ever used

any medical help to get pregnant,

similar to the 11% or 4.7 million

women in 1995.

+	 A lower percentage and number of

women aged 25–44 in 2006–2010

had ever used medical help to prevent

miscarriage (6.8% or 2.8 million)

compared with 12% or 4.9 million in

1995.

+	 The strongest association between age

and ever-use of medical help to get

pregnant was seen among nulliparous

women: In 2006–2010, 23% of

women aged 40–44 had ever used

any medical help to get pregnant

compared with 8% of women aged

25–29. A similar pattern by age was

seen for nulliparous women aged

25–44 in 1995.

+	 For both 1995 and 2006–2010, the

relationship between age and ever-use

of medical help to get pregnant was

less prominent among parous women

aged 25–44.

+	 No significant variation was seen by

age and parity for women aged 25–44

in 1995 or 2006–2010 who had used

any medical help to prevent

miscarriage.

Ever-use of specific

infertility services

Table 4 shows greater detail on the

specific types of medical services

women aged 25–44 have ever used to

help them get pregnant, by selected

characteristics. Overall service use is

also shown for 1995 and 2002. Similar

statistics based on the full NSFG age

range of 15–44 are available elsewhere

(3). As noted in the Methods section,

NSFG includes more detail on medical

help to prevent miscarriage, but for this

report, only specific types of medical

help to get pregnant are shown

separately. Women could report as many

services as they or their husbands or

partners had ever received to help them

have a baby together.

+	 While similar levels of use were seen

for types of medical help to get

pregnant over the period 1995

through 2006–2010, ever-use of

medical help to prevent miscarriage

decreased from 12% in 1995 to 6.8%

in 2006–2010. This decrease appears

to drive the decrease in ever-use of

any infertility services among women

aged 25–44 from 20% in 1995 to

17% in 2006–2010.

+	 Overall, the four most commonly

used services among women aged

25–44 in 2006–2010 were advice

(9.4%), infertility tests (male or

female) (7.3%), medical help to
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 73 n January 22, 2014	 Page 7

prevent miscarriage (6.8%), and
 

ovulation drugs (5.8%).
 

+ Artificial insemination was reported

by 1.7% of women aged 25–44 in

2006–2010 (about 714,000) and

surgery or treatment for blocked tubes

was reported by 1.3% of women aged

25–44 (about 531,000).

+ ART, including IVF, was the least

common service ever used, reported

by 0.7% of women aged 25–44 in

2006–2010 (about 275,000). While

this may seem at odds with

increasing ART use documented in

the annual registries (26–28), it is not

necessarily so. One of several key

differences between the data systems

is that the NSFG data captures

ever-use among women in this age

range, while the ART registries

monitor numbers of cycles in each

calendar year without accounting for

multiple cycles per woman. While

sample sizes of ART users in NSFG

are generally too low to corroborate

the annual registry data, the NSFG

data indicate that ART represents a

fairly small portion of the total

infertility services women (or their

husbands and partners) use.

+ Among women aged 25–44 in

2006–2010 with current fertility

problems, more than one-third

reported using any medical help to

get pregnant (36%). The most

common services ever used by

women with current fertility problems

were advice (29%), infertility testing

(27%), and ovulation drugs (20%).

Artificial insemination was ever used

by 7.4% of these women, 3.2% had

ever undergone surgery or treatment

for blocked tubes, and 3.1% had ever

used ART.

+ Any medical help to get pregnant was

reported more often among women

with higher levels of education and

household income. For example, 19%

of women aged 25–44 with a

master’s degree or higher ever had

medical help to get pregnant,

compared with 6.4% of those with

less than a high school diploma or

GED. Similar patterns, though less

prominent, were seen for the specific

types of medical help to get pregnant,

such as advice, testing, or ovulation

drugs. No significant differentials by

education or poverty level income

were seen for medical help to prevent

miscarriage.

+	 Ever-use of medical help to get

pregnant was nearly twice as

common among non-Hispanic white

women aged 25–44 (15%) as among

Hispanic (7.6%) or non-Hispanic

black women (8.0%). As seen by

education and poverty level income,

no significant disparity was seen in

medical help to prevent miscarriage

by Hispanic origin and race.

Infertility service use among

women with current fertility

problems

Table 5 further summarizes ever-use

of any infertility services among specific

subgroups of women aged 25–44. The

three columns shown are for all women

aged 25–44, all women aged 25–44 with

current fertility problems, and all

nulliparous women aged 25–44 with

current fertility problems. The top panel

tabulates the data by selected variables

most closely linked with ever-use of

infertility services, and given the higher

reporting of services among nonHispanic white women, the bottom

panel shows parallel tabulations for only

non-Hispanic white women aged 25–44.

+	 In all three subpopulations examined,

married women were far more likely

than cohabiting or other unmarried

women to have ever used infertility

services.

+	 Among all women aged 25–44 and

among those with current fertility

problems, higher percentages of

ever-use were seen among women

with a bachelor’s degree or higher;

for example, 58% of women with

current fertility problems and a

bachelor’s degree or higher had ever

used infertility services, compared

with 38% of those with current

fertility problems and less than a

bachelor’s degree. Not surprisingly,

since white women represent the

majority group, a similar differential

was seen by education for nonHispanic white women with current

fertility problems.

+	 For nulliparous women aged 25–44

with current fertility problems, there

were no significant differences by

education or poverty level in the

percentage that had ever used

infertility services, though this could

be due to small sample sizes.

Given the patterns by education

evident in prior tabulations in this

report, Figure 3 compares ever-use of

medical help to get pregnant to ever-use

of any infertility services. The

percentages of all women aged 25–44

who ever used medical help to get

pregnant were similar to those who ever

used any infertility services, suggesting

that much of the education differential

in overall service use is due to medical

help to get pregnant, rather than medical

help to prevent miscarriage. Among

women aged 25–44 with current fertility

problems, 27% of those with less than a

bachelor’s degree and 56% of college

graduates ever used medical help to get

pregnant, with the percentages and

differential approximately the same as

those seen for ever-use of any infertility

services.

Overall experience with

infertility services, including

visits in the last year

Table 6 describes the overall

infertility service experience of women

aged 25–44. Among women who ever

used infertility services, those who only

had medical help to prevent miscarriage

are shown separately, and the percentage

in this group remained about 4% in both

2002 and 2006–2010, down significantly

from 8.8% in 1995. Women who ever

had medical help to get pregnant are

shown based on their number of visits

in the last year for this type of medical

help.

+	 Among women aged 25–44 in 2002

and 2006–2010, similar percentages

(2.4% and 2.5%) had one or more

visits in the last year for medical help

to get pregnant, which corresponds to

roughly 1.1 million women (or

couples).

+	 Nulliparous women aged 25–44 in

2006–2010 (5.7%) were more likely

to report one or more medical visits
Page 8	 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 73 n January 22, 2014

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

Less than a bachelor's degree Bachelor's degree or higher

Any medical help 

to get pregnant 

Any infertility 

service 

Any medical help 

to get pregnant 

Any infertility 

service 

All women aged 25–44 Women aged 25–44 with 

current fertility problems 

Percent 

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

15 

21 

10 

18 

33 

58 

27 

56 

Figure 3. Ever-use of any infertility services and any medical help to get pregnant among

women aged 25–44, by education: United States, 2006–2010

in the last year for medical help to

get pregnant than parous women

(1.4%).

+ Among women in 2006–2010 with

current fertility problems, 36% ever

had medical help to get pregnant,

with 11% having one or more

medical visits in the last year for this

type of help. This compares with

8.5% of those without current fertility

problems having ever used medical

help to get pregnant, with 1.0%

having one or more visits in the last

year.

