In Table 10, data for ‘‘2002: 2 births’’ are revised.

Series 23, Number 29 August 2010

Use of Contraception in the

United States: 1982–2008
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.

Suggested citation

Mosher WD, Jones J. Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008.

National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(29). 2010.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Mosher, William D.
 

Use of contraception in the United States : 1982–2008.
 

p. ; cm. — (Vital and health statistics. Series 23 ; no. 29)

(DHHS publication ; no. (PHS) 2010–1981)

‘‘August 2010.’’

Written by William D. Mosher and Jo Jones.

Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN-13: 978-0-8406-0640-2

ISBN-10: 0-8406-0640-0

1. Birth control—United States—Statistics. 2. Contraceptives—

United States—Statistics. I. Jones, Jo, Ph. D. II. National Center for Health

Statistics (U.S.) III. Title. IV. Series: Vital and health statistics. Series 23, Data

from the national survey of family growth ; no. 29. V. Series: DHHS publication ;

no. (PHS) 2010–1981.

[DNLM: 1. Contraception—utilization—United States. 2. Contraceptive

Agents—United States—Statistics. 3. Contraceptive Devices—utilization—

United States. W2 A N148vw no. 29 2010]

HQ766.5.U5M693 2010

304.6’66097309045—dc22 2010018160

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents

Mail Stop: SSOP

Washington, DC 20402–9328

Printed on acid-free paper.
Series 23, Number 29

Use of Contraception in the

United States: 1982–2008

Data From the National Survey of

Family Growth

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Health Statistics

Hyattsville, Maryland

August 2010

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2010–1981
National Center for Health Statistics

Edward J. Sondik, Ph.D., Director

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

Division of Vital Statistics

Charles J. Rothwell, M.S., Director
Contents
 

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................... vi 
 

Abstract ................................................................................................. 1 
 

Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 
 

Source of the Data......................................................................................... 2 
 

Strengths and Limitations of the Data ......................................................................... 3 
 

Measurement of Contraceptive Use ........................................................................... 3 
 

Classifying Women by Method Use When They Are Using Two or More Methods .................................... 4 
 

Statistical Analysis......................................................................................... 4 
 

Results .................................................................................................. 5 
 

Ever-use of Contraception................................................................................. 5 
 

Contraceptive Use at First Premarital Intercourse .............................................................. 6 
 

Current Contraceptive Use ................................................................................ 7 
 

Pencentage Using a Method Among Those at Risk of Unintended Pregnancy ....................................... 8 
 

Contraceptors: Trends in Contraceptive Use .................................................................. 9 
 

Use of More Than One Contraceptive Method: Dual and Multiple Use ............................................ 11 
 

Stopping Use of Contraceptive Methods ..................................................................... 13 
 

Reasons for Nonuse of Contraception Leading to Unintended Pregnancy........................................... 14 
 

International Comparisons................................................................................. 14 
 

Summary and Discussion ................................................................................... 15 
 

References ............................................................................................... 17 
 

Appendixes

I.	 Technical Notes..................................................................................... 33 
 

Sample Design and Fieldwork Procedures.............................................................. 33 
 

Sampling Errors in the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth ...................................... 34 
 

II.	 Definitions of Terms................................................................................. 38 
 

III.	 Details on the Surveys of Contraceptive Use Shown in Table F .............................................. 43 
 

Figures

1.	 Percentage of sexually experienced women aged 15–44 years who have ever used the specified contraceptive
 

method: United States, 1982, 2002, and 2006–2008 ....................................................... 5 
 

2.	 Percentage of sexually experienced women aged 15–44 years who have ever used the specified contraceptive
 

method, by race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2006–2008 ............................................. 6 
 

3.	 Percentage of women aged 15–44 years who used a method of contraception at their first premarital intercourse:
 

United States, 2006–2008............................................................................. 6 
 

4.	 Percent distribution of women aged 15–44 years, by current contraceptive status: United States, 2006–2008 ......... 7 
 

5.	 Percentage of women aged 15–44 years using selected contraceptive methods, by race and Hispanic origin:
 

United States, 2006–2008............................................................................. 8 
 

6.	 Percentage of women aged 15–44 years at risk of unintended pregnancy who were not using contraception, by
 

Hispanic origin and race: United States, 2006–2008 ....................................................... 9 
 

iii
7.	 Percentage of contraceptors aged 15–44 years using female sterilization, by age: United States, 2006–2008 ......... 10 
 

8.	 Percentage of contraceptors aged 15–44 years using the pill, by age: United States, 2006–2008.................... 10 
 

9.	 Percentage of contraceptors aged 15–44 years who were using female sterilization and the pill, by parity:
 

United States, 2006–2008............................................................................. 11 
 

10.	 Percentage of contraceptors aged 22–44 years who were using female sterilization, by education: United States,
 

2006–2008......................................................................................... 11 
 

11.	 Percentage of contraceptors aged 22–44 years using the pill, by education: United States, 2006–2008............... 12 
 

12.	 Percentage of women aged 15–44 years whose most effective method of contraception was the condom, and
 

percentage who used the condom with or without another method (‘‘any use’’), by marital status: United States,
 

2006–2008......................................................................................... 13 
 

Text Tables

A.	 Estimates of 1-year typical-use failure rates for selected contraceptive methods, United States, most recent available
 

data .............................................................................................. 4 
 

B.	 Average age and percentage childless by marital status: United States, 2006–2008 .............................. 8 
 

C.	 Percentage of women using more than one contraceptive method, by marital status, race and Hispanic origin, and
 

age: United States, 2006–2008......................................................................... 12 
 

D.	 Percentage of women whose partners used the condom or withdrawal as most effective method or any use:
 

United States, 2006–2008............................................................................. 13 
 

E.	 Among women who did not use contraception before a recent unintended birth, percentage and standard error
 

citing each reason for not using contraception: United States, 2006–2008 ...................................... 14 
 

F.	 Percentage of married couples using each method in selected countries with total fertility rates lower than in the
 

United States....................................................................................... 15 
 

Detailed Tables

1.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years who have ever had sexual intercourse and percentage who have ever used the
 

specified contraceptive method: United States, 1982, 1995, 2002, and 2006–2008 ............................... 18 
 

2.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years who have ever had sexual intercourse and percentage who have ever used the
 

specified contraceptive method, by race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2006–2008 .......................... 19 
 

3.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years whose first premarital sexual intercourse was after menarche, and percentage
 

who used the specified contraceptive method at first intercourse, by selected characteristics: United States,
 

2006–2008......................................................................................... 20 
 

4.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years and percent distribution by current contraceptive status and method:
 

United States, 1982–2008............................................................................. 21 
 

5.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years and percent distribution by current contraceptive status and method, according
 

to age at interview: United States, 2006–2008 ............................................................ 22 
 

6.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years and percent distribution by current contraceptive status and specific method,
 

according to race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2006–2008 ............................................ 23 
 

7.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years and percent distribution by current contraceptive status and specific method,
 

according to marital and cohabitation status: United States, 2006–2008........................................ 24 
 

8.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years, number at risk of unintended pregnancy, and percentage of women currently
 

using a method of contraception, by selected characteristics: United States, 2006–2008........................... 25 
 

9.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years currently using contraception, and percent distribution by current contraceptive
 

method: United States, 1982–2008 ..................................................................... 26 
 

10.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years who are currently using a method of contraception and percent distribution by
 

method, according to selected characteristics: United States, 2002 and 2006–2008............................... 27 
 

11.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years who are currently using a method of contraception and percent distribution by
 

method, according to selected characteristics: United States, 2002 and 2006–2008............................... 28 
 

12.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years, percentage currently using contraception, and percentage who used each of
 

the specified contraceptive methods in the month of interview, according to current marital status: United States,
 

2006–2008......................................................................................... 29 
 

13.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years, percentage currently using contraception, and percentage who used the
 

specified contraceptive method in month of interview, according to Hispanic origin and race: United States,
 

2006–2008......................................................................................... 30 
 

14.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years, percentage currently using contraception, and percentage who used the
 

specified contraceptive method in month of interview, according to age at interview: United States, 2006–2008....... 31 
 

iv
15.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years who ever used a selected method of contraception, percentage who
 

discontinued that method due to dissatisfaction and the reasons for discontinuation, and use and discontinuation of
 

the pill by Hispanic origin and race: United States, 2006–2008 .............................................. 32 
 

Appendix Tables

I.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years who are currently using a method of contraception and percent distribution
 

by method, according to selected characteristics: United States, 2002 and 2006–2008 ............................ 34 
 

II.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years who are currently using a method of contraception and percent distribution
 

by method, according to selected characteristics: United States, 2002 and 2006–2008 ............................ 35 
 

III.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years, percentage currently using contraception, and percentage who used each of
 

the specified contraceptive methods in the month of interview, according to current marital status: United States,
 

2006–2008......................................................................................... 36 
 

IV.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years, percentage currently using contraception, and percentage who used the
 

specified contraceptive method in the month of interview, according to Hispanic origin and race: United States,
 

2006–2008......................................................................................... 36 
 

V.	 Number of women aged 15–44 years, percentage currently using contraception, and percentage who used the
 

specified contraceptive method in month of interview, according to age at interview: United States, 2006–2008....... 37 
 

v
Acknowledgments
 

The 2006–2008 National Survey of

Family Growth (NSFG) was conducted

by the National Center for Health

Statistics (NCHS) with the support and

assistance of a number of other

organizations and individuals.

Interviewing and other tasks were

carried out by the University of

Michigan’s Institute for Social Research,

under a contract with NCHS. The

2006–2008 NSFG was jointly planned

and funded by the following programs

and agencies of the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services:

+	 The Eunice Kennedy Shriver

National Institute of Child Health

and Human Development

+	 The Office of Population Affairs

+	 The Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention’s (CDC) National Center

for Health Statistics

+	 The CDC’s Division of HIV/AIDS

Prevention

+	 The CDC’s Division of Sexually

Transmitted Disease Prevention

+	 The CDC’s Division of

Reproductive Health

+	 The Children’s Bureau of the

Administration for Children and

Families

+	 The 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 NSFG.

This report was prepared under the

general direction of Stephanie J.

Ventura, Chief, Reproductive Statistics

Branch, DVS, and Charles J. Rothwell,

Director, Division of Vital Statistics

(DVS). The authors gratefully

acknowledge the contributions of

Dr. Joyce Abma and Dr. Anjani

Chandra, NCHS, for their tireless work

to specify and manage the sections of

the NSFG female questionnaire and the

variables on which this report is based.

Julia Holmes, DVS’ Associate Director

for Science and Jennifer Madans,

NCHS’ Associate Director for Science,

provided helpful comments.

Vanetta Harrington, CDC/NIOSH/

DSHEFS, reviewed the text and

statistical tables. This report was edited

by Gail V. Johnson, CDC/NCHM,

Division of Creative Services,

Writer-Editor Services Branch.

Typesetting was done by Zung T. Le

and the graphics were produced by

Odell Eldridge (contractor), NCHS/OD,

Office of Information Services,

Information Design and Publishing

Branch.

vi
Use of Contraception in the

United States: 1982–2008

by William D. Mosher, Ph.D., and Jo Jones, Ph.D., Division of Vital

Statistics

Objective

This report presents national

estimates of contraceptive use and

method choice based on the 1982,

1995, 2002, and 2006–2008 National

Surveys of Family Growth (NSFG).

Methods

Data for 2006–2008 were collected

through in-person interviews with

13,495 men and women 15–44 years of

age in the household population of the

United States. This report is based on

the sample of 7,356 women interviewed

in 2006–2008. The response rate for

women in the 2006–2008 survey was

about 76%.

Results

More than 99% of women 15–44

years of age who have ever had sexual

intercourse with a male (referred to as

‘‘sexually experienced women’’) have

used at least one contraceptive

method. The percentage of women who

have ever used emergency

contraception, the contraceptive patch,

and the contraceptive ring increased

between 2002 and 2006–2008.

Looking at contraceptive use in the

month of interview, or current use, the

leading method of contraception in the

United States during 2006–2008 was

the oral contraceptive pill, used by 10.7

million women; the second leading

method was female sterilization, used

by 10.3 million women.

While contraceptive use is virtually

universal in the United States, women

with different characteristics make

different choices of methods—for

example, college educated women are

much more likely to use the pill and

less likely to use female sterilization

than less educated women. Age, parity,

marital status, and income are also

closely related to the choice of method.

These method choices are related to

the risk of unintended pregnancy in

these groups.

Keywords: Contraceptive use c birth

control c pill c National Survey of

Family Growth

Introduction

For decades, the principal task of

the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC), National Center for

Health Statistics (NCHS), Division of

Vital Statistics (DVS), has been to

collect and publish the birth and death

statistics for the United States, as

required by Section 306 of the Public

Health Service Act. Producing and

disseminating these data helps to

document population change in the

United States, and provides national and

state data on infant and maternal

mortality, prenatal care, birthweight, and

other important health outcomes.

In 1955 and 1960, nationally

representative surveys of married

women were conducted by private

organizations, in part to understand

factors behind the baby boom (1). These

studies yielded important insights, and

were followed by two more surveys of

married women in 1965 and 1970, done

by university researchers with federal

funding (1,2). By this time, NCHS and

others recognized the need for NCHS to

conduct a larger national survey on a

regular basis to collect data on factors

related to trends and group differences

in birth and pregnancy

rates (1–4).

In response to this need, the

National Survey of Family Growth

(NSFG) was conducted by NCHS in

1973, 1976, 1982, 1988, 1995, 2002,

and most recently, in 2006–2008. The

survey collects data on factors related to

birth and pregnancy rates—as well as

factors affecting the occurrence of

intercourse (including marriage,

cohabitation, and sexual activity); and

factors affecting the likelihood that

intercourse results in pregnancy and

birth (including contraception, infertility,

and the occurrence of miscarriage and

stillbirth). In addition, a wide variety of

social, demographic, and economic

characteristics are collected (1,5,6).

Data from the National Vital

Statistics System published by NCHS

show that about 4 million births occur

in the United States each year (7). About

40% of the births in the United States in

recent years are to unmarried women.

Hispanic and black women have higher

birth rates and higher percentages of

births to unmarried mothers than

non-Hispanic white women (7,8). In

addition to the 4 million births, about 1

million miscarriages and stillbirths occur

in the United States each year, and

about 1.2 million abortions are

performed (5,6).

Hispanic and black women have

higher birth and pregnancy rates,

especially under age 25, than

non-Hispanic white women (5,6). For

example, in 2005 the pregnancy rate for

women aged 15–44 was 84 pregnancies

per 1,000 non-Hispanic white women,

146 for Hispanic women (74% higher

than the rate for white women), and 139

for black women (65% higher than the

rate for white women) (6). The data in

this report may yield insights into some

of the factors explaining these

differences.

The overall pregnancy rate for

women 15–44 years of age in recent

years is about 100 pregnancies per 1,000

women 15–44 per year (9). In other

words, about 10% of women of

reproductive age get pregnant in any

one year. While about one-half of

pregnancies are intended, the other half

are unintended, which means that the

unintended pregnancy rate is about 50

Page 1
Page 2 [ Series 23, No. 29

unintended pregnancies per 1,000

women per year. Recent analysis shows

that the unintended pregnancy rate

varied from 35 per 1,000 white women

to 98 per 1,000 black women and 78 per

1,000 Hispanic women per year (9).

Variations in the unintended pregnancy

rate by education were equally wide,

ranging from 26 per 1,000 for college

graduates to 76 per 1,000 for women

who did not complete high school (9).

Patterns of contraceptive use are closely

related to these variations in unintended

pregnancy rates, and patterns of

contraceptive use may be understood as

both a reaction to these rates of

unintended pregnancy, and as a factor

that helps to explain these differences.

The economic and public health

significance of contraception has long

been recognized. CDC published a list

of ‘‘10 great public health achievements

in the 20th century’’ in 1999, and

included family planning as one of those

achievements, noting that:

. . . smaller families and longer birth

intervals have contributed to the

better health of infants, children,

and women, and have improved the

social and economic role of

women (10).

In addition to pregnancy prevention,

the transmission of sexually transmitted

infections, including HIV, is reduced by

the use of the male condom. People who

are unmarried and those with more than

one partner may more frequently use

condoms to protect themselves from

these infections (11, Table 61). Public

health program planners may use data

about trends in condom use to tailor

their programs to those at higher risk of

these infections.

Researchers have also shown that

effective contraceptive use reduces

medical costs associated with

unintended pregnancy and birth, and

prevents the health, social, and

economic costs of adverse outcomes for

mothers and infants of unintended

births, including teenagers and

unmarried mothers (12–14). The most

effective methods of contraception

require visits to a doctor, so use of

contraception is also connected with use

of health care (15,16). Use of medical

care for birth control and related

services will be the subject of a future

report.

Because of the importance of

contraceptive use in understanding

birth rates, population change, and

reproductive and infant health in the

United States, NCHS has published

data over several decades documenting

trends in contraceptive use and its

variations among subgroups of the

population (15–18).

To update previous NCHS reports

on contraceptive use patterns and to

address the concerns discussed

previously, this report shows the first

results from the 2006–2008 NSFG on

several aspects of contraceptive use:

+	 The method (if any) that was used

at first premarital sexual intercourse.

+	 The methods women have ever used

at some time in their lives.

+	 Whether a method of contraception

was being used at the date of

interview (current use).

+	 Whether those using contraception

were using one method or more than

one method.

+	 Reasons why women stopped using

particular contraceptive methods.

+	 Reasons for nonuse of contraception

by women who did not use

contraception before a recent

unintended pregnancy.

This report shows trends since 1982

in several of these measures of

contraceptive use, as well as differences

among groups by age, race, education,

and other characteristics.

Source of the Data

This report is based on the NSFG.

The NSFG is designed to collect data

from a national sample on factors

affecting the formation, growth, and

dissolution of families—including

marriage, divorce, and cohabitation;

contraception, sterilization, and

infertility; pregnancy outcomes; and

births (1,5,6). The survey supplements

and complements the data from the

NCHS birth registration system by

providing data that help to understand

trends and group differences in birth and

pregnancy rates. The NSFG is jointly

planned and funded by NCHS and

several other programs of the U.S.

Department of Health and Human

Services (see ‘‘Acknowledgments’’).

This report is based on 7,356

interviews with women 15–44 years of

age, conducted from about July 1, 2006,

through December 2008, and from

comparable samples of women

interviewed in 1982, 1995, and 2002.

(In 1982, 7,969 women were

interviewed; in 1995, 10,847 women

were interviewed; and in 2002, 7,643

women were interviewed, along with

4,928 men.) The time trend in this

report covers the period beginning in

1982, when highly comparable NSFG

data on contraceptive use were available

for all women regardless of marital

status. This report only includes

contraceptive use reported by women

during heterosexual intercourse—

intercourse that carries a risk of

pregnancy. Contraceptive use (to prevent

sexually transmitted infections) during

other forms of sexual activity is outside

the scope of the present report. Data on

contraceptive use as reported by men

were first collected in 2002 and reported

in 2006 (19).

Interviewing and data processing for

the 2006–2008 NSFG were conducted

by the University of Michigan’s Institute

for Social Research, under a contract

with NCHS. In-person interviews were

conducted by trained professional

female interviewers in the homes of a

national sample of households.

Interviewers entered respondents’

answers directly into laptop computers.

Interviews for women averaged about

80 minutes in length.

The interview was voluntary;

participants were provided information

about the survey before being asked for

signed informed consent. The survey

was reviewed and approved by the

NCHS and University of Michigan

Institutional Review Boards. The overall

response rate was 75%; the response

rate for women was 76%. To protect the

respondent’s privacy, only one person

was interviewed in each selected

household. The interview administered

to women collected information on her

births and pregnancies, marriages and
Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 3

cohabitations, sterilization operations,

contraceptive use, infertility, use of

medical care related to birth control,

infertility, prenatal care, and social and

demographic characteristics.

The continuous NSFG is based on a

new design and fieldwork plan in which

interviewing is intended to be

continuous. The sample is a nationally

representative multistage area

probability sample drawn from 85 areas

across the country. The sample is

designed to produce national, not state,

estimates. Although the sample design is

new, the interviewing procedures are

very similar to those used in previous,

periodic surveys. Further details about

how the survey was conducted were

published in a report in September

2009 (1). Additional information on the

methods and procedures of the survey is

contained in another report (20).

Strengths and

Limitations of the

Data

The data in this report have several

strengths:

+	 First, the data are drawn from

interviews with large national

samples that were interviewed in

comparable ways in 1982, 1995,

2002, and 2006–2008. The NSFG

also has variables that allow us to

describe trends by such characteristics as the woman’s age, race,

education, marital and cohabitation

status, and her household’s income.

+	 Second, the data from each survey

were processed and coded in ways

to make them as comparable as

possible so that trends could be

measured reliably.

+	 Third, the interviews in each cycle

of the NSFG were conducted in

person by female interviewers who

received thorough training on the

survey.

+	 Fourth, the response rates for

women in the survey were about

80% in 1982, 1995, and 2002, and

76% in 2006–2008.

+	 Fifth, the survey collected a rich

array of data on contraceptive use,

including use of contraception at

first intercourse after menarche,

current use of contraception, current

use of dual or back-up methods, and

use of specific contraceptives at any

time in the woman’s life (‘‘everuse’’). All of those measures are

used here to give a more complete

picture of contraceptive use in the

United States.

The present report has the following

limitations:

+	 First, the report is intended to

present some basic statistical facts

on trends in contraceptive use and

method choice in the United States

in the last two and a half decades as

well as to note differences among

some important demographic groups.

The report is not intended to be an

exhaustive treatment of this very

complex subject. It presents

descriptive statistics, and it does not

attempt to demonstrate cause-andeffect relationships.

+	 Second, this report presents an

overview of contraception across

the ages in which 99.8% of births

occur (under 45 years of age) (7).

This report includes summary data

on contraceptive use for teens, but

a separate report will present a

more detailed look at contraceptive

use and sexual activity among

teens.

+	 Third, this report does not present

data on contraceptive use for

individual states because the NSFG

is designed to provide national, not

state, data. The NSFG sample would

have to be much larger than it is to

provide reliable estimates for

individual states.

As in any survey, a certain degree

of nonsampling error may have occurred

in the NSFG—including possible errors

of memory, possible misunderstanding

of what is being asked, and possible

reluctance to report the information

being asked for. As noted previously,

however, extensive efforts to minimize

such error were made in the design and

conduct of the survey. In addition,

extensive consistency checking, both

during the interview and after the data

were received from the interviewer, was

implemented to detect such errors, and

correct them when possible (1,20).

Measurement of

Contraceptive Use

The scope of this report is limited

to contraceptive use (as reported by

women) during heterosexual vaginal

intercourse. Measuring contraceptive use

during heterosexual intercourse is one of

the central goals of the NSFG because it

is a very important factor affecting birth

and pregnancy rates and family

formation. The NSFG questionnaire for

women begins with some questions on

demographic background characteristics,

and then asks detailed questions on any

pregnancies, births, marriages, or

cohabitations the woman has had. The

questions on contraception are next, and

include:

+	 Whether she has ever used each of

22 methods of contraception at any

time in her life (Tables 1 and 2).

+	 Whether she or her partner used any

of these methods the first time she

had intercourse after menarche with

a male (Table 3).

+	 What method or methods she is

using currently (Tables 4–14).

+	 Whether she has stopped using a

method because of dissatisfaction

with the method, and what her

reasons were for that dissatisfaction

(Table 15).

+	 For women who did not use

contraception before a recent

unintended pregnancy, the reasons

they did not use a method

(Table E).

The specific contraceptive methods

discussed here are defined and described

in many other sources, including some

for health care professionals (21,22) and

others for patients (23,24).
Page 4 [ Series 23, No. 29

Classifying Women by

Method Use When

They Are Using Two

or More Methods

The principal purpose of the

classification scheme used in

Tables 4–11 is to measure the extent to

which women are protected from

unintended pregnancy by the

contraceptive methods they are using.

Therefore, in Tables 4–11, the 8% of

women who were currently using more

than one method are classified by the

most effective method they reported

using, because the most effective

method has the most influence on their

risk of unintended pregnancy. This

section defines effectiveness and how it

is measured in the NSFG. To take the

most common example, if a woman

reports that she and her partner are

currently using the pill and the condom,

in Tables 4–11, she is classified as a

pill user, because the pill is more

effective—it has a lower failure

rate—than the condom. In Tables 12–14,

both methods are counted.

The ranking of the effectiveness of

methods uses data on failure rates for

each method when used by a national

sample of users. A failure rate is simply

the percentage that has an unintended

pregnancy in the first 12 months of

using the method. Much of this

knowledge is based on analysis of

data from previous cycles of the

NSFG (21,22). This measure is

sometimes called a failure rate during

‘‘typical use,’’ or ‘‘use-effectiveness’’; it

is the best estimate of the likely failure

rate for a national cross-section of users.

‘‘Perfect use,’’ which is often measured

in clinical trials, is the failure rate

obtained when a method is used by a

selected sample of participants who are

instructed to use the method consistently

and correctly; clinical-trial failure rates

are usually lower than failure rates in

representative national samples, because

clinical trial participants usually use the

methods more consistently than national

samples do (21,22). Two recent

sources (21,22) were used to obtain the

typical-use failure rates shown in

Table A, as estimated from previous

cycles of the NSFG.

In Tables 4–11, if a woman reported

that she and her partner had used

injectable contraception and the condom

in the last month, she was classified as

using the injectable, because the

injectable has a lower failure rate (7%)

than the condom (17%). In Tables 12–

14, however, both the injectable use and

the condom use would be recorded. In

both 2002 and 2006–2008, the questions

on contraceptive use asked women

directly about methods used for both

birth control and prevention of sexually

transmitted infections, and use of up to

four methods was recorded.

Statistical Analysis

Statistics for this report were

produced using SAS software, Version

9.2 (http://www.sas.com). Like all

survey data, the data in this report are

affected by sampling errors. This

report shows measures of sampling

error (standard errors) for most of the

2006–2008 statistics presented here.

The sampling errors were produced

with SUDAAN software, which is

designed to compute accurate

sampling error estimates for complex

sample designs like the NSFG

(http://www.rti.org/sudaan). Standard

errors for the data shown in

Tables 10–13 are shown in Appendix

Tables I–IV.

In simple terms, the standard error

is a measure of the variation of a

statistic (such as a percentage) that

occurs because the estimate is based

upon a sample—in this case, because it

is based on a sample of 7,356 women

instead of a complete count of the more

than 61 million women aged 15–44 in

the United States.

The 95% confidence interval is a

commonly used measure of the

sampling error of a statistic. It means

that in 95% of samples of the size and

type used here, the estimated percentage

would fall in that range. In popular

accounts of surveys and polls, it is often

called the ‘‘margin of error’’ of the

survey. The 95% confidence interval of

the percentages shown in this report can

be estimated by multiplying the standard

error by 2 and adding and subtracting it

from the percentage. For example, if a

statistic is 20.0% and the standard error

is 1.5%, then the 95% confidence

interval is 20, plus or minus 3 (1.5

times 2), or a range of 17–23%. In this

example, 95% of samples of that type

and size would produce estimates

between 17% and 23%. The 95%

confidence interval is four times as large

as the standard error (in this example,

23–17 = 6, which is four times as large

as 1.5). When the standard error is

smaller, the estimate is said to be more

‘‘reliable’’ or more stable.

All estimates in this report were

weighted to reflect the female household

population of the United States.

(Women 15–44 years of age living on

military bases or in institutions were

not included in the survey or in this

report.)

Table A. Estimates of 1-year typical-use failure rates for selected contraceptive methods:

United States, most recent available data

Typical use, 95%

failure rate confidence

Contraceptive method (percent) interval Rank

Female sterilization ........................ 
 

Male sterilization.......................... 
 

All methods other than sterilization .............. 
 

Injectable .............................. 
 

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

Male condom............................ 
 

Withdrawal ............................. 
 

Periodic abstinence ........................ 
 

Spermicides ............................ 
 

Less than 1 NA Highest (most effective)

Less than 1 NA

12.4 11.2–13.7

6.7 4.3–10.5

8.7 7.2–10.5

17.4 14.8–20.5

18.4 13.7–24.2

25.3 16.1–37.5

29.0 NA Lowest (least effective)

NA = Standard error is not available.

NOTE: Typical-use failure rate is the percentage having an unintended pregnancy in 12 months of using a contraceptive method.

Further details on the rankings and definions are given in the Definitions of Terms under ‘‘Effectiveness of contraceptive methods.’’

SOURCE: Reference 21, p. 15, and Reference 22, p. 226.
Percentages were compared using

two-tailed t-tests at the 5% level. 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

being compared were not significantly

different. If the difference is significant

at the 10% level but not the 5% level,

the phrase ‘‘the data suggest’’ is used.

Lack of comment regarding the

difference between any two statistics

does not mean that the difference was

tested and found not to be significant.

Looking at tables such as Tables 1,

4, and 9, which contain trend data from

several surveys, readers may notice that

the standard errors for comparable

statistics are somewhat larger in

2006–2008 than they were in the 1995

and 2002 NSFG’s. This issue is

discussed further in the ‘‘Technical

Notes,’’ but it does not pose a problem

in this report or in most analyses of the

2006–2008 NSFG.