+ About 5% of women in 2006–2010

with household incomes 400% of the

poverty level or higher had one or

more visits in the last year for

medical help to get pregnant,

compared with 1.9% of those below

the poverty level. Similar differentials

were seen by educational attainment,

with 5.8% of women with a master’s

degree or higher having one or more

visits in the last year, compared with

0.8% of those with less than a high

school diploma or GED.

+ Non-Hispanic white women (15%)

were about twice as likely as

Hispanic (7.5%) and non-Hispanic

black women (8.0%) to have ever

used medical help to get pregnant.

However, there was no differential

seen by Hispanic origin and race for

visits in the last year.

Multivariate analysis of

infertility service use

Table 7 presents multivariate

logistic regression models showing the

AORs for ever having used infertility

services and ever having used medical

help to get pregnant among women aged

25–44. Ever-use of medical help to get

pregnant is modeled separately because

these types of services were more

closely associated with demographic and

socioeconomic factors in bivariate

tabulations. These logistic regression

models adjust for all characteristics

included in previous tables to assess

their net effects on the odds of infertility

service use. The first two columns show

models based on all women aged 25–44,

and the latter two columns are based on

women aged 25–44 with current fertility

problems, that is, either impaired

fecundity or infertility. A variable for

survey year is included in all models to

gauge the significance of a temporal

trend, net of any compositional changes

in the population between 1995 and

2006–2010.

+	 Among all women aged 25–44,

ever-use of any infertility services

(column 1 model) was significantly

less likely among unmarried women

(e.g., AOR for cohabiting women is

0.48); younger, nulliparous women

(e.g., AOR for nulliparous women

aged 25–29 is 0.38); women with less

than a bachelor’s degree (AOR =

0.77); Hispanic women (AOR =

0.70); and non-Hispanic black women

(AOR = 0.77). The survey year

variable in this model was significant

and indicated that ever-use of any

infertility service in this age group of

25–44 declined since 1995.

+	 Among women aged 25–44, those

with current fertility problems were

five times more likely to have ever

used any infertility services and six

times more likely to have used

medical help to get pregnant than

those without current fertility

problems.

+	 The second model (column 2)

examines the odds of ever having

used medical help to get pregnant

among women aged 25–44, and some

stronger and different associations are

seen than when looking at ever-use of

any infertility services. For age and

parity, higher odds of medical help to

get pregnant were seen for almost all

groups relative to the referent of

parous women aged 25–29. Similar,

but stronger, associations were seen

with marital status, education,

percentage of poverty level, and race

or Hispanic origin. With regard to

survey year, ever-use of medical help

to get pregnant increased in 2006–

2010 relative to 1995. This lends

further support to bivariate results,

which suggested that medical help to

get pregnant is associated quite

differently than miscarriage

prevention services with the

demographic and socioeconomic

characteristics examined in this

report.
2002 2006–2010 

Any infertility service 

Advice 

Tests on man or 

woman 

Ovulation drugs 

Surgery for blocked 

fallopian tubes 

Artificial insemination 

Treatment for male 

varicocele 0.3 

9.8 

9.4 

6.7 

6.8 

4.8 

5.3 

3.0 

3.8 

1.1 

1.1 

0.8 

1.7 

0.6 

0 2 4 6 8 10

Percent 

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

12 

National Health Statistics Reports n Number 73 n January 22, 2014	 Page 9

+ When limited to women aged 25–44

with current fertility problems

(column 3 model), nulliparous women

aged 30–44 were generally more

likely than parous women aged 25–29

to have ever used infertility services.

While non-Hispanic black women

were about three-quarters as likely as

non-Hispanic white women to have

ever used infertility services (AOR =

0.76), no significant difference was

seen for Hispanic women. Looking at

the survey year variable, there was no

evidence of a significant change over

time, net of the effects of population

composition changes in the other

variables examined.

+ The final model in column 4 focuses

on ever-use of medical help to get

pregnant among this subpopulation of

women aged 25–44 with current

fertility problems. Again, no

significant change was seen by

survey year, net of the other variables

examined. However, both Hispanic

and non-Hispanic black women were

less likely than white women to have

ever used these types of medical

services. The AORs associated with

marital or cohabiting status indicate

that both groups of unmarried,

fertility-impaired women were

roughly one-quarter as likely as their

married counterparts to have ever

used medical help to get pregnant.

Infertility service use among

men

With the addition of a national

sample of men aged 15–44, NSFG was

able to ask men directly about their use,

or their wives’ or partners’ use, of

medical services to help them have a

baby together. Due to the rarity of

infertility service use among men aged

15–24, this report focuses on men aged

25–44.

+ Similar percentages were seen in

2002 and 2006–2010 in ever-use of

any infertility services among men

aged 25–44, as well as in specific

services such as advice, infertility

testing, ovulation drugs, and

treatment for varicocele (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Ever-use of infertility services among men aged 25–44 (or their wives or

partners): United States, 2002 and 2006–2010

+	 Due to small sample sizes reporting

some of the specific services, this

report cannot tabulate all of the

specific services men were asked

about in as much demographic detail

as shown for women. However,

Table 8 shows selected services as

reported by men aged 25–44 in

2006–2010. Differentials with respect

to marital or cohabiting status were

similar to those seen in women:

Currently married men (14%) and

formerly married men (9%) were

more likely to have ever used

infertility services than cohabiting

men (4.7%) or never married men

(2.0%).

+	 Using a rough measure of male

infertility that has been published

previously (23), subfertile men (39%)

were more likely to have ever used

infertility services than men presumed

fertile (6.0%). Among subfertile men,

27% received infertility-related

advice, 33% had some form of

infertility testing, 25% had wives or

partners who used ovulation drugs,

and 11% underwent artificial

insemination with their wives or

partners.

+	 As seen among women, a higher

percentage of non-Hispanic white

men (11%) ever used any infertility

services than did Hispanic (7.6%) and

non-Hispanic black men (5.8%).

Similarly, education and poverty level

income were also closely associated

with ever-use of infertility services,

as seen among women. For example,

16% of men with a master’s degree

or higher had ever used infertility

services, compared with 6.0% of

those with less than a high school

diploma or GED.

Conclusion

This report highlights trends and

estimates for NSFG-based measures of

infertility service use among women and

men in the United States using the most

recently available, nationally

representative data from the 2006–2010

NSFG. Though the NSFG data on

infertility service use are not contingent

on the diagnosis of infertility or a

fertility problem, estimates such as these

present a benchmark from which to

gauge the prevalence and potential

demand for specific infertility services

in the United States. In 2006–2010,

12%, or 7.3 million women aged 15–44,

had ever used infertility services. This

was roughly the same percentage seen
Page 10	 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 73 n January 22, 2014

in 1982, but given the larger population

size aged 15–44 in 2006–2010, it

reflects an increase of about 600,000

women from 1982. Among women aged

25–44, where infertility service use may

be more prevalent than at other ages,

more than 5 million women, or 13%,

had ever used any medical help to get

pregnant. Of these, the most commonly

used services were those at the lower

end of cost and complexity, including

advice, infertility testing, medical help

to prevent miscarriage, and ovulation

drugs. ART was quite rare overall, but

more likely to have been used by

women with current fertility problems,

and the ART patterns mirror the wider

trends seen in ART registry data

monitored by the National ART

Surveillance System (26–28).

When limited to nulliparous women

aged 25–44 with current fertility

problems, 38% of such women in

2006–2010 had ever used infertility

services compared with 56% in 1982.

This decrease may stem from overall

patterns of delayed childbearing, such

that more women are attempting to have

their first child at older ages, possibly

beyond age 44, and are less likely to

recognize a need for infertility services

within the 15–44 age range. It may also

reflect other responses to childlessness

besides the pursuit of medical help to

have a child, although trends in

adoption and voluntary childlessness do

not suggest any significant increases

during this period for women in this age

range (29–31).