Data by race—The classification of

race and Hispanic origin in this report

follows the most recent OMB guidelines

for the reporting of race in the federal

statistical system. These guidelines call

for classifying persons who report one

race separately from those who report

two or more. The 7,356 women in the

2006–2008 NSFG included 1,511

Hispanic women, 3,780 white women,

1,381 black women, and 684 women

reporting another race or more than one

race. The largest subgroup of this

‘‘other’’ group was 269 Asian women.

The ‘‘other’’ group or Asians separately,

are shown in the tables of this report

where sample size is large enough to

compute summary statistics with

adequate reliability.

To enhance readability, the text of

this report uses shortened versions of

the labels for race and origin groups.

For example, the category ‘‘Hispanic or

Latino’’ is usually referred to as

‘‘Hispanic,’’ while ‘‘non-Hispanic black

or African American, single race’’ is

referred to as ‘‘black’’ in the text; and

the category ‘‘non-Hispanic white,

single race’’ is referred to as ‘‘white.’’

Women who are ‘‘non-Hispanic other,

single race’’ or ‘‘non-Hispanic, multiple

race’’ are included in the totals.

See the ‘‘Definitions of Terms’’ for

definitions of other terms used in this

report.

Results

Ever-use of Contraception

Trends in contraceptive use shown

in Table 1 are for women 15–44 years

of age who had had intercourse at least

once (referred to in the text as ‘‘sexually

experienced’’). The percentages shown

are the proportions of sexually

experienced women who reported that

they (or their male partners) have ever

used each method of contraception at

least once, at some time in their lives.

Note that virtually all sexually

experienced women have used some

method of contraception: 98% in 1995

and 2002, and 99% in 2006–2008

(Figure 1). In 2006–2008, about 93%

had ever had a partner use the male

condom; 82% of women had used the

oral contraceptive pill; and 59% had had

a partner who used withdrawal. About 1

in 5 women had used the 3-month

Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 5

injectable or shot, Depo-ProveraTM (22%)

(Table 1).

The percentage of women who had

ever used emergency contraception at

least once increased from 4% in 2002 to

10% in 2006–2008. Similarly, 1% had

used the contraceptive patch in 2002,

compared with 10% in 2006–2008. The

contraceptive ring was first introduced

in the United States in 2002; by

2006–2008, 6% had ever used it. A

number of newer methods had ever been

used by small proportions of women in

2006–2008, including implants (about

1%) and LunelleTM, a 1-month

injectable (2%) (Table 1).

Data on the percentage of women in

2006–2008 who have ever used

particular methods by race and Hispanic

origin are presented in Table 2. Only

56% of Asian women and 68% of

Hispanic or Latina women have ever

used the pill compared with 89% of

white and 78% of black women.

Fourteen percent (14%) of Hispanic

women had ever used an IUD compared

with 6% of white and black women and

3% of Asian women. In contrast,

however, 30% of black women, 26% of

Hispanic women, and 19% of white

women, have ever used the 3-month

injectable contraceptive, Depo-ProveraTM

(Figure 2).

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

1982 2002 2006–2008 

Percent 

SOURCE: Table 1. 

95 

76 

52 

98 

82 

90 

99 

82 

93 

Any Pill Condom 

Figure 1. Percentage of sexually experienced women aged 15–44 years who have ever used

the specified contraceptive method: United States, 1982, 2002, and 2006–2008
Page 6 [ Series 23, No. 29

Contraceptive Use at First

Premarital Intercourse

Table 3 shows the percentage of

women who used (or whose partner

used) a method of contraception at her

first premarital intercourse after

menarche. Use at first premarital

intercourse is important because 94% of

women 15–44 have had premarital

intercourse (25), and first intercourse

after menarche marks the beginning of

exposure to the risk of nonmarital

pregnancy and birth. Teenagers who do

not use a method of birth control at first

intercourse after menarche are about

twice as likely to become teen mothers

as teens who do use a method at first

intercourse after menarche (26).

The first panel of Table 3 shows the

proportion using contraception at first

premarital intercourse by the year that

the first intercourse occurred as a way

to look at trends over the last two

decades. Among women whose first

premarital intercourse occurred before

1985, 56% used a method; that

proportion rose to 76% in 2000–2004

and 84% in 2005–2008 (Figure 3).

Much of this increase was due to an

increase in condom use, from 34%

before 1985 to 72% in 2005–2008.

The second panel of Table 3 shows

the proportion using a method by a

woman’s age at her first premarital

intercourse. The largest difference in this

panel is that 11% of women who had

their first premarital intercourse before

age 16 used the pill at first intercourse

after menarche, compared with 25% of

women whose first intercourse was at

age 20 or older.

About 84% of women whose

mother had a college education used a

method at first premarital intercourse.

Among women whose mothers did not

finish high school, only 53% used a

method at first premarital intercourse.

Most of this difference is in condom use

(68% compared with 37%) (Table 3).

Finally, 76% of non-Hispanic

white women used a method at their

first premarital intercourse compared

with 65% of black women and 52% of

Hispanic women. The lower

percentage of Hispanic women using a

method at their first intercourse after

menarche has been observed for

decades (16,26,27).

The bottom panels of Table 3

present trends in use at first premarital

intercourse for Hispanic, white, and

black women separately, by showing use

when first premarital intercourse

occurred: before the year 2000 for each

group, and then use when first

premarital intercourse occurred in 2000

or later. For women whose first

premarital intercourse occurred before

the year 2000, 73% of white women and

45% of Hispanic women used a method

at first premarital intercourse, a

difference of 28 percentage points. For

women whose first premarital sex

occurred in 2000 or later, 85% of white

women and 64% of Hispanic women

used a method, a difference of

Hispanic Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 100 

89

80 78 

68

60

Percent 

40 

30 

26 

19 20 

0 

Pill Depo-ProveraTM 

SOURCE: Table 2. 

Figure 2. Percentage of sexually experienced women aged 15–44 years who have ever used

the specified contraceptive method, by race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2006–2008

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 Used contraception Used condom 

Percent 

56

66

70

73 76

84

Before 1985 1985–1989 1990–1994 

Year of first intercourse 

1995–1999 2000–2004 2005–2008 

SOURCE: Table 3. 

Figure 3. Percentage of women aged 15–44 years who used a method of contraception at

their first premarital intercourse: United States, 2006–2008
Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 7

21 percentage points. These figures

suggest that the difference, although still

large, appears to be narrowing somewhat

in recent years.

Current Contraceptive Use

Table 4 shows a third measure of

contraceptive use: ‘‘current’’ use,

meaning use during the month of

interview, in 2006–2008. This measure,

published many times before from

previous cycles of the NSFG

(15–18,28), shows the percentage of

women aged 15–44 in each of several

categories:

+	 First, women are classified by

whether they were using a method,

or not using a method in the month

of interview. In 2006–2008, about

62% of these 62 million women

were currently using a method of

contraception, including male

methods such as vasectomy,

condom, and withdrawal (Table 4

and Figure 4).

+	 Those who were currently using a

method (‘‘contraceptors’’) are shown

by the method they are using. In

Tables 4–11, those using more than

one method are classified by the

most effective method they are

using. (See ‘‘Classifying women by

method use when they are using two

or more methods’’.)

+	 Those who are not using a method

in the month they were interviewed

in 2006–2008 (38% as shown in

Table 4 and Figure 4) were classified

by the main reason they were not

using contraception, including:

Á 5.4% were currently pregnant or

postpartum.

Á 4.1% were trying to become

pregnant.

Á 19.2% had never had intercourse,

or had not had intercourse in the

last 3 months.

Á 0.4% were sterile from surgery

(most commonly, hysterectomy).

Á 1.7% were sterile for nonsurgical reasons.

In the following statistics, all of

these groups of nonusers of contraception are classified as not ‘‘at risk of

unintended pregnancy.’’

The remaining 7.3% (about 4.5

million women) have had intercourse in

the last 3 months but were not currently

using contraception. These women may

be the most at risk of unintended

pregnancy. This proportion was about

the same in 2002 and 2006–2008.

Among the 62% of women who

were using a method of contraception in

2006–2008, the leading methods

currently used were:

+	 The oral contraceptive pill, used by

17.3%, or 10.7 million women.

+	 Female sterilization, used by 16.7%,

or 10.3 million women.

+	 Male sterilization (vasectomy), used

by the partners of 6.1%, or 3.7

million women.

Estimates of use of the male condom

are discussed in the following text.

Current use by age, race and

Hispanic origin, and marital

status

Tables 5–7 show the percentage of

all 62 million women by their ‘‘current

contraceptive status’’—using the same

categories as in Table 4, for categories

of age, race and Hispanic origin, and

marital status.

The percentage using contraception

varies by age (Table 5). At age 15–19,

only 28% were currently using

contraception, because many have not

had intercourse ever, or in the last 3

months. At age 20–24, the proportion

using contraception rose to 55% and

from 25–44, it was between 64% and

78%.

The leading methods change with

age (Table 5). Among women under 30,

a higher percentage of women used the

pill than any other method. (For

example, at age 20–24, 26% were using

the pill, much higher than the percent

using any other method.) At ages 30–44,

the leading method was female

sterilization. These patterns are

comparable to findings in previous

cycles of the NSFG.

The data on current contraceptive

use for Hispanic or Latina women,

non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black

or African American, and other women

are shown in Table 6. Asian women are

shown in the table but not emphasized

in the text because their smaller sample

size makes their statistics subject to

more sampling variation than the other

groups. The three largest groups—

Hispanic, white, and black—differ in the

use of the pill and male and female

sterilization. The proportion using

female sterilization was 22% for black

women, 20% for Hispanic women, and

15% for white women (Figure 5). Male

Female 

sterilization 

17% 

Pill 

17% 

Condom 

All other 10%

methods 

18% 

Not using 

38% 

NOTE: See Table 4 for more detail. 

Figure 4. Percent distribution of women aged 15–44 years, by current contraceptive status:

United States, 2006–2008
20 

2 

11 

15 

8 

21 

22 

1 

11 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Female sterilization Male sterilization Pill 

Hispanic Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black 

Percent 

SOURCE: Table 6. 

Figure 5. Percentage of women aged 15–44 years using selected contraceptive methods, by

race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2006–2008

Page 8 [ Series 23, No. 29

sterilization was used by 8% of the male

partners of white women, but it was

used by only 3% of the partners of

Hispanic women and 1% of the partners

of black women.

Note that the sum of the proportion

using male sterilization or female

sterilization was 23% for each of these

three groups of women. Thus, the

proportion of all three groups using

sterilization was the same, but they

differed in whether they used male or

female sterilization.

These groups also differed in use of

the pill: 21% of white women used the

pill compared with 11% of Hispanic and

black women. Asian women differed

most from other women in their reliance

on their partners to use condoms: about

9% of white, black, and Hispanic

women relied on a male partner to use

the condom compared with 26% of

Asian women.

Table 7 shows the data by marital

and cohabitation status:

+	 Legally married.

+	 Not married but currently cohabiting

(living in a sexual relationship) with

a man.

+	 Formerly married (divorced,

separated, or widowed) and not

cohabiting.

+	 Never-married and not cohabitating.

These groups vary in characteristics

that affect contraceptive use, such as

their age and the number of children

they have had. Based on the 2006–2008

NSFG, married women aged 15–44

were 34 years of age on average at the

date of the interview, and formerly

married women were 36 years of age.

Cohabiting women averaged 29 years of

age and never married women only 23

years of age. About 80% of never

married women had never had a child

compared with 20% of currently married

women (Table B).

The percentage using contraception

varies between never married women

and the other marital status groups

because 46% of never married women

have not had intercourse recently (or

ever), while the other groups have much

smaller proportions who have not had

intercourse in the last 3 months

(Table 7). It is sometimes desirable to

determine the percentage of all women

who are using particular contraceptive

methods, as in Table 7. For example,

18% of never married women, 23% of

cohabiting women, and 16% of

married women, were using the pill

in 2006–2008.

Percentage Using A Method

Among Those at Risk of

Unintended Pregnancy

Table 8 shows the percentage of

women using any method of

contraception by various characteristics.

While it does not show the detailed

categories for nonuse that were shown

in Tables 4–7, it does show the

percentage using (and not using)

contraception by more characteristics of

the women (for example, education and

income). About 62% of all women

15–44 were using contraception in

2006–2008. The proportion is

significantly lower for four groups,

which are shown in Table 8: teenagers

15–19 years of age, 28%; never married,

noncohabiting women (some of whom

are teens), 39%; childless (parity 0)

women, 44%; and women who intend to

have (more) children in the future, 47%.

Since different percentages of these

groups have had intercourse recently (or

ever), it is often useful, especially when

comparing contraceptive use patterns

among groups that may differ by marital

status or age, to describe the proportion

of women using contraception as a

percentage of those at risk of unintended

pregnancy. One definition of that

percentage is shown in Table 8 and

discussed in the following text. An

alternative definition is described in the

‘‘Definitions of Terms.’’

As defined in this report

(Tables 4–8), at risk of unintended

pregnancy includes all women who are

not using contraception but who had had

intercourse in the last 3 months, plus

those who are having intercourse and

are using contraception. Those using

Table B. Average age and percentage childless by marital status: United States, 2006–2008

Marital

status

Average

age

Percent

childless

Currently married .........................

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

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

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

34

29

36

23

18.8

35.0

16.5

81.2
contraception are ‘‘at risk of unintended

pregnancy’’ because there is a risk that

their use of the method could fail and

result in unintended pregnancy. Women

who are ‘‘not at risk’’ are excluded from

the denominator. Women are categorized

as ‘‘not at risk’’ if

+	 They were currently pregnant.

+	 Trying to get pregnant.

+	 Sterile for health reasons.

+	 Had never had intercourse.

+	 Had not had intercourse in the last 3

months.

Note that these categories are

shown in Tables 4–7 and that all

contraceptive methods, including male

and female sterilization, are included as

‘‘at risk and using a method’’ in this

classification. For further details on this

classification, and an alternative

definition, see ‘‘At risk of unintended

pregnancy’’ under ‘‘Definitions of

Terms’’).

Table 8 shows the percentage of all

women and the percentage of women at

risk of unintended pregnancy who were

using (and for women at risk, not using)

a contraceptive method in the month of

interview. The percentage of all women

using a method was 62%; the

percentage of those at risk using a

method was 89%. While 28% of all

teenagers were using contraception at

the date of interview, 81% of teens at

risk were using contraception. Looking

at childless (parity 0) women, 44% of

all childless women were using

contraception, but 86% of childless

women at risk of unintended pregnancy

were using a method.

Still, that means that 14% of

childless women who do not want to

have children right away and 19% of

teens who do not want children right

away were not using contraception.

Further, there are differences among

subgroups by Hispanic origin and race.

The percentage of black women at risk

of unintended pregnancy who were

using contraception was 84% compared

with 91% of Hispanic and white women

and 92% of Asian women.