The sociodemographic factors most

significantly associated with higher use

of any infertility services among women

aged 25–44 were older age, nonHispanic white race, being married,

higher levels of education, higher levels

of household income, and current

fertility problems. Net of these factors, a

significant decline in ever-use of any

infertility services was seen in 2002 and

2006–2010, relative to 1995, suggesting

that compositional changes in the

population may not fully account for

this trend. However, when controlling

for these factors, the odds of ever using

medical help to get pregnant increased

in 2006–2010 relative to 1995.

Meanwhile, when limiting the analysis

to women with current fertility

problems, no significant change was

seen over the last two decades in the

odds of having used any infertility

services or having used medical help to

get pregnant.

Among men aged 25–44 in

2006–2010, about 1 in 10 (9.4%) had

ever used, or their wives or partners had

ever used, infertility services. This

percentage is lower than the 13% seen

among women aged 25–44, and this

may be due to the fact that men

typically have wives or cohabiting

partners a few years younger than

themselves, and therefore they would be

less likely to have used infertility

services at the same levels as women of

the same age range. It may also reflect

an actual difference in prevalence of

service use when reported from the male

perspective. Regardless of the lower

percentages of infertility service use

among men, similar associations were

seen with age, marital status, and other

demographic characteristics as seen

among women.

In summary, there are public health

strategies in place in the United States

that focus on the primary prevention of

infertility. In addition, some have called

for a national action plan to address

disparities in access to infertility

services in the United States, as well as

improved surveillance of all types of

infertility services, not limited to ART,

in order to monitor potential health and

health care implications for women,

children, and families (17,18). Over the

last 30 years, beginning with the 1982

survey, NSFG data have been

instrumental in providing populationbased estimates of infertility service use

to help inform these efforts.

References

1.	 Fertility Clinic Success Rate and

Certification Act. Pub L No 102–493.

1992.

2.	 Chandra A, Martinez GM, Mosher

WD, et al. Fertility, family planning,

and reproductive health of U.S.

women: Data from the 2002 National

Survey of Family Growth. National

Center for Health Statistics. Vital

Health Stat 23(25). 2005.

3.	 National Center for Health Statistics.

Key statistics from NSFG.

Hyattsville, MD: National Center for

Health Statistics. Available from:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/

key_statistics.htm.

4.	 Chandra A, Mosher WD. The

demography of infertility and the use

of medical care for infertility.

Infertility and Reproductive Medicine

Clinics of North America 52(2):283–

96. 1993.

5.	 Chandra A, Stephen EH. Infertility

service use among U.S. women:

1995 and 2002. Fertil Steril

93(3):725–36. 2008.

6.	 Greil AL, McQuillan J, Shreffler

KM, Johnson KM, Slauson-Blevins

KS. Race-ethnicity and medical

services for infertility: stratified

reproduction in a population-based

sample of U.S. women. J Health Soc

Behav 52(4):493–509. 2011.

7.	 Hirsch MB, Mosher WD.

Characteristics of infertile women in

the United States and their use of

infertility services. Fertil Steril

47(4):618–25. 1987.

8.	 Kalmuss DS. The use of infertility

services among fertility-impaired

couples. Demography 24(4):575–85.

1987.

9.	 Nachtigall RD. International

disparities in access to infertility

services. Fertil Steril 85(4):871–5.

2006.

10. Staniec JFO, Webb NJ. Utilization of

infertility services: How much does

money matter? Health Serv Res 42(3

Pt 1):971–89. 2007.

11. Stephen EH, Chandra A. Use of

infertility services in the

United States: 1995. Fam Plann

Perspect 32(3):132–7. 2000.

12. Wilcox LS, Mosher WD. Use of

infertility services in the

United States. Obstet Gynecol

82(1):122–7. 1993.

13. William M. Mercer Company.

Women’s Health Issues: Infertility as

a Covered Benefit. 1997.

14. Smith JF, Eisenberg ML, Glidden D,

Millstein SG, Cedars M, Walsh TJ, et

al. Socioeconomic disparities in the

use and success of fertility

treatments: Analysis of data from a

prospective cohort in the

United States. Fertil Steril 96(1):95–

101. 2011.

15. Bitler MP, Schmidt L. Utilization of

infertility treatments: The effects of
National Health Statistics Reports

n Number 73n January 22, 2014 Page 11

insurance mandates. Demography

49(1):125–49. 2012.

16. Feinberg EC, Larsen FW, Catherino

WH, Zhang J, Armstrong AY.

Comparison of assisted reproductive

technology utilization and outcomes

between Caucasian and African

American patients in an equal-accessto-care setting. Fertil Steril

85(4):888–94. 2006.

17. Macaluso M, Wright-Schnapp TJ,

Chandra A, Johnson R, Satterwhite

CL, Pulver A, et al.A public health

focus on infertility prevention,

detection, and management. Fertil

Steril 93(1):16.e1–10. 2010.

18. CDC.A National Public Health

Action Plan for the Detection,

Prevention, and Management of

Infertility. 2012. Available from:

www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/

Infertility/PublicHealth.htm.

19. Groves RM, Mosher WD, Lepkowski

J, Kirgis NG. Planning and

development of the continuous

National Survey of Family Growth.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Vital Health Stat 1(48). 2009.

20. Lepkowski JM, Mosher WD, Davis

KE, et al. The 2006–2010 National

Survey of Family Growth: Sample

design and analysis ofa continuous

survey. National Center for Health

Statistics. Vital Health Stat 2(150).

2010.

21. Lepkowski JM, Mosher WD, Groves

RG, et al. Responsive design,

weighting, and variance estimation in

the 2006–2010 National Survey of

Family Growth. National Center for

Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat

2(158). 2013.

22. Office of Management and Budget.

Revisions to the standards for the

classification of federal data on race

and ethnicity. Fed Regist

62(210):58781–90. 1997.

23. Chandra A, Copen CE, Stephen EH.

Infertility and impaired fecundity in

the United States, 1982–2010: Data

from the National Survey of Family

Growth. National health statistics

reports; no. 67. Hyattsville, MD:

National Center for Health Statistics.

2013.

24. Chandra A, Stephen EH. Impaired

fecundity in the United States:

1982–1995. Fam Plann Perspect

30(1):34–42. 1998.

25. Mathews TJ, Hamilton BE. Delayed

childbearing: More women are

having their first child later in life.

NCHS data brief, no 21. Hyattsville,

MD: National Center for Health

Statistics. 2009.

26. Wright VC, Schieve LA, Reynolds

MA, Jeng G, Kissin D. Assisted

reproductive technology

surveillance—United States, 2001.

MMWR Surveill Summ 53(S1):1–20.

2004.

27. Sunderam S, Kissin DM, Flowers L,

et al. Assisted reproductive

technology surveillance—United

States, 2009. MMWR Surveill Summ

61(S7):1–23. 2012.

28. CDC. National ART surveillance

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

art/NASS.htm.

29. Jones J. Adoption experiences of

women and men and demand for

children to adopt by women 18–44

years of age in the United States,

2002. National Center for Health

Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(27).

2008.

30. Lamb KA. Exploring adoptive

motherhood: Adoption-seeking

among Hispanic and non-Hispanic

white women. Adoption Quarterly

11(3):155–75. 2008.

31. Abma JC, Martinez GM.

Childlessness among older women in

the United States: Trends and

profiles.J Marriage Fam 68(4):1045–

56. 2006.
Page 12 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 73 n January 22, 2014

Table 1. Ever-use of infertility services by women aged 15–44 (or their husbands or partners), by age: United States, 1982, 1995, and

2006–2010

Survey year

Characteristic 1982 1995 2006–2010

Number of women in thousands.......................... 54,099 60,201 61,755

Percent (standard error)

Any infertility service, by woman’s current age

All women aged 15–44 ...............................