Stated another way, 16% of black

women, and about 9% of Hispanic,

white, and Asian women at risk of

unintended pregnancy were not using

contraception in 2006–2008 (Table 8 and

Figure 6). This fact may be related to

the higher rates of unintended pregnancy

among black women compared with

non-Hispanic white women (9).

Contraceptors: Trends in

Contraceptive Use

Tables 9–13 show similar data as in

Tables 4–7, with a different

denominator. Tables 4–7 show the

percent of all 62 million women 15–44

in 2006–2008 who were using particular

contraceptive methods, while

Tables 9–13 show the distribution by

method of the 38 million women using

any method of contraception. They are

referred to as tables of ‘‘contraceptors.’’

These tables answer the question: ‘‘Of

those who are using contraception, what

percent are using each method?’’

Of the 38.2 million women using a

method in 2006–2008, about 27% were

using female sterilization, a proportion

that has been stable since 1995. The pill

accounts for about 28% of contraceptive

users; this is also similar to the proportions found in 1982, 1995, and 2002.

But there have been some changes

over the last two and a half decades. In

1982, 8% of U.S. contraceptors were

using the diaphragm, but by 2006–2008,

use of the diaphragm had virtually

Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 9

disappeared (the NSFG estimate is

indistinguishable from zero). In 1982,

7% of contraceptors were using IUD’s;

that figure dropped to 1% in 1995 and

2% in 2002, but by 2006–2008, 5.5% of

contraceptors (2.1 million women) were

currently using IUDs.

Table 10 shows the percentage

distribution of current contraceptive

users by several characteristics that give

some insight into the factors that affect

contraceptive choice. The data are

shown for both 2002 and 2006–2008 to

measure recent trends. (Standard errors

for Table 10 are shown in Appendix

Table I.)

+	 The proportion of contraceptors

choosing female sterilization

increases with age to 50% of

contraceptors at age 40–44 years.

This occurred in both 2002 and

2006–2008 (Table 10 and Figure 7).

+	 Use of the pill declines as age

increases: 54% of contraceptors

under 20 years were currently using

the pill compared with 11% at age

40–44 (Figure 8).

+	 Among currently and formerly

married women, the leading method

was female sterilization; among

cohabiting and never married

women, the leading method was the

pill.

NOTE: “At risk of unintended pregnancy” is defined in Table 8 and in the text. 

SOURCE: Table 8. 

9 9 

16 

9 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

Hispanic Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black Asian 

Percent 

Figure 6. Percentage of women aged 15–44 years at risk of unintended pregnancy who

were not using contraception, by Hispanic origin and race: United States, 2006–2008
60
 

50
 

40
 

50	 

38 

29 30 

20 

15 

10 

2 

* 0	 

15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 

Age at interview 

Percent 

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision. 

NOTE: See Table 10 for more detail. 

Figure 7. Percentage of contraceptors aged 15–44 years using female sterilization, by age:

United States, 2006–2008

Page 10 [ Series 23, No. 29

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 

Age at interview 

Percent 

NOTE: See Table 10 for more detail. 

54 

48 

35 

25 

19 

11 

Figure 8. Percentage of contraceptors aged 15–44 years using the pill, by age:

United States, 2006–2008

+ Among contraceptors with no births,

55% were using the pill compared

with just 8% of those with three or

more births. Among women with

three or more children, 59% were

using female sterilization (Figure 9).

+	 The proportion of contraceptors

using the IUD increased from 2% in

2002 to 8% in 2006–2008 among

women with one child, and from 3%

to 11% among women with two

children (see data by ‘‘parity’’ in

Table 10). Smaller increases in IUD

use appear to have occurred among

currently married, cohabiting, and

never married women (Table 10).

Table 11 shows contraceptive users

by four additional characteristics of the

woman: her education, her household’s

income, whether she intends to have any

more births, and her race and Hispanic

origin. The data are shown in both 2002

and in 2006–2008, to measure trends

within these groups, and to see if the

differences between groups have

changed. (Standard errors for Table 11

are shown in Appendix Table II.)

+	 Less-educated women aged 22–44

years were much more likely to rely

on female sterilization than those

with more education. In 2006–2008,

55% of women who had not

finished high school were using

female sterilization compared with

only 16% of those who had

graduated from college (Figure 10

and Table 11). Findings were similar

in 2002.

+ Use of the pill, in contrast, increased

as education increased, from 10% in

the lowest education group to 35%

of college graduates (Figure 11).

+	 Women who intend to have children

(or more children) in the future are

using contraception to space or

delay their next birth. Nearly

one-half of these women (48%)

were using the pill in 2006–2008

and 27% were using the condom.

+	 In contrast, women who do not

intend to have more children rely

primarily on female sterilization

(44%). An additional 16% rely on

male sterilization and 16% on the

pill.

+	 Non-Hispanic white women were

less likely to rely on female

sterilization, and more likely to rely

on male sterilization or the pill

compared with Hispanic and black

women. This pattern was also found

in 1995 and 2002 (15,16).

+	 IUD use appears to have increased

from 2% to 6–7% among the top

two education groups and in the top

two income groups (Table 11). For

example, among contraceptors with

a bachelor’s degree or higher, the

proportion using the IUD increased

from 2% to 6% from 2002 to

2006–2008. The proportion using

the IUD increased from 1.5% to

5.9% among women with household

incomes of 300% of the poverty

level or higher (about $60,000 for a

family of four).
Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 11

Use of More Than One

Contraceptive Method:

Dual and Multiple Use

Most women report using at most

only one contraceptive method in any

given month, but for the 8% of all

women who were using two or more

methods in the month of interview,

Tables 4–11 present only the most

effective method they were using. In the

2006–2008 NSFG (as in the 1995 and

2002 surveys), up to four methods of

contraception were collected and coded

for the month of interview and for each

month in the preceding 3–4 years. It

was therefore possible to measure the

total percentage of women who were

using a given method of contraception

in these months, even if they were also

using another method in that month.

When multiple contraceptives are used

in the same month, it may occur for any

of a number of reasons, such as:

+	 Two methods are used at the same

act of intercourse; for example, the

oral contraceptive pill and the male

condom may be used at the same

act of intercourse—the pill to

prevent pregnancy and the condom

to prevent sexually transmitted

infections.

+	 One is used as a substitute for another

method when the other method is not

available. For example, withdrawal

may be used as a substitute when the

condom is not available.

+	 When one method is used with one

partner and a second method is used

with another partner.

Thus, Tables 4–11, discussed

previously, show one method per

woman because most contraceptive

users only use one method at a time,

and because the principal goal of that

measure was to determine how well

women were protected from unplanned

pregnancy. In recent years, however,

questions have been included in the

NSFG that have made it possible to

measure dual or multiple use. This was

done in part because it has become

important to measure how well

protected women and men are from HIV

and other sexually transmitted infections

as well as unplanned pregnancies. And as

shown in the following text, one important

question that can be answered with these

data is, ‘‘How many women’s male

partners are currently using the condom?’’

The extent of use of more than one

current method can be measured directly

by tabulating the percentage of women

who used more than one method in the

month of interview (Table C).

Thus, as a share of all women, the

proportion using two or more methods

of contraception in the month of

interview was 8% overall and ranged

from about 5–11% in the subgroups in

Table C. As a share of contraceptors

(women using some method of

contraception), about 14% were using

more than one method. The proportion

Parity 

SOURCE: See Table 10. 

2 

13 

35 

59 

55 

30 

14 

8 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

No births 1 birth 2 births 3 or more births 

Female sterilization Pill 

Percent 

Figure 9. Percentage of contraceptors aged 15–44 years who were using female

sterilization and the pill, by parity: United States, 2006–2008

Figure 10. Percentage of contraceptors aged 22–44 years who were using female

sterilization, by education: United States, 2006–2008

60 

55 

50 

43 

40 

30 27 

Percent 

20 

16 

10 

0 

Not high school High school graduate Some college College graduate 

graduate 

Education at interview 

SOURCE: Table 11. 
Page 12 [ Series 23, No. 29

Education at interview 

Percent 

SOURCE: Table 11. 

Not high school 

graduate 

High school graduate Some college College graduate 

10 

18 

23 

35 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

Figure 11. Percentage of contraceptors aged 22–44 years using the pill, by education:

United States, 2006–2008

Table C. Percentage of women using more than one contraceptive method, by marital

status, race and Hispanic origin, and age: United States, 2006–2008

Percent of Percent of

all women1 contraceptors2

using using

more than more than

Selected characteristic one method one method

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

Marital status

Currently married ......................... 
 

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

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

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

Hispanic origin and race

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

Non-Hispanic white, single race ................ 
 

Non-Hispanic black, single race ................ 
 

Age

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

25–34 years ............................ 
 

35–44 years ............................ 
 

1Denominator includes current contraceptors and noncontraceptors.

2Denominator only includes current contraceptors.

8.4 13.5

8.0 10.1

8.0 20.2

8.7 13.4

11.5 16.0

5.2 8.8

9.2 14.2

8.9 15.6

8.3 20.1

10.7 15.9

6.5 8.2

of contraceptors using more than one

method was greatest for never married

women, black and white women, and

15–34-year-olds. The male condom is

the most commonly used second method

and is often used to protect the couple

from sexually transmitted infections.

Table 12 shows data on use of each

method by marital status; Table 13 by

Hispanic origin and race; and Table 14

by age. (Standard errors for Tables 12,

13, and 14 are shown in Appendix

Tables III, IV, and V, respectively.)

Looking at the percentages in Table 12,

for most methods of contraception, the

figures are virtually identical regardless

of whether the percentages are in the

‘‘most effective method’’ or the ‘‘any use’’

column. However, there are at least two

noticeable differences, as shown in

Table D.

The current contraceptive status

code used in Tables 4–8, which shows

one method per woman, gives a

virtually complete count of current

method use for nearly all methods,

except two male methods: the (male)

condom, which increased from 6.2 to

8.6 million users, or by 2.4 million,

when dual or multiple use is accounted

for, and withdrawal, which increased

from 2.0 to 3.8 million users, when

multiple use is accounted for. Thus, the

number of current condom users in the

United States in 2006–2008 was about

6.2 million using the condom as their

most effective (and usually primary)

method, but the total number of women

whose partner used a condom was about

8.6 million (Table D). Figure 12 and the

following data show that accounting for

dual or multiple use increases the

proportions of women whose partners

were using the male condom or

withdrawal, particularly for the unmarried.

These findings are useful for future

studies of contraceptive use, pregnancy

rates, and contraceptive failure rates. For

example, if withdrawal is used as a

back-up method when a more reliable

method is not available, unintended

pregnancy may be more likely to result

than if the primary method (e.g., the

pill) had been used, but less likely than

if no method were used. If the male

condom is used at the same act of

intercourse as the pill, protection from

infection is increased. With data such as

these, future studies can address how

effective such back-up use (of the

condom or withdrawal) is.

Among unmarried women, 14.0%

were relying on their partner to use a

condom, including 8.6% for whom it

was their most effective method and

5.4% who were also using another, more

effective method of birth control. These

percentages are equivalent to 5.3 million

and 3.3 million unmarried condom users,

respectively (Table 12 and Figure 12).

Table 13 shows similar data by

Hispanic origin and race. The proportion

of black women relying on the condom

as their most effective method was

8.8%, but including condom use along

with another method (such as the pill), the
proportion using the condom was 14.8%,

an increase of 6.0 percentage points.

At age 15–24 years, the percentage

using the condom increases 5.5 percentage

points—from 9.9% to 15.4%—when dual

use of the condom is counted (Table 14).

Among 25–34-year-olds, the proportion

using the condom rises from 12.6% to

17.7% when counting dual or multiple

use. But at age 35–44 years, this increase

is only 1.3 percentage points, from 7.6%

to 8.9% when counting dual or multiple

use.

Further research on the factors

leading to dual and multiple use is

possible with these data, and may lead

to a better understanding of how women

and couples try to manage the risks of

both pregnancy and sexually transmitted

disease.

Stopping Use of

Contraceptive Methods

Table 15 shows another important

aspect of contraceptive use: the reasons

why women stop using some prominent

birth control methods. The table shows:

+	 The number of women who have

ever used four prominent

contraceptive methods.

+	 The percentage of those who

discontinued the method because

they were dissatisfied with it.

+	 For those who discontinued a

method due to dissatisfaction, the

proportion who gave the specific

reason for stopping the method.

Women were asked: ‘‘Some people

try a method and then don’t use it

again, or stop using it, because they

are not satisfied with the method.

Did you ever stop using a method

because you were not satisfied with

it in some way?’’ If she answered

yes, she was asked, ‘‘What method

or methods did you stop because

you were not satisfied?’’

+	 An estimated 45 million women had

ever used the pill (Table 15). Of

those, 30% (or 13.6 million) had

discontinued the pill because they

were dissatisfied with it.

+	 About 12 million women had

ever used the 3-month injectable

(Depo-ProveraTM), and 43% of them

(5.2 million) had discontinued it.

Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 13

Table D. Percentage of women whose partners used the condom or withdrawal as most

effective method or any use: United States, 2006–2008

Method used Most effective method Any use

Male condom............................ 10.0 (6.2 million) 13.9 (8.6 million)

Withdrawal ............................. 3.2 (2.0 million) 6.2 (3.8 million)

SOURCE: Table 12.

+	 About 5.4 million women had ever

used the contraceptive patch, and

one-half (50% or 2.7 million) had

discontinued it.

The percentages that follow are

percentages of the 13.6 million who

stopped using the pill, the 5.3 million

who stopped using the condom, the 5.2

million who stopped using the

Depo-ProveraTM injectable, and the 2.7

million who stopped using the patch. It

should be noted that women could have

used and discontinued more than one of

these methods.

Table 15 shows percentages of those

who discontinued the method for each

of the reasons listed. Women could give

more than one reason.

Pill

About two out of three (64%, or 8.6

million) of the 13.6 million women who

stopped using the pill stopped because

of side effects that they attributed to the

pill; in addition, 13% (1.7 million) said

they stopped because they were worried

about side effects. About 11% stopped

because they did not like changes to

their menstrual cycle when they used

the pill; 10% (1.4 million) stopped

because they got pregnant, and 10%

stopped because they said the pill was

too difficult to use (e.g., too difficult to

remember to take it every day). Looking

at these results for the pill for Hispanic,

white, and black women (Table 15), the

overall patterns are similar: the

percentages of women who stopped

because of side effects and the other

main reasons are similar for Hispanic,

white, and black women.

Depo-ProveraTM

For the 3-month injectable, 5.2

million women discontinued the method

because they were dissatisfied with it.

As with the pill, most women who

stopped did so because of side effects

Percent 

12 

9 

14 14 

0 

10 

20 

Married Unmarried 

Most effective Any use 

Marital status 

SOURCE: Table 12. 

Figure 12. Percentage of women aged 15–44 years whose most effective method of

contraception was the condom, and percentage who used the condom with or without

another method (‘‘any use’’), by marital status: United States, 2006–2008
Page 14 [ Series 23, No. 29

(76%, or 4.0 million) and one-fourth

(26% or 1.3 million) stopped because

they didn’t like the changes to their

menstrual cycles. Very few (2%)

stopped because they got pregnant.

Condom

As might be expected, the patterns

of reasons for stopping use of the

condom are different than for the

hormonal methods: the leading reasons

for stopping use of the condom were

that the partner did not like using

condoms (41%, 2.2 million) and that it

decreased sexual pleasure (40%, or 2.1

million). The next-most cited reason was

that the woman ‘‘worried that the

method would not work’’ (23%, or 1.2

million). Only 5.2% stopped using the

condom because they got pregnant.

None stopped because it was too

difficult to obtain.

Reasons for Nonuse of

Contraception Leading to

Unintended Pregnancy

Women in the NSFG who had had

an unintended pregnancy in the 3–4

years before the interview were asked

whether she or her partner were using

contraception when she became

pregnant. If she said that they were not

using a method, she was shown a card

with a list of frequently cited reasons

for nonuse. Those reasons were:

+ ‘‘You did not expect to have sex.’’

+ ‘‘You did not think you could get

pregnant.’’

+ ‘‘You didn’t really mind if you got

pregnant.’’

+ ‘‘You were worried about the side

effects of birth control.’’

+ ‘‘Your male partner did not want

you to use a birth control method.’’

+ ‘‘Your male partner did not want to

use a birth control method.’’

Table E shows the results of this

inquiry into the reasons for nonuse of

contraception that lead to unintended

pregnancy. The statistics in this table

are based on 842 women in the NSFG

sample, compared with thousands in

most other tables in this report, so

small differences should be interpreted

with caution. However, the general

pattern is clear: the leading reason

given for nonuse of contraception was

‘‘You did not think you could get

pregnant,’’ cited by 44% of these

women who had unintended

pregnancies in recent years. About

14% said that they did not expect to

have sex, 23% said they ‘‘didn’t really

mind’’ if they got pregnant, and 16%

said they were ‘‘worried about the side

effects’’ of birth control methods. The

proportions of women citing the other

reasons were smaller.

Given these findings—that many

women who became pregnant did not

think they could get pregnant—further

research on factors related to nonuse

and inconsistent use of contraception

could be useful. A recent report on a

national telephone survey suggested

some possible explanations of nonuse

and inconsistent use of contraception

among unmarried males and females

18–29 years of age in the United

States (29).

International Comparisons

The persistence of the patterns of

contraceptive use in the United States

in the last two decades raises

questions about whether these patterns

are similar to those in other highincome countries with birth rates as

low or lower than in the United States.

Data on contraceptive use in many

countries of the world are compiled

and published by the United Nations

Population Division (30). Similar

compilations are published by the

Population Reference Bureau (31,32).

In Table F, the data from the United

Nations (30) are compared with data

from this report for the United States.

The total fertility rate (or TFR) is

the average number of births per

woman, based on current age-specific

birth rates. In the United States in 2005

and 2006, the TFR was about 2.1

children per woman (7,30). Table F

shows data for the most recent year

available for a number of developed

countries that had birth rates (TFRs) as

low as or lower than the United

States (30–33), from a recent United

Nations compilation of data on

contraceptive use in many countries of

the world. The data in Table F are based

on national surveys conducted by

government agencies. Results are based

on large samples, and are adjusted to

national population totals. (Further

details are given in Table F and in

‘‘Appendix III.’’) While international

comparisons always require caution

because of differences in such procedures

as sampling methods, data collection

procedures, and question wording, some

patterns seem clear from these data:

+ In several of these countries, the

proportion using the pill was much

higher than the 16–17% in the

United States. For example, the

proportion using the pill was over

40% in France, Belgium, the

Netherlands, and Portugal, and over

30% in Norway.

+ In two of these countries, France

and Norway, the proportion using

the IUD was over 20% compared

with just 5% in the United States in

2006–2008.

+ In the United States, 11–13% of

married couples were using male

sterilization and 22–24% were using

female sterilization (a total of

33–35% or about one-third of

couples). The proportion using

sterilization was 28% in Australia

Table E. Among women who did not use contraception before a

percentage and standard error citing each re sona for not using

United States, 2006–2008

recent unintended

contraception:

birth,

Reason for not using contraception Percent Standard error

Did not expect to have sex ................... 14.1 3.11

Did not think you could get pregnant ............. 43.9 6.14

Didn’t really mind if you got pregnant ............. 22.8 4.68

Worried about side effects of birth control .......... 16.2 3.64

Male partner didn’t want you to use birth control ...... 7.3 2.07

Male partner didn’t want to use birth control ......... 9.6 3.06

NOTE: Percentages

contraception.

add to more than 100 because women were allowed to give more than one reason for nonuse of
Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 15

Table F. Percentage of married couples, and percentage of all women, using each method in selected countries with total fertility rates

lower than in the United States

Any Male Female All other

Selected countries TFR method Pill IUD Condom sterilization sterilization methods1

Percent

Married couples

United States, 2006–2008 ........ 2.1 79 16 5 12 13 24 9

France, 2000 ................ 2.0 82 44 22 5 NA NA 11

Netherlands, 2003............. 1.8 67 41 4 8 8 4 2

Spain, 2006................. 1.3 66 17 6 25 8 6 4

United Kingdom 2007–2008....... 1.8 82 29 6 27 19 9 0

All marital statuses

United States, 2006–2008 ........ 2.1 76 21 4 12 8 21 10

Belgium, 2004 ............... 1.7 75 45 10 NA NA NA 20

Norway, 2005................ 2.0 88 31 23 13 0 8 13

Portugal, 2005–2006 ........... 1.3 67 45 6 9 0 0 7

Australia, 2001–2002 ........... 1.8 71 24 1 15 14 14 1

3

1‘‘All other methods’’ includes male and female sterilization for countries with NA (meaning ‘‘not available’’) in the male and female sterilization columns. In the data for Belgium, male condom use is

included under ‘‘all other methods.’’

NOTES: Data for all countries listed are from national surveys in the years indicated. Results are based on large samples and are adjusted to national totals in each country. Further details are shown

in the Appendix. For ‘‘all marital statuses,’’ data are limited to women who had sex in the past 3 or 12 months. See Appendix III.

SOURCES: For 2006–2008 U.S. contraception data, see Table 7 of this report. For 2002 U.S. contraceptive data, see Mosher et al., Table 8. For data on Total Fertility Rates (TFR), see Reference 30.

For data on contraceptive use in selected countries, see UN Population Division, ‘‘Contraceptive Prevalence, 2009,’’ available from: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WCU2009/Main.html.

and the United Kingdom, but use of

male and female sterilization as a

method of birth control was much

less common in the other countries.

+	 The proportion relying on the male

condom was about 25% in Spain

and 27% in the United Kingdom,

about double the proportion in the

United States (12%).

These differences undoubtedly have

many causes, including cultural and

legal factors, economic conditions, and

patterns of health care use and payment;

the reader is referred to the references

for further discussion (14,29,34,35). But

the comparisons do suggest that

countries with TFRs as low as or lower

than in the United States often use

sterilization less than in the United

States. These countries also often rely

more on the pill, and sometimes on the

IUD or condom, than in the United

States.

Summary and

Discussion

This is the first report of findings

from the 2006–2008 National Survey

of Family Growth (NSFG). The

findings are based on interviews with

a national sample of 7,356 women

aged 15–44. Future reports based on

the interviews with both men and

women will describe many other

aspects of fertility and family life in

the United States.

Contraceptive use in the United

States is virtually universal among

women of reproductive age: 99% of all

women who had ever had intercourse

had ever used at least one contraceptive

method in their lifetime (Table 1 and

Figure 1. In 2006–2008, 93% (49.5

million) had ever had a partner who

used the male condom, 82% (43.8

million) had ever used the oral

contraceptive pill, and 59% (31.3

million) had ever had a partner who

used withdrawal.

But that does not mean that

contraceptive use in the United States

is completely consistent or effective.

One-half of all pregnancies in the

United States are unintended (9), and

the average probability of an

unintended pregnancy in 12 months of

contraceptive use in the United States

is 12%, unchanged from 1995 (21).

Most pregnancies among contraceptive

users are caused by inconsistent or

incorrect use, not by a failure of the

method itself (22). Further, differences

(e.g., by Hispanic origin, race, and

income) between groups in the

effectiveness of contraceptive use in

the United States have been

persistent (21).

+ The leading current method of

contraception in the United States in

2006–2008 was the oral contraceptive pill. It was currently being

used by 10.7 million women aged

15–44 years. The second leading

current method of contraception was

female sterilization, used by 10.3

million women. The pill and female

sterilization have been the two

leading methods in the United States

since 1982.

+ The typical (most common) pattern

of contraceptive use in the United

States is to use the condom at first

intercourse, the pill to delay the first

birth, and female sterilization when

the woman has had all the children

she wants. But there are wide

variations in these patterns by the

woman’s education, race and

Hispanic origin, and other

characteristics.

+ Between 2002 and 2006–2008, the

percentage of women who had ever

used emergency contraception rose

from 4% to 10% (5.2 million). In

addition, the percentage who had

ever used the contraceptive patch

rose from 1% to 10% (5.3 million)

(Table 1).

+ Hispanic, black, and Asian women

were less likely to have ever used

the oral contraceptive pill than

non-Hispanic white women. Black
Page 16 [ Series 23, No. 29

women were more likely than white

women to have used the 3-month

injectable contraceptive, DepoProveraTM (Table 2 and Figure 2).

+ The proportion of women who used

a method of contraception at their

first premarital intercourse increased

from 56% before 1985, to 76% in

2000–2004 and 84% in 2005–2008

(Figure 3). Most of this increase was

due to an increase in use of the

male condom at first premarital

intercourse, from 34% to 72%.

+ About 62% of the 61.9 million

women aged 15–44 years were

currently using contraception (at the

date of interview) in 2006–2008.

The other 38% were not using

contraception for a variety of

reasons. These included women who

were ‘‘not at risk of unintended

pregnancy’’ because they were

currently pregnant or postpartum,

trying to become pregnant, sterile

for medical (noncontraceptive)

reasons, unable to conceive, or had

not had intercourse recently or ever

(Table 4 and Figure 4).

+ The 7.3% of women ‘‘at risk of

unintended pregnancy’’ because they

had been having intercourse in the

last 3 months and were not using

contraception are notable because

these 4.5 million women account for

a large proportion of all unintended

pregnancies; the remaining

unintended pregnancies occurred to

the 38.2 million contraceptive users,

primarily because of inconsistent or

incorrect contraceptive use

(14,21,22,29).

+ Non-Hispanic black women were

more likely to use female

sterilization as a method of

contraception than non-Hispanic

white women, and less likely to rely

on male sterilization than white

women (Figure 5). However,

considering male and female

sterilization together, about the same

percentage of white, black, and

Hispanic women were using

sterilization: 23% of each group.

+ Among women at risk of unintended

pregnancy (i.e., excluding women

who were currently pregnant, trying

to get pregnant, or sterile for health

reasons), 9% of Hispanic, white, and

Asian women were not currently

using contraception compared with

16% of at-risk black women

(Table 8 and Figure 6). This finding

may be related to higher rates of

unintended pregnancy among black

women than white women (9).

+ Some of the tables in this report

show data on contraceptive choice

among the 38.2 million women

15–44 years of age who were using

contraception in 2006–2008

(‘‘contraceptors’’). They answered

the question, ‘‘Of those who are

using a method, what percentage is

using each method?’’ These data

show that female sterilization is the

leading method among those 30–44

years of age (Table 10). By age

40–44 years, 50% of contraceptors

were using female sterilization

(Figure 7).

+ The percentage of contraceptors

using the pill in 2006–2008 ranged

from 54% at ages 15–19 to 11% of

contraceptors at ages 40–44

(Figure 8).

+ More than one-half of childless

contraceptive users (55%) were

currently using the pill in

2006–2008 compared with 8% of

contraceptors with three or more

children. Conversely, 2% of

childless contraceptors and 59% of

contraceptors with three or more

children were using female

sterilization (Figure 9).

+ One noteworthy trend between 2002

and 2006–2008 was an increase in

IUD use among women with one or

two children. IUD use increased

from 2% to 8% among contraceptors

with one child, and from 3% to 11%

of contraceptors with two children

(Table 10).

+ The proportion of contraceptors

22–44 years of age who chose

female sterilization as a method of

birth control varied by education.

Female sterilization was used by

55% of contraceptive users without

a high school diploma in 2006–2008

compared with just 16% of

contraceptors with a 4-year college

degree (Figure 10).

+ While contraceptors with less

education tend to rely on female

sterilization, contraceptors with more

education tend to rely on the oral

contraceptive pill: just 10% of

contraceptors without a high school

diploma used the pill in 2006–2008

compared with 35% of contraceptors

with a 4-year college degree

(Figure 11).

+	 This report also shows the extent of

use of the condom with other

methods of birth control. About 9%

of unmarried women had a partner

who was using male condoms as

their most effective method of

contraception in 2006–2008, but

another 5% were using condoms

along with a more effective

method—such as the pill or

Depo-ProveraTM—so a total of 14%

were using the condom. Among

married women, however, this kind

of combination use was much less

common (Figure 12).

+	 Among women who stopped using

the pill, injectable, and patch, most

stopped because of side effects that

they attributed to the method. A

variety of other reasons were also

offered. Among those who stopped

using the condom, the leading

reasons for stopping were that the

woman’s male partner did not like

it, it decreased the woman’s sexual

pleasure, and fear that the method

would not work (Table 15).

+	 The international comparisons

shown in Table F show that in some

European countries with lower birth

and abortion rates than in the United

States (30–33), there is greater

reliance on the pill and IUD and

lower use of sterilization. However,

the data do not show the specific

causes of those differences.

The explanation of the patterns of

contraceptive use in the United States

and internationally is beyond the scope

of this report, but these observations and

the references cited here (14,29,33–35)

suggest that further research may yield

insights that could improve contraceptive method choice and use in the

United States in the years ahead,

particularly for those groups in which

rates of unintended pregnancy are

especially high.
Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 17

Washington, DC: National Academy

Press. 1995.

13. Trussell J. The cost of unintended

pregnancy in the United States.

Contraception 75:168–70. 2007.

14. Trussell J. Reducing unintended

pregnancy in the United States.

Contraception 77:1–5. 2008.

15. Abma JC, Chandra A, Mosher WD,

Peterson LS, Piccinino LJ. Fertility,

family planning, and women’s health:

New data from the 1995 National

Survey of Family Growth. National

Center for Health Statistics. Vital

Health Stat 23(19). 1997.

16. Mosher WD, Martinez GM, Chandra A,

Abma JC, Willson SJ. Use of

contraception and use of family

planning services in the United States:

1982–2002. Advance data from vital

and health statistics; no. 350.

Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center

for Health Statistics. 2004.

17. Mosher WD, Westoff CF. Trends in

contraceptive practice: United States,

1965–1976. National Center for Health

Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(10).

1982.

18. Mosher W, Bachrach C. Contraceptive

use: United States, 1982. National

Center for Health Statistics. Vital

Health Stat 23(12). 1986. Available

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

nsfg.htm. 1986.

19. Martinez GM, Chandra A, Abma JC,

Jones J, Mosher W. Fertility,

contraception, and fatherhood: Data on

men and women from cycle 6 (2002)

of the National Survey of Family

Growth. National Center for Health

Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(26).

2006.

20. Lepkowski JM, Mosher WD, Davis

KE, Groves RM, Van Hoewyk J. The

2006–2010 National Survey of Family

Growth: Sample design and analysis of

a continuous survey. National Center

for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 2

(150). 2010.

21. Kost K, Singh S, Vaughan B, Trussell

J, Bankole A. Estimates of

contraceptive failure from the 2002

National Survey of Family Growth.

Contraception 77(1):10–21. 2008.

22. Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Stewart F, et al.

Contraceptive technology, 18th Revised

Edition. New York: Ardent media.

Chapter 9, ‘‘The Essentials of

Contraception,’’ and table 9–2. 2004.

23. Hatcher, RA. Contraceptive choices.

Dawsonville, GA: Bridging the gap

communications. 2003.

24. American College of Obstetricians and

Gynecologists. Birth control: A woman’s

choice. Washington, DC. 2003.

25. Finer LB. Trends in premarital sex in

the United States, 1954–2003. Public

Health Rep 112(1):73–8. 2007.

26. Abma JC, et al. Teenagers in the United

States: Sexual activity, contraceptive use,

and childbearing, 2002. National Center

for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat

23(24). 2004.

27. Mosher WD, McNally JW.

Contraceptive use at first premarital

intercourse: United States, 1965–1988.

Fam Plann Perspect 23(3):108–16.

1991.

28. Piccinino LJ, Mosher WD. Trends in

contraceptive use in the United States:

1982–1995. Fam Plann Perspect

30(1):4–11, 46. 1998.

29. National campaign to prevent teen and

unplanned pregnancy. The fog zone:

How misperceptions, magical thinking,

and ambivalence put young adults at

risk for unplanned pregnancy.

Washington, DC. 2009. Available from:

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/

fogzone/.

30. United Nations, Department of

Economic and Social Affairs,

Population Division. World

contraceptive use. 2009. Available

from: http://www.un.org/esa/population/

publications/WCU2009/Main.html.

31. Population Reference Bureau. 2009

World population data sheet.

Washington, DC. 2009. Available from:

http://www.prb.org.

32. Population Reference Bureau. Family

planning worldwide: 2008 data sheet.

Washington, DC. 2008. Available from:

http://www.prb.org/Publications/

Datasheets/2008/familyplanning

worldwide.aspx.

33. Sedgh G, Henshaw S, Singh S, Bankole

A, Drescher J. Legal abortion worldwide:

Incidence and recent trends. Int Fam Plan

Perspect 35(3):106–16. 2007.

34. Nelson AL. Editorial: Buyer beware.

Contraception 80(6): 495–6. 2009.

35. Grimes DA. Forgettable contraception.

Contraception 80(6):497–9. 2009.

36. U.S. Census Bureau. Statistical abstract

of the United States: 2009. 128th

Edition. Washington, DC. Tables 222,

223, 262, 569, 602, 669, 689, 699.

2009.

37. Mosher W, Deang L, Bramlett M.

Community environment and women’s

health outcomes: Contextual data.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Vital Health Stat 23(23). 2003.

References

1. Groves RM, Mosher WD, Lepkowski

JM, Kirgis NM. Planning and

development of the continuous National

Survey of Family Growth. National

Center for Health Statistics. Vital

Health Stat 1(48). 2009.

2. Westoff CF. The yield of the imperfect:

The National Fertility Study.

Demography 12(4):573–80. 1975.

3. Report of the Commission on

Population Growth and the American

Future. New York: Signet. 1972.

4. U.S. National Committee on Vital and

Health Statistics. Statistics needed for

national policies related to fertility.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Vital Health Stat 4(18). 1978.

5. Ventura SJ, Mosher WD, Curtin SA,

Abma JC, Henshaw S. Trends in

pregnancies and pregnancy rates by

outcome: Estimates for the United

States, 1976–96. National Center for

Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat

21(56). 2000.

6. Ventura SJ, Abma JC, Mosher WD,

Henshaw SK. Estimated pregnancy rates

for the United States, 1990–2005: An

update. National Vital Statistics Reports;

vol 58, no 4. Hyattsville, MD: National

Center for Health Statistics. 2009.

7. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD,

Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Kirmeyer S,

Mathews TJ. Births: Final data for

2006. National Vital Statistics Reports;

vol 57, no 7. Hyattsville, MD: National

Center for Health Statistics. 2009.

8. Ventura SJ. Changing patterns of

nonmarital childbearing in the United

States. NCHS data brief, no 18.

Hyattsville, MD: National Center for

Health Statistics. 2009.

9. Finer L, Henshaw SK. Disparities in

rates of unintended pregnancy in the

United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspect

Sexual Reprod Health 38(2):90–6.

2006.

10. CDC. Achievements in public health,

1900–99: Family Planning. MMWR

48(47):1073–80. 1999.

11. Chandra A, Martinez GM, Mosher WD,

Abma JC, Jones J. Fertility, family

planning, and reproductive health of

U.S. Women: Data from the 2002

National Survey of Family Growth.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Vital Health Stat 23(25). 2005.

12. Brown SS, Eisenberg MR. The best

intentions: Unintended pregnancy and

the well-being of children and families.
Page 18 [ Series 23, No. 29

Table 1. Number of women aged 15–44 years who have ever had sexual intercourse and percentage who have ever used the specified

contraceptive method: United States, 1982, 1995, 2002, and 2006–2008

Method 1982 1995 2002 2006–2008

Number in thousands

All women.............................. 46,684 53,800 54,190 53,240

Percent (standard error) who have ever used specified method

Any method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.8 (0.4) 98.2 (0.2) 98.2 (0.2) 99.1 (0.2)

Female sterilization ........................ 22.3 (0.8) 23.4 (0.5) 20.7 (0.7) 19.9 (1.1)

Male sterilization.......................... 10.1 (0.6) 14.6 (0.4) 13.0 (0.7) 13.4 (0.8)

Pill .................................. 76.3 (0.8) 82.2 (0.5) 82.3 (0.6) 82.3 (1.1)

NorplantTM or ImplanonTM implant ............... --­ 2.1 (0.2) 2.1 (0.2) 1.4 (0.3)

1-month injectable (LunelleTM) ................. --­ --­ 0.9 (0.1) 1.9 (0.5)

3-month injectable (Depo-ProveraTM) ............. --­ 4.5 (0.2) 16.8 (0.8) 22.2 (1.1)

Emergency contraception .................... --­ 0.8 (0.1) 4.2 (0.3) 9.7 (0.7)

Contraceptive patch........................ --­ --­ 0.9 (0.1) 10.0 (0.7)

Contraceptive ring ........................ --­ --­ --­ 6.3 (0.6)

TodayTM sponge .......................... --­ 12.0 (0.4) 7.3 (0.4) 4.7 (0.5)

Intrauterine device (IUD)..................... 18.4 (0.8) 10.0 (0.4) 5.8 (0.4) 7.4 (0.7)

Diaphragm ............................. 17.1 (0.8) 15.2 (0.5) 8.5 (0.5) 3.1 (0.4)

Condom ............................... 51.8 (1.0) 82.0 (0.5) 89.7 (0.6) 93.0 (0.6)

Female condom .......................... --­ 1.2 (0.1) 1.9 (0.2) 1.9 (0.3)

Periodic abstinence—calendar rhythm ............ 17.0 (0.8) 24.3 (0.5) 16.2 (0.6) 19.4 (1.1)

Periodic abstinence—natural family planning ........ 2.3 (0.3) 4.2 (0.3) 3.5 (0.3) 4.6 (0.5)

Withdrawal ............................. 24.5 (0.8) 40.6 (0.6) 56.1 (1.0) 58.8 (1.4)

Foam alone............................. 24.9 (0.8) 18.3 (0.5) 12.1 (0.4) 6.6 (0.5)

Jelly or cream alone ....................... 5.8 (0.4) 9.1 (0.3) 7.3 (0.4) 4.7 (0.6)

Suppository or insert ....................... 9.7 (0.6) 10.6 (0.3) 7.5 (0.5) 3.4 (0.4)

Other methods1 .......................... 9.3 (0.6) 0.3 (0.1) 1.0 (0.1) 0.8 (0.2)

- - - Data not available (method not available in the United States in that year).

1Includes the cervical cap and other methods.

NOTE: Percentages (standard errors) for 1982, 1995, and 2002 are from Mosher et al., 2004, Table 1.
Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 19

Table 2. Number of women aged 15–44 years who have ever had sexual intercourse and percentage who have ever used the specified

contraceptive method, by race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2006–2008

Non-Hispanic

Black or Other single race or multiple race

African

White, American, Asian,

single single single

Method Hispanic race race Total race

Number in thousands

All women.............................. 9,169 32,152 7,309 4,611 2,094

Percent (standard error) who have ever used specified method

Any method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.2 (1.0) 99.7 (0.1) 99.0 (0.5) 98.5 (0.4) 98.6 (0.7)

Female sterilization ........................ 23.1 (2.9) 17.7 (1.3) 25.8 (2.1) 18.8 (4.7) 13.9 (7.6)

Male sterilization.......................... 6.6 (1.2) 18.1 (1.0) 4.8 (1.1) 8.6 (2.6) 5.4 (3.0)

Pill .................................. 68.2 (1.9) 88.8 (0.9) 78.4 (2.1) 71.3 (4.1) 56.4 (6.8)

NorplantTM or ImplanonTM implant ............... 0.8 (0.3) 1.4 (0.4) 1.7 (0.5) 2.1 (0.9) *

1-month injectable (LunelleTM) ................. 7.4 (2.0) 0.7 (0.2) 0.6 (0.2) 1.6 (1.0) *

3-month injectable (Depo-ProveraTM) ............. 26.2 (2.4) 19.0 (1.2) 29.5 (1.8) 25.3 (4.4) 16.6 (7.3)

Emergency contraception .................... 11.0 (1.3) 9.8 (0.9) 6.5 (0.9) 11.7 (2.8) 14.2 (4.8)

Contraceptive patch........................ 9.6 (2.0) 9.2 (0.8) 14.4 (1.5) 8.9 (2.2) 4.4 (2.2)

Contraceptive ring ........................ 5.0 (1.1) 6.7 (0.8) 6.5 (1.1) 5.7 (2.2) 8.6 (4.6)

TodayTM sponge .......................... 1.4 (0.4) 6.5 (0.7) 2.4 (0.5) 2.2 (1.1) –

Intrauterine device (IUD)..................... 14.0 (1.2) 6.3 (1.0) 5.5 (1.2) 5.0 (1.4) 2.6 (0.9)

Diaphragm ............................. 1.6 (0.6) 3.7 (0.5) 2.5 (0.5) 3.1 (1.3) 4.0 (2.4)

Condom ............................... 80.5 (1.9) 96.4 (0.6) 94.9 (1.4) 90.7 (2.3) 89.4 (3.0)

Female condom .......................... 2.1 (0.7) 1.1 (0.3) 4.8 (1.0) 2.4 (1.3) *

Periodic abstinence—calendar rhythm ............ 16.6 (1.6) 19.3 (1.5) 18.2 (1.5) 28.2 (4.7) 42.1 (7.4)

Periodic abstinence—natural family planning ........ 3.4 (0.9) 4.5 (0.6) 2.5 (0.6) 10.5 (4.0) 17.6 (7.8)

Withdrawal ............................. 52.6 (2.2) 62.0 (2.0) 56.7 (2.4) 51.8 (5.1) 49.6 (6.3)

Foam alone............................. 3.4 (0.6) 7.8 (0.7) 8.0 (1.1) 3.0 (1.1) *

Jelly or cream alone ....................... 2.3 (0.7) 5.7 (0.8) 5.2 (1.2) 1.8 (0.8) *

Suppository or insert ....................... 2.7 (0.6) 3.5 (0.5) 4.8 (1.0) 2.3 (1.4) *

Other methods1 .......................... * 1.1 (0.3) * * *

* Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

– Quantity zero.

1Includes the cervical cap and other methods.
Page 20 [ Series 23, No. 29

Table 3. Number of women aged 15–44 years whose first premarital sexual intercourse was after menarche, and percentage who used the

specified contraceptive method at first intercourse, by selected characteristics: United States, 2006–2008

Number Used All

in any other

Characteristic thousands method Pill Condom Withdrawal methods

Percent (standard error)

All women1 ............................. 47,145 69.7 (1.21) 18.0 (0.88) 53.6 (1.26) 6.3 (0.60) 3.0 (0.35)

Year of first sexual intercourse after menarche

2005–2008 ............................. 4,615 84.1 (2.66) 19.2 (2.43) 71.5 (3.84) 9.0 (1.88) 6.9 (2.00)

2000–2004 ............................. 8,461 75.8 (2.21) 20.2 (1.90) 63.5 (2.46) 3.0 (0.64) 3.5 (0.74)

1995–1999 ............................. 8,051 72.5 (2.12) 20.3 (2.08) 58.0 (2.46) 5.9 (1.01) 2.2 (0.56)

1990–1994 ............................. 8,615 69.7 (2.67) 17.9 (1.88) 54.8 (2.48) 5.2 (1.09) 2.9 (0.69)

1985–1989 ............................. 9,504 66.0 (2.82) 15.1 (1.76) 47.5 (3.00) 7.5 (1.62) 2.5 (0.94)

Before 1985 ............................ 7,899 56.3 (2.73) 16.4 (2.01) 34.0 (2.73) 8.6 (1.43) 1.9 (0.58)

Age at first sexual intercourse after menarche

Under 16 years .......................... 12,880 63.9 (1.93) 10.7 (1.24) 51.5 (2.02) 6.6 (1.14) 2.9 (0.56)

16–17 years ............................ 16,673 69.8 (1.57) 17.8 (1.64) 57.0 (1.95) 4.8 (0.57) 2.1 (0.40)

18–19 years ............................ 10,460 74.8 (2.24) 22.5 (1.82) 53.5 (2.55) 8.3 (1.35) 4.3 (1.04)

20 years or older ......................... 7,132 72.3 (3.82) 25.1 (2.86) 49.6 (3.57) 6.6 (1.82) 3.4 (1.07)