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

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

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

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

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

12.3 (0.7)

3.7 (0.5)

14.0 (0.7)

18.6 (0.9)

19.8 (0.9)

18.2 (0.9)

15.4 (0.5)

4.5 (0.5)

14.2 (0.9)

19.6 (0.9)

22.8 (1.1)

22.9 (1.1)

11.9 (0.5)

2.3 (0.3)

12.5 (1.2)

14.4 (1.4)

20.7 (1.6)

19.3 (1.5)

Any medical help to get pregnant, by woman’s current age

All women aged 15–44 ...............................

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

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

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

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

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

9.4 (0.7)

2.5 (0.3)

10.7 (0.7)

15.6 (0.9)

14.9 (0.9)

13.4 (0.7)

8.3 (0.3)

1.3 (0.3)

5.8 (0.6)

10.0 (0.7)

14.3 (0.8)

14.5 (0.9)

8.7 (0.5)

1.3 (0.2)

7.7 (0.9)

11.1 (1.5)

16.4 (1.5)

14.5 (1.3)

Any medical help to prevent miscarriage, by woman’s current age

All women aged 15–44 ...............................

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

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

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

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

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

4.7 (0.5)

1.5 (0.3)

5.2 (0.5)

5.6 (0.5)

8.7 (0.7)

8.0 (0.7)

9.3 (0.4)

3.5 (0.4)

9.7 (0.8)

12.6 (0.8)

12.6 (0.8)

11.8 (0.9)

4.9 (0.3)

1.2 (0.2)

6.1 (0.8)

5.7 (0.8)

8.1 (0.9)

7.3 (1.1)

NOTE: ‘‘Any infertility service’’ includes medical help to become pregnant or to prevent miscarriage. Women could report either or both types of services, so the percentages with ‘‘any infertility

service’’ will not be the sum of the other two percentages.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 1982, 1995, and 2006–2010.
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 73 n January 22, 2014 Page 13

Table 2. Ever-use of any infertility services by women aged 25–44 (or their husbands or partners), by selected characteristics of the

woman: United States, 1982, 1995, and 2006–2010

Survey year

Characteristic 1982 1995 2006–2010

Number of women in thousands1 ......................... 32,055 42,186 40,912

Percent (standard error)

Women1 aged 25–44 ................................ 18.1 (0.9) 20.0 (0.6) 16.8 (0.8)

Parity

No births ........................................ 18.4 (0.9) 13.1 (0.9) 14.4 (1.3)

One or more births .................................. 18.0 (0.9) 22.5 (0.7) 17.6 (0.9)

Marital or cohabiting status

Currently married ................................... 20.3 (0.9) 24.5 (0.7) 22.6 (1.1)

Currently cohabiting ................................. 12.2 (0.7) 15.4 (1.6) 8.9 (1.3)

Never married, not cohabiting ........................... 3.9 (0.3) 5.4 (0.6) 5.0 (0.7)

Formerly married, not cohabiting ......................... 18.5 (0.9) 18.5 (1.3) 14.1 (1.4)

Current fertility problems2

Yes ........................................... 42.6 (1.1) 45.9 (1.8) 41.0 (2.3)

No ............................................ 14.8 (0.9) 16.1 (0.5) 12.8 (0.7)

Education

No high school diploma or GED .......................... – – – 14.2 (1.3) 9.5 (1.5)

High school diploma or GED ............................ – – – 20.4 (0.9) 14.7 (1.3)

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ....................... – – – 22.2 (1.0) 17.3 (1.3)

Bachelor’s degree .................................. – – – 19.7 (1.2) 20.8 (1.9)

Master’s degree or higher.............................. – – – 20.2 (2.1) 22.6 (2.5)

Percentage of poverty level

Less than 100%.................................... 13.5 (0.7) 14.5 (1.3) 12.9 (1.1)

100%–299% ...................................... 17.7 (0.9) 19.6 (0.9) 14.4 (1.1)

300%–399% ...................................... 21.1 (0.9) 22.6 (1.4) 21.2 (1.8)

400% or more ..................................... 18.2 (0.9) 21.2 (0.9) 20.8 (1.7)

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latina .................................. 14.0 (0.7) 18.1 (1.3) 13.2 (1.1)

Non-Hispanic white.................................. 19.5 (0.9) 21.0 (0.6) 19.1 (1.0)

Non-Hispanic black.................................. 12.2 (0.7) 16.7 (1.0) 11.0 (1.0)

– – – Comparable data not available. 
 1

Includes women of other or multiple race and origin groups, not shown separately.
 2

Include either impaired fecundity or 12-month infertility at time of interview. Impaired fecundity is comprised of the following three subgroups: nonsurgically sterile, subfecund, and long interval
 

without conception. Infertility is defined only for married or cohabiting women and indicates that they have been exposed to the risk of pregnancy with the same husband or partner for at least 12
 

consecutive months, but have not had a pregnancy. See Reference 23 for further details.
 

NOTE: GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 1982, 1995, and 2006–2010.
 
Page 14 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 73 n January 22, 2014

Table 3. Ever-use of infertility services by women aged 25–44 (or their husbands or partners), by parity and age: United States, 1995 and

2006–2010

Characteristic

Number in

thousands

Any

infertility

service1

Any medical

help to get

pregnant

Any medical

help to

prevent

miscarriage

Percent (standard error)

Total for women aged 25–44, 1995 ........................ 42,186 20.0 (0.6) 11.2 (0.4) 11.7 (0.4)

Parity and age in years

No births

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

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

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

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

4,264

2,932

2,197

1,763

5.7 (0.9)

13.5 (1.7)

21.0 (2.3)

20.3 (2.4)

4.5 (0.8)

12.4 (1.7)

19.1 (2.2)

19.3 (2.4)

1.5 (0.5)

2.5 (0.7)

4.4 (1.2)

2.7 (0.9)

One or more births

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

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

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

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

5,530

8,050

9,100

8,349

20.8 (1.3)

21.9 (1.1)

23.2 (1.2)

23.4 (1.3)

6.8 (0.9)

9.1 (0.7)

13.1 (0.9)

13.4 (0.9)

16.0 (1.2)

16.3 (1.0)

14.5 (1.0)

13.7 (1.0)

Total for women aged 25–44, 2006–2010 .................... 40,912 16.8 (0.8) 12.5 (0.7) 6.8 (0.5)

Parity and age in years

No births

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

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

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

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

4,751

2,145

1,805

1,639

8.6 (1.4)

15.3 (2.6)

20.1 (3.1)

24.0 (4.2)

7.6 (1.4)

14.2 (2.6)

19.6 (3.1)

23.4 (4.2)

2.0 (0.6)

3.0 (1.1)

5.6 (2.0)

1.5 (0.7)

One or more births

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

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

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

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

5,784

7,042

8,733

9,013

15.8 (1.7)

14.2 (1.6)

20.8 (1.7)

18.4 (1.6)

7.7 (1.2)

10.2 (1.4)

15.8 (1.7)

12.9 (1.3)

9.4 (1.3)

6.5 (1.0)

8.6 (1.0)

8.4 (1.3)

1

‘‘Any infertility service’’ includes medical help to become pregnant or to prevent miscarriage. Women could report either or both types of services, so the percentages with ‘‘any infertility service’’

will not be the sum of the other two percentages.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 1995 and 2006–2010.
National Health Statistics Reports

n Number 73n January 22, 2014 Page 15

s by women aged 25–44 (or their husbands or partners), by selected characteristics: United States, 1995, 2002, and 2006–2010

Specific types of medical help to get pregnant

Any medical

Any Any medical Surgery or Assisted help to

Number in infertility help to get Tests on Ovulation treatment of Artificial reproductive prevent

thousands service pregnant Advice woman or man drugs blocked tubes insemination technology miscarriage