Mother’s education2

No high school diploma or GED ................ 10,883 52.8 (3.20) 13.1 (2.05) 37.1 (2.62) 5.7 (1.11) 2.9 (0.61)

High school diploma or GED .................. 15,988 69.3 (1.67) 17.8 (1.23) 53.0 (1.76) 7.0 (1.02) 3.1 (0.71)

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ............. 10,759 75.5 (2.04) 22.5 (1.81) 59.4 (2.87) 5.8 (1.06) 2.6 (0.66)

Bachelor’s degree or higher................... 9,213 83.9 (1.84) 19.3 (2.03) 67.8 (2.49) 6.3 (0.88) 3.6 (0.94)

Race and Hispanic origin

Hispanic ............................... 7,541 51.5 (3.31) 10.6 (1.61) 37.9 (2.74) 6.0 (1.08) 1.7 (0.50)

Non-Hispanic:

White, single race ....................... 29,011 76.4 (1.34) 20.2 (1.10) 59.3 (1.64) 6.8 (0.80) 3.1 (0.51)

Black, single race ....................... 6,762 64.8 (1.80) 20.9 (2.08) 49.3 (2.12) 5.6 (1.12) 2.1 (0.35)

All other single race and multiple race ........... 3,830 63.0 (6.55) 11.3 (2.00) 48.7 (6.92) 4.8 (1.50) 6.3 (1.59)

Year of first sexual intercourse after menarche and

race and Hispanic origin

First sexual intercourse after menarche before 2000.... 34,069 66.2 (1.45) 17.3 (1.05) 48.7 (1.44) 6.8 (0.71) 2.4 (0.33)

Hispanic ............................. 5,013 45.4 (3.59) 9.4 (2.06) 30.6 (2.81) 5.9 (1.42) 1.9 (0.87)

Non-Hispanic:

White, single race ...................... 21,490 73.4 (1.57) 18.5 (1.22) 55.4 (1.79) 7.5 (0.94) 2.3 (0.39)

Black, single race ...................... 4,876 61.0 (2.14) 23.8 (2.60) 41.7 (2.48) 6.5 (1.31) 1.5 (0.42)

First sexual intercourse after menarche in 2000 and

later. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,076 78.7 (1.53) 19.9 (1.36) 66.3 (1.98) 5.1 (0.80) 4.7 (0.90)

Hispanic ............................. 2,528 63.6 (3.67) 13.1 (2.29) 52.3 (3.55) 6.2 (1.80) 1.1 (0.59)

Non-Hispanic:

White, single race ...................... 7,521 85.0 (1.90) 24.8 (2.19) 70.3 (2.62) 5.0 (1.02) 5.6 (1.40)

Black, single race ...................... 1,887 74.5 (3.52) 13.2 (2.97) 68.9 (3.66) 3.1 (1.76) 3.8 (0.88)

1Includes women with missing information on date of first sex after menarche, with no mother or mother-figure, and whose mother-figures had no biological children.

2GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 21

Table 4. Number of women aged 15–44 years and percent distribution by current contraceptive status and method: United States,

1982–2008

Year of survey

Contraceptive status and method 1982 1995 2002 2006–2008

Number in thousands

All women ..................................... 54,099 60,201 61,561 61,864

Percent distribution (standard error)

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

Using contraception (contraceptors) ..................... 55.7 (1.0) 64.2 (0.6) 61.9 (0.8) 61.8 (1.2)

Female sterilization .............................. 12.9 (0.6) 17.8 (0.4) 16.7 (0.6) 16.7 (1.0)

Male sterilization ............................... 6.1 (0.4) 7.0 (0.3) 5.7 (0.4) 6.1 (0.5)

Pill ........................................ 15.6 (0.8) 17.3 (0.4) 18.9 (0.7) 17.3 (0.8)

Implant, LunelleTM, or patch1 ........................ --­ 0.9 (0.1) 0.8 (0.1) 0.7 (0.1)

3-month injectable (Depo-ProveraTM) ................... --­ 1.9 (0.1) 3.3 (0.3) 2.0 (0.2)

Contraceptive ring .............................. --­ --­ --­ 1.5 (0.2)

Intrauterine device (IUD)........................... 4.0 (0.4) 0.5 (0.1) 1.3 (0.2) 3.4 (0.5)

Diaphragm ................................... 4.5 (0.4) 1.2 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) *

Condom..................................... 6.7 (0.6) 13.1 (0.4) 11.1 (0.5) 10.0 (0.6)

Periodic abstinence—calendar rhythm .................. 1.8 (0.3) 1.3 (0.1) 0.7 (0.1) 0.5 (0.1)

Periodic abstinence—natural family planning .............. 0.3 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1)

Withdrawal ................................... 1.1 (0.3) 2.0 (0.2) 2.5 (0.3) 3.2 (0.3)

Other methods2 ................................ 2.7 (0.3) 1.1 (0.1) 0.6 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1)

Not using contraception ............................ 44.3 (1.0) 35.8 (0.6) 38.1 (0.8) 38.2 (1.2)

Surgically sterile—female (noncontraceptive) .............. 6.3 (0.4) 3.0 (0.2) 1.5 (0.2) 0.4 (0.1)

Nonsurgically sterile—female or male................... 1.2 (0.3) 1.7 (0.2) 1.6 (0.2) 1.7 (0.3)

Pregnant or postpartum ........................... 5.0 (0.3) 4.6 (0.3) 5.3 (0.4) 5.4 (0.4)

Seeking pregnancy .............................. 4.2 (0.4) 4.0 (0.2) 4.2 (0.3) 4.1 (0.3)

Other nonuse:

Never had intercourse or no intercourse in 3 months before

interview .................................. 19.5 (0.8) 17.1 (0.5) 18.1 (0.7) 19.2 (1.2)

Had intercourse in 3 months before interview ............ 7.4 (0.4) 5.2 (0.2) 7.4 (0.4) 7.3 (0.6)

All other nonuse3.............................. 0.7 (0.3) 0.2 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) *

- - - Data not available (method not available in the United States in that year).

* Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

0.0 Quantity greater than 0 but less than 0.05.

11995 percentage only includes NorplantTM implant.

2Includes emergency contraception, female condom or vaginal pouch, foam, cervical cap, TodayTM sponge, suppository or insert, jelly or cream (without diaphragm), and other methods.

3Includes male sterility of unknown origin and other small groups, not shown separately.

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Percentages (standard errors) for 1982, 1995, and 2002 are from Mosher et al., 2004, Table 4.
Page 22 [ Series 23, No. 29

Table 5. Number of women aged 15–44 years and percent distribution by current contraceptive status and method, according to age at

interview: United States, 2006–2008

Age in years

Contraceptive status and method 15–44 15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44

Number in thousands

All women ........................... 61,864 10,431 10,140 10,250 9,587 10,475 10,982

Percent distribution (standard error)

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

Using contraception (contraceptors) ........... 61.8 (1.21) 28.2 (1.91) 54.7 (2.81) 64.2 (1.85) 70.3 (2.32) 75.0 (2.23) 77.8 (1.75)

Female sterilization .................... 16.7 (0.96) * 1.3 (0.41) 9.6 (1.13) 20.6 (2.35) 28.2 (2.39) 39.1 (2.67)

Male sterilization ...................... 6.1 (0.53) – 0.4 (0.16) 2.1 (0.53) 5.8 (0.97) 12.4 (1.71) 15.3 (2.33)

Pill .............................. 17.3 (0.83) 15.2 (1.54) 26.2 (2.02) 22.6 (1.79) 17.4 (1.79) 14.4 (1.81) 8.6 (1.55)

Implant, LunelleTM, or patch ............... 0.7 (0.12) 0.5 (0.20) 0.8 (0.22) 1.3 (0.39) 0.9 (0.44) 0.3 (0.14) *

3-month injectable (Depo-ProveraTM) ......... 2.0 (0.24) 2.6 (0.49) 2.8 (0.64) 3.3 (0.65) 1.6 (0.36) 0.7 (0.34) 0.9 (0.32)

Contraceptive ring ..................... 1.5 (0.22) 1.0 (0.51) 3.4 (0.96) 2.0 (0.46) 1.7 (0.61) 0.7 (0.33) 0.3 (0.14)

Intrauterine device (IUD) ................. 3.4 (0.52) 1.0 (0.58) 3.2 (0.70) 4.0 (0.74) 4.7 (1.19) 4.4 (1.57) 3.2 (0.89)

Condom ........................... 10.0 (0.63) 6.4 (0.71) 13.4 (1.29) 13.1 (1.33) 12.0 (1.71) 8.4 (1.50) 6.8 (1.19)

Periodic abstinence—calendar rhythm......... 0.5 (0.10) * 0.2 (0.09) 0.7 (0.39) 0.7 (0.28) 0.9 (0.40) 0.5 (0.24)

Periodic abstinence—natural family planning .... 0.1 (0.06) – – – 0.6 (0.33) * *

Withdrawal ......................... 3.2 (0.33) 1.1 (0.27) 2.8 (0.62) 5.1 (0.82) 3.7 (0.80) 4.3 (1.27) 2.5 (0.75)

Other methods1 ...................... 0.3 (0.09) * * 0.4 (0.16) 0.7 (0.38) * *

Not using contraception ................... 38.2 (1.21) 71.8 (1.91) 45.3 (2.81) 35.8 (1.85) 29.7 (2.32) 25.0 (2.23) 22.2 (1.75)

Surgically sterile—female (noncontraceptive) .... 0.4 (0.13) – – * * 0.4 (0.23) 1.7 (0.68)

Nonsurgically sterile—female or male ......... 1.7 (0.28) 0.5 (0.24) 1.5 (0.47) 2.6 (1.15) 1.6 (0.49) 2.2 (0.63) 1.8 (0.38)

Pregnant or postpartum ................. 5.4 (0.37) 3.9 (0.52) 10.0 (1.52) 7.7 (1.27) 8.1 (1.73) 1.9 (0.42) 1.7 (0.57)

Seeking pregnancy .................... 4.1 (0.30) 0.9 (0.48) 4.3 (1.02) 6.3 (1.11) 5.9 (1.18) 5.1 (0.89) 2.5 (0.63)

Other nonuse:

Never had intercourse or no intercourse in

3 months before interview .............. 19.2 (1.22) 60.0 (2.12) 20.4 (3.08) 10.6 (1.28) 8.7 (1.14) 7.4 (1.12) 8.0 (1.11)

Had intercourse in 3 months before interview. . . 7.3 (0.58) 6.5 (0.84) 9.1 (1.49) 8.6 (1.32) 5.3 (0.78) 8.0 (1.33) 6.4 (1.23)

* Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

– Quantity zero.

1Includes diaphragm (with or without jelly or cream), emergency contraception, female condom or vaginal pouch, foam, cervical cap, TodayTM sponge, suppository or insert, jelly or cream (without

diaphragm), and other methods.

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 23

Table 6. Number of women aged 15–44 years and percent distribution by current contraceptive status and specific method, according to

race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2006–2008

Non-Hispanic

Other single race or multiple race

Total other

single race

White, Black, or multiple Asian

Contraceptive status and method Total Hispanic single race single race race only

Number in thousands

All women ........................... 61,864 10,377 37,660 8,452 5,375 2,493

Percent distribution (standard error)

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

Using contraception (contraceptors) ........... 61.8 (1.21) 58.5 (1.90) 64.7 (1.59) 54.5 (2.54) 59.2 (3.00) 63.9 (4.67)

Female sterilization .................... 16.7 (0.96) 19.6 (2.09) 14.9 (1.22) 21.8 (1.89) 16.1 (3.70) 11.6 (6.45)

Male sterilization ...................... 6.1 (0.53) 3.4 (0.91) 8.3 (0.71) 1.1 (0.42) 3.9 (1.73) 4.5 (2.58)

Pill .............................. 17.3 (0.83) 11.4 (1.53) 21.2 (1.11) 11.4 (1.13) 10.9 (1.88) 11.1 (2.33)

Implant, LunelleTM, or patch ............... 0.7 (0.12) 1.5 (0.43) 0.5 (0.09) 0.6 (0.16) 1.0 (0.55) –

3-month injectable (Depo-ProveraTM) ......... 2.0 (0.24) 2.6 (0.52) 1.4 (0.20) 4.1 (0.84) 1.8 (0.52) *

Contraceptive ring ..................... 1.5 (0.22) 1.2 (0.42) 1.6 (0.33) 1.7 (0.69) 0.8 (0.31) *

Intrauterine device (IUD) ................. 3.4 (0.52) 4.8 (0.77) 3.3 (0.67) 2.8 (0.95) 2.2 (0.46) 1.9 (0.74)

Condom ........................... 10.0 (0.63) 9.4 (0.98) 9.5 (0.78) 8.8 (1.30) 16.2 (3.16) 26.1 (5.48)

Periodic abstinence—calendar rhythm......... 0.5 (0.10) 0.6 (0.33) 0.5 (0.13) * 1.0 (0.52) 2.1 (1.08)

Periodic abstinence—natural family planning .... 0.1 (0.06) * * * * *

Withdrawal ......................... 3.2 (0.33) 3.0 (0.47) 3.3 (0.49) 2.1 (0.47) 5.1 (1.23) 4.8 (1.61)

Other methods1 ...................... 0.3 (0.09) 0.5 (0.35) 0.3 (0.07) * * *

Not using contraception ................... 38.2 (1.21) 41.5 (1.90) 35.3 (1.59) 45.5 (2.54) 40.8 (3.00) 36.1 (4.67)

Surgically sterile—female (noncontraceptive) .... 0.4 (0.13) 0.7 (0.47) 0.2 (0.09) 0.4 (0.28) * –

Nonsurgically sterile—female or male ......... 1.7 (0.28) 1.8 (0.47) 1.6 (0.39) 1.8 (0.55) 1.9 (0.62) 1.2 (0.81)

Pregnant or postpartum ................. 5.4 (0.37) 8.3 (1.24) 4.9 (0.54) 5.7 (0.81) 3.4 (0.91) 2.9 (1.19)

Seeking pregnancy .................... 4.1 (0.30) 6.2 (1.26) 3.5 (0.33) 4.4 (0.79) 4.1 (0.93) 3.0 (1.13)

Other nonuse:

Never had intercourse or no intercourse in

3 months before interview .............. 19.2 (1.22) 18.8 (1.35) 18.3 (1.63) 22.6 (2.02) 21.2 (2.81) 23.1 (4.01)

Had intercourse in 3 months before

interview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 (0.58) 5.8 (0.86) 6.7 (0.69) 10.6 (1.18) 9.5 (1.69) 5.9 (2.74)

– Quantity zero.

* Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1Includes diaphragm (with or without jelly or cream), emergency contraception, female condom or vaginal pouch, foam, cervical cap, TodayTM sponge, suppository or insert, jelly or cream (without

diaphragm), and other methods.