Percent (standard error)

..... 42,186 20.0 (0.6) 11.2 (0.4) 8.6 (0.4) 5.9 (0.3) 4.2 (0.2) 2.0 (0.2) 1.4 (0.1) 0.1 (0.4) 11.7 (0.4)

..... 41,887 16.2 (0.7) 11.7 (0.6) 8.6 (0.6) 6.8 (0.4) 5.4 (0.4) 1.0 (0.2) 1.6 (0.3) 0.4 (0.1) 7.1 (0.4)

..... 40,912 16.8 (0.8) 12.5 (0.7) 9.4 (0.6) 7.3 (0.5) 5.8 (0.5) 1.3 (0.2) 1.7 (0.2) 0.7 (0.1) 6.8 (0.5)

..... 10,535 12.5 (1.2) 7.7 (0.9) 6.2 (0.8) 3.3 (0.5) 2.4 (0.4) 0.3 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) * 6.1 (0.8)

..... 9,188 14.4 (1.4) 11.1 (1.2) 7.8 (0.9) 6.3 (1.0) 5.5 (1.1) 0.5 (0.3) 0.9 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1) 5.7 (0.8)

..... 10,538 20.7 (1.6) 16.4 (1.5) 13.3 (1.3) 10.4 (1.0) 8.6 (1.1) 2.0 (0.4) 2.9 (0.6) 1.5 (0.5) 8.1 (0.9)

..... 10,652 19.3 (1.5) 14.5 (1.3) 9.9 (1.1) 9.0 (1.0) 6.5 (0.9) 2.3 (0.6) 2.8 (0.6) 0.9 (0.3) 7.3 (1.1)

..... 10,340 14.4 (1.3) 13.6 (1.3) 11.4 (1.2) 8.5 (1.0) 5.6 (0.9) 1.8 (0.5) 2.3 (0.6) 0.9 (0.4) 2.7 (0.5)

..... 30,572 17.6 (0.9) 12.1 (0.7) 8.7 (0.7) 6.9 (0.5) 5.8 (0.5) 1.1 (0.2) 1.5 (0.3) 0.6 (0.2) 8.2 (0.6)

..... 23,670 22.6 (1.1) 17.4 (1.0) 13.1 (0.9) 10.5 (0.7) 8.7 (0.8) 1.9 (0.3) 2.7 (0.4) 1.0 (0.2) 8.9 (0.7)

..... 4,476 8.9 (1.3) 5.1 (1.0) 3.8 (0.8) 2.2 (0.5) 1.2 (0.4) * * * 4.9 (1.0)

..... 5,354 5.0 (0.7) 3.0 (0.6) 2.2 (0.6) 0.9 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2) * 0.3 (0.2) * 5.2 (0.9)

..... 7,412 14.1 (1.4) 10.0 (1.3) 7.3 (1.2) 6.1 (1.1) 3.5 (0.7) 0.9 (0.4) 0.7 (0.3) 0.7 (0.3) 2.5 (0.5)

..... 5,791 41.0 (2.3) 36.3 (2.3) 28.9 (2.1) 27.4 (2.1) 19.5 (2.0) 3.2 (0.6) 7.4 (1.2) 3.1 (0.8) 12.8 (1.6)

. . . . . 35,121 12.8 (0.7) 8.6 (0.6) 6.1 (0.5) 4.0 (0.4) 3.5 (0.4) 1.0 (0.2) 0.8 (0.2) 0.3 (0.1) 5.8 (0.5)

..... 6,054 9.5 (1.5) 6.4 (1.4) 4.3 (0.9) 3.4 (1.2) 2.4 (0.7) 1.1 (0.6) 0.8 (0.5) * 5.1 (1.0)

..... 9,999 14.7 (1.3) 10.1 (1.1) 7.8 (1.1) 4.9 (0.8) 4.0 (0.7) 1.3 (0.4) 0.7 (0.3) 0.5 (0.2) 6.0 (0.9)

..... 11,424 17.3 (1.3) 11.9 (1.0) 8.2 (0.9) 6.3 (0.7) 5.2 (0.7) 1.4 (0.3) 1.4 (0.3) 0.3 (0.2) 7.8 (1.0)

..... 9,455 20.8 (1.9) 16.9 (1.8) 13.1 (1.6) 12.1 (1.6) 9.6 (1.4) 1.2 (0.5) 3.7 (0.7) 1.6 (0.5) 7.8 (1.1)

..... 3,980 22.6 (2.5) 19.1 (2.3) 15.7 (2.0) 10.9 (1.8) 8.0 (1.6) 1.5 (0.5) 2.2 (0.7) 1.1 (0.4) 6.5 (1.3)

..... 7,757 12.9 (1.1) 6.9 (0.8) 4.7 (0.7) 2.7 (0.6) 2.4 (0.6) 0.6 (0.3) * * 7.1 (0.9)

..... 16,531 14.4 (1.1) 10.1 (0.9) 7.0 (0.7) 5.7 (0.7) 4.2 (0.6) 1.2 (0.3) 1.3 (0.3) 0.4 (0.2) 6.7 (0.7)

..... 7,798 21.2 (1.8) 17.3 (1.6) 12.8 (1.5) 10.6 (1.1) 8.4 (1.2) 1.4 (0.5) 2.9 (0.7) 1.1 (0.4) 8.0 (1.3)

..... 8,825 20.8 (1.7) 17.6 (1.6) 14.9 (1.5) 11.5 (1.3) 9.3 (1.2) 2.0 (0.6) 3.1 (0.7) 1.1 (0.3 5.6 (0.8)
Page 16 National Health Statistics Reports

n Number 73n January 22, 2014

s by women aged 25–44 (or their husbands or partners), by selected characteristics: United States, 1995, 2002, and 2006–2010—Con.

Specific types of medical help to get pregnant

Number in

thousands

Any

infertility

service

Any medical

help to get

pregnant Advice

Tests on

woman or man

Ovulation

drugs

Surgery or

treatment of

blocked tubes

Artificial

insemination

Assisted

reproductive

technology

Any medical

help to

prevent

miscarriage

Percent (standard error)

.....

.....

.....

6,836

25,177

5,392

13.2 (1.1)19.1 (1.0)

11.2 (1.0)

7.6 (0.7)

14.9 (0.9)

8.0 (0.9)

4.9 (0.8)

11.6 (0.8)

5.3 (0.9)

3.3 (0.6)9.3 (0.7)4.0 (0.8)

2.2 (0.4)7.5 (0.7)3.4 (0.7)

0.1 (0.1)1.7 (0.3)1.2 (0.4)

0.4 (0.1)

2.4 (0.4)0.6 (0.3)

0.2 (0.1)

0.9 (0.2)

*

6.9 (0.9)7.1 (0.7)4.1 (0.6)

ision. Based on fewer than five cases in numerator.

groups, not shown separately.

undity or 12-month infertility at time of interview. Impaired fecundity is comprised of the following three subgroups: nonsurgically sterile, subfecund, and long interval without conception. Infertility is defined

hat they have been exposed to the risk of pregnancy with the same husband or partner for at least 12 consecutive months, but have not had a pregnancy. See Reference 23 for further details.

h school equivalency diploma.

owth, 1995, 2002, and 2006–2010.
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 73 n January 22, 2014 Page 17

Table 5. Ever-use of any infertility services among specified groups of women aged 25–44, by selected characteristics: United States,

2006–2010

All women All nulliparous

aged 25–44 women aged

with current 25–44 with

All women fertility current fertility

Characteristic aged 25–44 problems problems

Percent (standard error)

Total1 for women aged 25–44 ........................... 16.8 (0.8) 41.0 (2.3) 38.2 (3.7)

Age in years

25–29 .......................................... 12.5 (1.2) 29.4 (3.9) 25.0 (5.5)

30–34 .......................................... 14.4 (1.4) 45.5 (4.9) 47.4 (8.0)

35–39 .......................................... 20.7 (1.6) 54.2 (4.1) 49.1 (6.7)

40–44 .......................................... 19.3 (1.5) 35.0 (4.5) 39.4 (7.7)

Parity

No births ........................................ 14.4 (1.3) 38.2 (3.7) . . .

One or more births .................................. 17.6 (0.9) 42.7 (2.9) . . .

Marital or cohabiting status

Married ......................................... 22.6 (1.1) 55.2 (2.9) 55.0 (4.8)

Cohabiting ....................................... 8.9 (1.3) 20.9 (4.5) 16.1 (5.2)

Neither ......................................... 8.8 (0.8) 22.4 (2.7) 21.9 (4.3)

Education

Less than bachelor’s degree ............................ 14.6 (0.8) 32.7 (2.6) 33.3 (4.6)

Bachelor’s degree or higher ............................ 21.3 (1.6) 58.1 (4.0) 45.2 (5.6)

Percentage of poverty level

Less than 400% of poverty level ......................... 15.7 (0.8) 37.5 (2.5) 35.0 (4.5)

400% of poverty level or higher .......................... 20.8 (1.7) 50.6 (4.8) 42.1 (6.0)

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latina .................................. 13.2 (1.1) 37.7 (5.0) 40.8 (9.7)

Non-Hispanic white, single race .......................... 19.1 (1.0) 44.1 (3.2) 36.4 (4.5)

Non-Hispanic black, single race .......................... 11.2 (1.0) 27.6 (3.9) 43.2 (9.1)

Total1 for non-Hispanic white women aged 25–44 ............... 19.1 (1.0) 44.1 (3.2) 36.4 (4.5)

Age in years

25–29 .......................................... 12.2 (1.8) 25.1 (4.5) 23.9 (6.3)

30–34 .......................................... 15.1 (2.0) 48.9 (6.5) 40.7 (10.5)

35–39 .......................................... 25.4 (2.2) 58.4 (5.4) 45.8 (8.3)

40–44 .......................................... 22.6 (2.0) 42.4 (6.0) 41.8 (9.6)

Parity

No births ........................................ 14.3 (1.6) 36.4 (4.5) . . .

One or more births .................................. 21.0 (1.2) 49.7 (4.0) . . .

Marital or cohabiting status

Married ......................................... 25.1 (1.3) 57.6 (3.7) 52.7 (5.6)

Cohabiting ....................................... 7.1 (1.6) 14.8 (6.1) 11.5 (5.8)

Neither ......................................... 9.4 (1.1) 24.2 (4.0) 18.5 (5.7)

Education

Less than bachelor’s degree ............................ 16.6 (1.2) 34.1 (4.1) 30.1 (6.3)

Bachelor’s degree or higher ............................ 22.9 (1.8) 58.7 (4.8) 43.4 (6.3)

Percentage of poverty level

Less than 400% of poverty level ......................... 18.0 (1.1) 41.2 (3.4) 32.3 (5.7)

400% of poverty level or higher .......................... 21.9 (1.9) 49.8 (5.9) 39.9 (6.9)

. . . Category not applicable.
 1

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

NOTE: Current fertility problems include either impaired fecundity or 12-month infertility at time of interview. Impaired fecundity is comprised of the following three subgroups: nonsurgically sterile,
 

subfecund, and long interval without conception. Infertility is defined only for married or cohabiting women and indicates that they have been exposed to the risk of pregnancy with the same
 

husband or partner for at least 12 consecutive months, but have not had a pregnancy. See Reference 23 for further details.
 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010.
 
Page 18 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 73 n January 22, 2014

Table 6. Percent distribution by infertility service experience for women aged 25–44, by selected characteristics: United States, 1995,

2002, and 2006–2010

Ever had any medical help to get pregnant

Only had

Never used medical help One or more

Number in infertility to prevent No visits visits in

Characteristic thousands Total services1 miscarriage Subtotal in last year last year

Percent distribution (standard error)

Total for women aged 25–44, 1995................. 42,186 100.0 80.0 (0.6) 8.8 (0.4) 11.2 (0.4) 10.1 (0.4) 1.1 (0.2)

Total for women aged 25–44, 2002................. 41,887 100.0 83.8 (0.7) 4.5 (0.4) 11.7 (0.6) 9.2 (0.5) 2.5 (0.3)

Total2 for women aged 25–44, 2006–2010 ............ 40,912 100.0 83.2 (0.8) 4.3 (0.4) 12.4 (0.7) 10.0 (0.6) 2.4 (0.2)

2006–2010

Age in years

25–29 ................................. 10,535 100.0 87.5 (1.2) 4.9 (0.7) 7.6 (0.9) 4.4 (0.7) 3.2 (0.6)

30–34 ................................. 9,188 100.0 85.6 (1.4) 3.3 (0.6) 11.1 (1.2) 7.8 (1.0) 3.2 (0.6)

35–39 ................................. 10,538 100.0 79.4 (1.6) 4.3 (0.8) 16.4 (1.5) 14.2 (1.5) 2.2 (0.5)

40–44 ................................. 10,652 100.0 80.7 (1.5) 4.7 (0.9) 14.5 (1.3) 13.2 (1.2) 1.4 (0.4)

Parity and age in years

No births ............................... 10,340 100.0 85.6 (1.3) 0.8 (0.2) 13.6 (1.3) 7.9 (1.0) 5.7 (0.7)

25–29 ................................ 4,751 100.0 91.4 (1.4) 0.9 (0.4) 7.6 (1.4) 2.9 (0.9) 4.8 (1.0)

30–34 ................................ 2,145 100.0 84.8 (2.6) 1.1 (0.6) 14.1 (2.6) 5.7 (1.9) 8.4 (1.9)

35–39 ................................ 1,805 100.0 79.9 (3.1) 0.5 (0.3) 19.6 (3.1) 14.9 (3.0) 4.7 (1.4)

40–44 ................................ 1,639 100.0 76.0 (4.2) 0.6 (0.4) 23.4 (4.2) 17.4 (3.7) 6.0 (2.3)

One or more births ......................... 30,572 100.0 82.4 (0.9) 5.5 (0.5) 12.1 (0.7) 10.7 (0.7) 1.4 (0.2)

25–29 ................................ 5,784 100.0 84.3 (1.7) 8.1 (1.2) 7.6 (1.2) 5.7 (1.1) 1.9 (0.6)

30–34 ................................ 7,042 100.0 85.9 (1.6) 4.0 (0.7) 10.1 (1.4) 8.5 (1.1) 1.6 (0.6)

35–39 ................................ 8,733 100.0 79.2 (1.7) 5.1 (1.0) 15.7 (1.6) 14.1 (1.6) 1.6 (0.5)

40–44 ................................ 9,013 100.0 81.6 (1.6) 5.5 (1.1) 12.9 (1.3) 12.4 (1.3) 0.5 (0.2)

Marital or cohabiting status

Currently married .......................... 23,670 100.0 77.4 (1.1) 5.2 (0.5) 17.4 (1.0) 13.8 (0.8) 3.6 (0.4)

Currently cohabiting......................... 4,476 100.0 91.3 (1.3) 3.8 (0.9) 4.9 (0.9) 3.5 (0.8) 1.3 (0.4)

Never married, not cohabiting................... 7,412 100.0 95.1 (0.7) 2.0 (0.4) 3.0 (0.6) 2.1 (0.6) 0.9 (0.3)

Formerly married, not cohabiting ................. 5,354 100.0 85.9 (1.4) 4.1 (0.9) 10.0 (1.3) 9.4 (1.3) 0.7 (0.2)

Current fertilty problems3

Yes ................................... 5,791 100.0 59.1 (2.3) 4.7 (0.8) 36.3 (2.3) 25.1 (1.9) 11.2 (1.4)

No ................................... 35,121 100.0 87.2 (0.7) 4.3 (0.4) 8.5 (0.6) 7.5 (0.6) 1.0 (0.2)

Education

No high school diploma or GED ................. 6,054 100.0 90.7 (1.5) 3.1 (0.5) 6.2 (1.4) 5.4 (1.4) 0.8 (0.3)

High school diploma or GED ................... 9,999 100.0 85.3 (1.3) 4.7 (0.8) 10.0 (1.1) 8.4 (1.0) 1.6 (0.5)

Some college, no bachelor’s degree .............. 11,424 100.0 82.8 (1.3) 5.3 (0.9) 11.9 (1.0) 9.3 (0.9) 2.6 (0.5)

Bachelor’s degree .......................... 9,455 100.0 79.2 (1.9) 3.9 (0.8) 16.9 (1.8) 14.1 (1.6) 2.8 (0.5)

Master’s degree or higher ..................... 3,980 100.0 77.5 (2.5) 3.4 (1.0) 19.1 (2.3) 13.3 (1.9) 5.8 (1.2)

Percentage of poverty level

Less than 100% ........................... 7,757 100.0 87.1 (1.2) 6.0 (0.8) 6.9 (0.8) 5.0 (0.7) 1.9 (0.5)

100%–299% ............................. 16,531 100.0 85.6 (1.1) 4.4 (0.6) 10.0 (0.9) 8.7 (0.8) 1.3 (0.3)

300%–399% ............................. 7,798 100.0 78.8 (1.8) 3.9 (0.8) 17.3 (1.6) 15.2 (1.6) 2.1 (0.5)

400% or more ............................ 8,825 100.0 79.2 (1.7) 3.2 (0.6) 17.6 (1.6) 12.2 (1.3) 5.3 (0.8)

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latina .......................... 6,836 100.0 86.9 (1.1) 5.6 (0.8) 7.5 (0.7) 5.4 (0.7) 2.1 (0.5)

Not Hispanic or Latina

White, single race ....................... 25,177 100.0 81.0 (1.0) 4.1 (0.5) 14.9 (0.9) 12.3 (0.9) 2.6 (0.3)

Black or African American, single race .......... 5,392 100.0 88.8 (1.0) 3.2 (0.5) 8.0 (0.9) 5.8 (0.8) 2.2 (0.6)

1

Infertlity services include medical help to become pregnant and medical help to prevent miscarriage. Respondents were only asked about numbers of visits in the past year for medical help to get

pregnant; therefore, women who only used medical help to prevent miscarriage are shown separately. Some women who used medical help to get pregnant also used medical help to prevent

miscarriage, but they are shown in this table based on their numbers of visits in the past year for medical help to get pregnant. 2

Includes women of other or multiple race and origin groups, not shown separately. 3

Includes either impaired fecundity or 12-month infertility at time of interview. Impaired fecundity is comprised of the following three subgroups: nonsurgically sterile, subfecund, and long interval

without conception. Infertility is defined only for married or cohabiting women and indicates that they have been exposed to the risk of pregnancy with the same husband or partner for at least 12

consecutive months, but have not had a pregnancy. See Reference 23 for further details.

NOTES: Percentages may not add to 100.0 because of rounding. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 1995, 2002, and 2006–2010.
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 73 n January 22, 2014 Page 19

Table 7. Adjusted odds ratios for ever-use of any infertility services and any medical help to get pregnant among women aged 25–44:

United States, 1995, 2002, and 2006–2010

All women aged 25–44

All women aged 25–44 with

current fertilty problems1

Characteristic

Ever-use of

any infertility

services

Ever-use of

any medical

help to get

pregnant

Ever-use of

any infertility

services

Ever-use of

any medical

help to get

pregnant

Parity and age in years Adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval)

No births, 25–29........................... ***0.38 (0.29–0.49) 0.79 (0.58–1.07) 0.84 (0.54–1.30) 1.36 (0.84–2.21)
 

No births, 30–34........................... *0.73 (0.57–0.95) **1.67 (1.23–2.26) **1.72 (1.16–2.57) ***2.83 (1.79–4.49)
 

No births, 35–39........................... 0.85 (0.67–1.09) ***2.03 (1.51–2.75) ^1.43 (0.95–2.14) ***2.60 (1.63–4.15)
 

No births, 40–44........................... 1.17 (0.89–1.56) ***2.48 (1.75–3.52) ^1.47 (0.94–2.30) **2.11 (1.28–3.47)
 

One or more births, 25–29 (reference) ............. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 
 

One or more births, 30–34 .................... 1.09 (0.90–1.32) *1.36 (1.05–1.78) 1.26 (0.87–1.83) ^1.48 (0.95–2.30)
 

One or more births, 35–39 .................... **1.27 (1.07–1.51) ***1.90 (1.50–2.41) *1.52 (1.04–2.23) ***2.03 (1.34–3.08)
 

One or more births, 40–44 .................... 1.17 (0.96–1.42) ***1.78 (1.39–2.28) 0.93 (0.65–1.33) 1.17 (0.76–1.78)
 

Marital or cohabiting status

Currently married (reference) ................... 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Currently cohabiting......................... ***0.48 (0.38–0.60) ***0.34 (0.25–0.47) ***0.36 (0.24–0.53) ***0.24 (0.16–0.37)

Neither currently married or cohabiting ............. ***0.45 (0.40–0.51) ***0.34 (0.29–0.41) ***0.40 (0.31–0.50) ***0.27 (0.20–0.36)

Current fertility problems

Yes ................................... ***5.05 (4.46–5.72) ***6.46 (5.59–7.47) . . . . . .

No (reference) ............................ 1.0 1.0 . . . . . .

Education

Less than a bachelor’s degree .................. ***0.77 (0.68–0.87) ***0.71 (0.62–0.82) ***0.62 (0.47–0.80) ***0.60 (0.46–0.77)

Bachelor’s degree or higher (reference) ............ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Percentage of poverty level

Less than 400% ........................... 0.96 (0.84–1.08) ^0.88 (0.77–1.01) ^0.79 (0.63–1.00) 0.86 (0.67–1.10)

400% or higher (reference) .................... 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latina .......................... ***0.70 (0.61–0.80) ***0.64 (0.54–0.76) 0.84 (0.64–1.10) *0.73 (0.56–0.96)

Non-Hispanic white, single race (reference) .......... 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Non-Hispanic black, single race ................. ***0.77 (0.68–0.88) ***0.70 (0.59–0.83) *0.76 (0.59–0.99) *0.72 (0.54–0.97)

Survey year

1995 (reference)........................... 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2002 .................................. ***0.72 (0.63–0.82) 1.00 (0.85–1.18) 0.82 (0.64–1.05) 1.01 (0.77–1.32)

2006–2010 .............................. **0.82 (0.72–0.93) **1.23 (1.06–1.43) 0.90 (0.69–1.17) 1.18 (0.90–1.55)

^ p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
 

. . . Category not applicable.
 1

Current fertility problems include either impaired fecundity or 12-month infertility at time of interview. Impaired fecundity is comprised of the following three subgroups: nonsurgically sterile,
 

subfecund, and long interval without conception. Infertility is defined only for married or cohabiting women and indicates that they have been exposed to the risk of pregnancy with the same
 

husband or partner for at least 12 consecutive months, but have not had a pregnancy. See Reference 23 for further details.
 

NOTES: Any infertility services include medical help to get pregnant and medical help to prevent miscarriage. Women of other race and origin groups or multiple race groups are not included in
 

the logistic regression models due to small sample size.
 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 1995, 2002, and 2006–2010.
 
Page 20 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 73 n January 22, 2014

Table 8. Ever-use of specified infertility services by men aged 25–44 (or their wives or partners), by selected characteristics:

United States, 2006–2010

Any Tests on

Number in infertility man or Ovulation Surgery for Artificial

Characteristic thousands service Advice woman drugs blocked tubes insemination

Percent (standard error)

Total1 for men aged 25–44 ...................... 40,917 9.4 (0.6) 6.8 (0.5) 5.3 (0.5) 3.8 (0.4) 1.1 (0.2) 1.7 (0.4)

Age in years

25–29................................... 10,758 5.1 (0.8) 4.3 (0.7) 2.2 (0.6) 1.5 (0.5) 0.7 (0.4) *

30–34................................... 9,228 8.2 (1.1) 6.3 (0.9) 3.5 (0.6) 2.1 (0.5) 0.6 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2)

35–39................................... 10,405 12.9 (1.5) 9.0 (1.2) 8.0 (1.3) 6.5 (1.2) 1.8 (0.5) 3.9 (1.0)

40–44................................... 10,526 11.3 (1.5) 7.6 (1.2) 7.3 (1.1) 4.8 (0.9) 1.4 (0.5) 2.2 (0.8)

Number of biological children

No children ............................... 14,967 8.1 (1.0) 5.8 (0.8) 4.3 (0.7) 2.7 (0.6) 1.0 (0.3) 1.2 (0.5)

One or more children ......................... 25,950 10.1 (0.8) 7.4 (0.7) 5.9 (0.7) 4.4 (0.6) 1.2 (0.3) 2.0 (0.4)

Marital or cohabiting status

Currently married............................ 22,119 13.6 (1.0) 10.2 (0.9) 8.9 (0.8) 6.5 (0.7) 1.8 (0.4) 3.1 (0.6)

Currently cohabiting .......................... 5,746 4.7 (0.9) 3.8 (0.8) 1.5 (0.6) 0.9 (0.3) * *

Never married, not cohabiting .................... 3,154 2.0 (0.7) 6.6 (1.7) 3.3 (1.0) 1.3 (0.4) * –

Formerly married, not cohabiting .................. 9,898 9.0 (1.9) 1.2 (0.6) 0.2 (0.1) 0.2 (0.2) 1.6 (0.5) *

Infertility status among men2

Surgically sterile ............................ 8,554 8.6 (1.4) 6.1 (1.2) 4.8 (1.1) 3.5 (0.9) * 1.4 (0.7)

Nonsurgically sterile .......................... 4,696 20.4 (3.8) 13.7 (3.3) 15.1 (3.3) 9.9 (2.8) 2.7 (1.3) 5.5 (2.2)

Subfertile................................. 2,549 38.9 (3.4) 27.3 (3.1) 33.0 (3.6) 24.8 (3.5) 7.3 (1.9) 11.1 (2.6)

Presumed fertile ............................ 27,642 6.0 (0.6) 4.6 (0.5) 2.1 (0.4) 1.4 (0.3) 0.6 (0.2) 0.7 (0.3)

Education

No high school diploma or GED................... 7,847 6.0 (1.0) 4.2 (0.9) 2.7 (0.8) 2.0 (0.7) * *

High school diploma or GED..................... 10,617 8.7 (1.3) 6.6 (1.0) 4.1 (0.9) 2.9 (0.8) 1.9 (0.7) 1.4 (0.6)

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ................ 10,650 9.1 (1.2) 6.8 (1.0) 6.1 (1.0) 3.8 (0.8) 1.4 (0.5) 1.5 (0.6)

Bachelor’s degree ........................... 7,983 11.3 (1.8) 8.1 (1.4) 6.8 (1.4) 5.1 (1.2) 0.8 (0.3) 3.1 (0.9)

Master’s degree or higher ...................... 3,820 15.5 (2.8) 10.1 (2.2) 8.4 (2.0) 6.7 (2.0) * 3.0 (1.0)

Percentage of poverty level

Less than 100% ............................ 5,337 6.6 (1.2) 5.2 (1.2) 2.1 (0.7) 1.3 (0.5) 0.7 (0.3) *

100%–299%............................... 15,462 6.5 (0.8) 4.8 (0.6) 3.0 (0.5) 2.1 (0.4) 0.8 (0.2) 0.4 (0.2)

300%–399%............................... 8,552 11.0 (1.4) 7.7 (1.3) 7.1 (1.2) 5.9 (1.2) 1.5 (0.6) 2.8 (1.0)

400% or more.............................. 11,566 13.3 (1.4) 9.6 (1.1) 8.5 (1.2) 5.5 (1.0) 1.6 (0.5) 3.4 (0.9)

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latino ........................... 8,016 7.6 (1.1) 6.0 (1.1) 2.7 (0.7) 2.3 (0.6) 0.8 (0.3) 0.8 (0.4)

Not Hispanic or Latino

White, single race .......................... 24,580 10.9 (0.9) 7.8 (0.8) 7.1 (0.8) 5.0 (0.7) 1.4 (0.4) 2.3 (0.5)

Black or African American, single race ............. 4,418 5.8 (1.0) 3.9 (0.9) 2.6 (0.7) 1.9 (0.7) 1.1 (0.5) 0.9 (0.5)

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision. Based on fewer than five cases in numerator.
 

– Quantity zero.
 1

Includes men of other or multiple race and origin groups, not shown separately.
 2

For currently married or cohabiting men, categories for infertility may reflect status of wives or cohabiting partners. See Reference 23 for further details.
 

NOTE: GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010.
 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Health Statistics

3311 Toledo Road, Room 5419

Hyattsville, MD 20782

FIRST CLASS MAIL
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

CDC/NCHS
 

PERMIT NO. G-284
 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

National Health Statistics Reports n Number 73 n January 22, 2014

Acknowledgments

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

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

tasks were carried out by the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, under a contract with NCHS. The

2006–2010 NSFG was jointly planned and funded by the following programs and agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services:

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

• Office of Population Affairs

• CDC/NCHS

• CDC/Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention

• CDC/Division of Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention

• CDC/Division of Reproductive Health

• Children’s Bureau of the Administration for Children and Families

• Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

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

2006–2010 NSFG. This report was prepared under the general direction of Delton Atkinson, Acting Director of NCHS’ Division of Vital Statistics

(DVS), and Stephanie J. Ventura, former Chief of the Reproductive Statistics Branch of DVS. The authors appreciate the valuable comments

provided by Stephanie Ventura; Robert Anderson, former DVS Acting Co-Associate Director for Science; and Jennifer Madans, NCHS

Associate Director for Science. They also thank Isaedmarie Febo-Vazquez, Yashodhara Patel, and Amy Branum for their helpful contributions to

the preparation of this report. The report was edited and produced by NCHS Office of Information Services, Information Design and Publishing

Staff: Jen Hurlburt edited the report, typesetting was done by Annette F. Holman, and graphics were produced by Jessica Newman and Michael

W. Jones (contractors).

Suggested citation

Chandra A, Copen CE, Stephen EH. Infertility

service use in the United States: Data from

the National Survey of Family Growth,

1982–2010. National health statistics reports;

no 73. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for

Health Statistics. 2014.

Copyright information

All material appearing in this report is in the

public domain and may be reproduced or

copied without permission; citation as to

source, however, is appreciated.

National Center for Health Statistics

Charles J. Rothwell, M.S., M.B.A., Director

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

for Science

Division of Vital Statistics

Delton Atkinson, M.P.H., M.P.H., P.M.P.,

Director

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

For questions or general information about NCHS: Tel: 1–800–CDC–INFO (1–800–232–4636) • TTY: 1–888–232–6348
 

Internet: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs • Online request form: http://www.cdc.gov/cdc-info/requestform.html
 

DHHS Publication No. 2014–1250 • CS244726