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Page 24 [ Series 23, No. 29

Table 7. Number of women aged 15–44 years and percent distribution by current contraceptive status and specific method, according to

marital and cohabitation status: United States, 2006–2008

Marital and cohabitation status

All

marital Currently Currently Formerly Never

Contraceptive status and method statuses married cohabiting married married

Number of women in thousands ................ 61,864 27,006 6,821 5,190 22,847

Percent distribution (standard error)

Total ................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0100.0

Using contraception (contraceptors) .............. 61.8 (1.21) 78.6 (1.25) 71.2 (2.07) 60.6 (2.80) 39.3 (2.31)

Female sterilization....................... 16.7 (0.96) 23.6 (1.82) 16.3 (2.11) 35.3 (2.96) 4.5 (0.69)

Male sterilization ........................ 6.1 (0.53) 12.7 (1.14) 2.2 (0.63) 2.3 (0.71) 0.3 (0.11)

Pill ................................. 17.3 (0.83) 16.3 (1.46) 23.2 (2.42) 11.4 (1.88) 18.1 (1.44)

Implant, LunelleTM, or patch ................. 0.7 (0.12) 0.7 (0.20) 1.0 (0.36) * 0.6 (0.16)

3-month injectable (Depo-ProveraTM)............ 2.0 (0.24) 1.4 (0.32) 3.1 (0.61) 2.6 (0.64) 2.2 (0.30)

Contraceptive ring ....................... 1.5 (0.22) 1.0 (0.25) 3.7 (1.25) 0.8 (0.30) 1.5 (0.39)

Intrauterine device (IUD) ................... 3.4 (0.52) 5.3 (0.85) 4.7 (1.51) 2.1 (0.87) 1.1 (0.33)

Condom ............................. 10.0 (0.63) 11.7 (1.03) 10.2 (1.41) 4.1 (0.86) 9.1 (0.81)

Periodic abstinence—calendar rhythm ........... 0.5 (0.10) 1.0 (0.23) 0.4 (0.22) * 0.2 (0.09)

Periodic abstinence—natural family planning ....... 0.1 (0.06) 0.2 (0.07) * * *

Withdrawal ............................ 3.2 (0.33) 4.5 (0.69) 5.3 (0.96) 1.4 (0.55) 1.5 (0.29)

Other methods1 ......................... 0.3 (0.09) 0.3 (0.10) * * 0.2 (0.07)

Not using contraception ..................... 38.2 (1.21) 21.4 (1.25) 28.8 (2.07) 39.4 (2.80) 60.7 (2.31)

Surgically sterile—female (noncontraceptive) ....... 0.4 (0.13) 0.3 (0.13) * 1.0 (0.41) 0.4 (0.25)

Nonsurgically sterile—female or male ........... 1.7 (0.28) 1.0 (0.22) 2.2 (0.79) 2.7 (0.86) 2.1 (0.61)

Pregnant or postpartum .................... 5.4 (0.37) 7.2 (0.85) 10.5 (1.63) 2.6 (0.83) 2.6 (0.31)

Seeking pregnancy....................... 4.1 (0.30) 6.4 (0.52) 7.1 (1.30) 0.8 (0.37) 1.3 (0.37)

Other nonuse:

Never had intercourse or no intercourse in 3 months

before interview....................... 19.2 (1.22) 0.9 (0.20) 1.8 (0.65) 21.1 (2.55) 45.6 (2.58)

Had intercourse in 3 months before interview ..... 7.3 (0.58) 5.5 (0.63) 6.9 (1.23) 11.3 (2.57) 8.7 (1.03)

* Figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision.

1Includes diaphragm (with or without jelly or cream), emergency contraception, female condom or vaginal pouch, foam, cervical cap, TodayTM sponge, suppository or insert, jelly or cream (without

diaphragm), and other methods.

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 25

Table 8. Number of women aged 15–44 years, number at risk of unintended pregnancy, and percentage of women currently using a method

of contraception, by selected characteristics: United States, 2006–2008

All women Women at risk of unintended pregnancy1

Percent Percent Percent

Number currently Number currently not currently

in using (Standard in using a (Standard using (Standard

Characteristic thousands a method error) thousands method error) a method error)

All women2 ...................... 61,864 61.8 (1.21) 42,756 89.4 (0.76) 10.6 (0.76)

Age

15–19 years ..................... 10,431 28.2 (1.91) 3,618 81.3 (2.18) 18.7 (2.18)

20–24 years ..................... 10,140 54.7 (2.81) 6,475 85.7 (1.93) 14.3 (1.93)

25–29 years ..................... 10,250 64.2 (1.85) 7,468 88.2 (1.65) 11.9 (1.65)

30–34 years ..................... 9,587 70.3 (2.32) 7,245 93.0 (1.07) 7.0 (1.07)

35–39 years ..................... 10,475 75.0 (2.23) 8,701 90.3 (1.63) 9.7 (1.63)

40–44 years ..................... 10,982 77.8 (1.75) 9,251 92.4 (1.45) 7.6 (1.45)

Marital or cohabiting status

Currently married .................. 27,006 78.6 (1.25) 22,730 93.4 (0.76) 6.6 (0.76)

Currently cohabiting ................ 6,821 71.2 (2.07) 5,329 91.1 (1.55) 8.9 (1.55)

Formerly married, not cohabiting ........ 5,190 60.6 (2.80) 3,730 84.3 (3.40) 15.7 (3.40)

Never married, not cohabiting .......... 22,847 39.3 (2.31) 10,967 81.9 (1.71) 18.1 (1.71)

Parity

0 births ........................ 26,882 44.3 (1.95) 13,860 86.0 (1.36) 14.0 (1.36)

1 birth ......................... 10,350 59.5 (2.26) 7,305 84.4 (2.14) 15.6 (2.14)

2 births ........................ 12,843 81.7 (1.20) 11,287 92.9 (0.99) 7.1 (0.99)

3 or more births ................... 11,789 81.8 (1.79) 10,305 93.6 (1.26) 6.4 (1.26)

Education3

No high school diploma or GED ......... 6,210 67.1 (2.44) 4,731 89.1 (1.89) 11.9 (1.89)

High school diploma or GED ........... 11,793 73.5 (1.80) 9,557 90.7 (1.36) 9.3 (1.36)

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ...... 13,537 68.9 (2.21) 10,260 90.9 (1.50) 9.1 (1.50)

Bachelor’s degree or higher ........... 15,543 70.5 (1.80) 11,942 91.8 (1.13) 8.2 (1.13)

Poverty level income4

0%–149%....................... 16,109 61.7 (1.65) 11,331 87.7 (1.56) 12.3 (1.56)

0%–99% ...................... 10,407 59.5 (2.26) 7,084 87.4 (1.78) 12.6 (1.78)

150%–299% ..................... 15,360 70.3 (2.21) 12,035 89.7 (1.27) 10.3 (1.27)

300% or more .................... 19,965 72.8 (1.51) 15,773 92.1 (0.88) 7.9 (0.88)

Intent to have more children

Intends more..................... 30,148 47.3 (1.68) 16,697 85.4 (1.39) 14.6 (1.39)

Intends no more................... 30,866 75.8 (1.08) 25,462 91.8 (0.83) 8.2 (0.83)

Race and Hispanic origin

Hispanic........................ 10,377 58.5 (1.90) 6,669 91.1 (1.24) 9.0 (1.24)

Non-Hispanic:

White, single race ................ 37,660 64.7 (1.59) 26,889 90.6 (0.92) 9.4 (0.92)

Black, single race ................ 8,452 54.5 (2.54) 5,504 83.7 (1.86) 16.3 (1.86)

All other single race and multiple race .... 5,375 59.2 (3.00) 3,694 86.2 (2.39) 13.8 (2.39)

Asian, single race .............. 2,493 63.9 (4.67) 1,739 91.5 (3.85) 8.5 (3.85)

1‘‘At risk of unintended pregnancy’’ is defined as codes 1–22 and 42 on CONSTAT1, the recode for current contraceptive status. These codes represent all current contraceptors plus women who have

had sex in the last 3 months but are not current contraceptors.

2Includes women who do not know whether they intend to have more children, not shown separately.

3Limited to women 22–44 years of age at time of interview.

4Limited to women 20–44 years of age at time of interview.
Page 26 [ Series 23, No. 29

Table 9. Number of women aged 15–44 years currently using contraception, and percent distribution by current contraceptive method:

United States, 1982–2008

Year of survey

Contraceptive status and method 1982 1995 2002 2006–2008

Number in thousands

All women using contraception ........................ 30,142 38,663 38,109 38,214

Percent distribution (standard error)

Using contraception (contraceptors) ..................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Female sterilization .............................. 23.2 (0.8) 27.8 (0.6) 27.0 (0.9) 27.1 (1.5)

Male sterilization ............................... 10.9 (0.6) 10.9 (0.4) 9.2 (0.6) 9.9 (0.8)

Pill ........................................ 28.0 (0.9) 26.9 (0.6) 30.6 (0.9) 28.0 (1.3)

Implant, LunelleTM, or patch1 ....................... --­ 1.3 (0.2) 1.2 (0.2) 1.1 (0.2)

3-month injectable (Depo-ProveraTM) ................... --­ 3.0 (0.2) 5.3 (0.5) 3.2 (0.4)

Contraceptive ring .............................. --­ --­ --­ 2.4 (0.4)

Intrauterine device (IUD)........................... 7.1 (0.4) 0.8 (0.1) 2.0 (0.3) 5.5 (0.8)

Diaphragm ................................... 8.1 (0.6) 1.9 (0.2) 0.3 (0.1) *

Condom..................................... 12.0 (0.6) 20.4 (0.5) 18.0 (0.7) 16.1 (0.9)

Periodic abstinence—calendar rhythm .................. 3.3 (0.4) 2.0 (0.2) 1.2 (0.2) 0.9 (0.2)

Periodic abstinence—natural family planning .............. 0.6 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1)

Withdrawal ................................... 2.0 (0.3) 3.1 (0.2) 4.0 (0.4) 5.2 (0.5)

Other methods2 ................................ 1.3 (0.3) 1.7 (0.2) 0.9 (0.2) 0.4 (0.1)

- - - Data not available (method not available in the United States in that year).

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.

11995 percentage only includes NorplantTM implant.

2Includes emergency contraception, female condom or vaginal pouch, foam, cervical cap, TodayTM sponge, suppository or insert, jelly or cream (without diaphragm), and other methods.

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding. Percentages (standard errors) for 1982, 1995, and 2002 are from Mosher et al., 2004, Table 5.
Table 10. Number of women aged 15–44 years who are currently using a method of contraception and percent distribution by method,

according to selected characteristics: United States, 2002 and 2006–2008

Characteristic

1 All women

2006–2008....................

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

Age

2006–2008:

15–19 years .................

20–24 years .................

25–29 years .................

30–34 years .................

35–39 years .................

40–44 years .................

2002:

15–19 years .................

20–24 years .................

25–29 years .................

30–34 years .................

35–39 years .................

40–44 years .................

Marital or cohabiting status

2006–2008:

Currently married . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Currently cohabiting.............

Formerly married, not cohabiting ....

Never married, not cohabiting ......

2002:

Currently married . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Currently cohabiting.............

Formerly married, not cohabiting ....

Never married, not cohabiting ......

Parity

2006–2008:

0 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 or more births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2002:

0 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 or more births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number

in

thousands

38,214

38,109

2,941

5,548

6,583

6,737

7,859

8,547

3,096

5,975

6,291

7,105

7,688

7,955

21,238

4,855

3,144

8,978

20,655

4,039

3,924

9,491

11,919

6,163

10,490

9,643

11,786

6,702

10,415

9,205

Using

any

method

Sterilization

Female Male Pill Condom

Percent distribution

3-month

injectable IUD

Other

methods

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

27.1 9.9

27.0 9.2

* –

2.4 0.7

15.0 3.3

29.3 8.3

37.6 16.5

50.2 19.6

– –

3.6 0.8

15.1 4.2

27.5 9.2

41.2 14.2

50.3 18.4

30.0 16.2

22.9 3.2

58.2 3.8

11.5 0.8

29.8 15.4

25.4 3.1

54.9 3.3

10.0 0.9

2.0 2.0

12.8 9.0

34.9 17.4

58.7 12.1

2.0 3.2

13.0 4.7

38.2 15.5

56.4 13.2

28.0 16.1

30.6 18.0

54.1 22.8

48.0 24.5

35.1 20.5

24.8 17.1

19.3 11.2

11.1 8.8

52.8 27.0

52.3 23.1

37.6 20.5

31.5 17.1

18.6 15.7

10.9 11.5

20.7 14.9

32.5 14.3

18.9 6.7

46.0 23.2

23.6 16.4

33.2 18.1

19.1 12.5

49.4 23.4

55.3 24.6

29.8 22.1

14.4 12.0

7.9 6.3

56.8 24.4

33.0 22.4

17.9 14.3

9.8 10.6

3.2

5.3

9.4

5.1

5.2

2.2

1.0

1.1

13.9

10.1

6.5

4.2

2.1

1.6

1.7

4.4

4.2

5.7

3.1

9.3

2.7

9.6

3.3

4.2

3.3

2.3

5.7

10.0

3.8

3.2

5.5

2.0

3.6

5.9

6.2

6.6

5.8

4.2

*

1.8

3.7

3.1

1.5

1.1

6.7

6.6

3.5

2.7

2.6

1.7

2.9

0.5

0.3

8.4

10.9

4.2

0.5

2.4

3.3

2.4

10.2

7.9

10.1

13.4

14.7

11.7

8.6

5.1

6.0

8.3

12.4

7.5

6.8

6.2

9.8

16.2

4.7

10.1

9.1

9.3

4.6

6.2

12.6

13.7

7.2

8.5

7.5

14.6

7.1

4.5

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.

– Quantity zero.

1

Includes women of other or multiple race and origin groups and wome

NOTE: Standard errors are in Appendix Table I.

n who do not know whether they intend to have more children, not shown separately.

Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 27
Page 28 [ Series 23, No. 29

Table 11. Number of women aged 15–44 years who are currently using a method of contraception and percent distribution by method,

according to selected characteristics: United States, 2002 and 2006–2008

Number Using Sterilization

in any 3-month Other

Characteristic thousands method Female Male Pill Condom injectable IUD methods

Percent distribution

Education1

2006–2008:

No high school diploma or GED ............ 4,166 100.0 55.4 3.1 10.4 9.5 6.2 4.0 11.3

High school diploma or GED .............. 8,669 100.0 42.5 13.0 18.4 10.1 2.9 4.9 8.3

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ......... 9,324 100.0 27.4 11.1 23.4 15.7 2.7 7.2 12.5

Bachelor’s degree or higher ............... 10,962 100.0 16.3 13.6 34.7 20.2 0.7 5.7 8.6

2002:

No high school diploma or GED ............ 3,887 100.0 55.3 2.8 10.6 13.2 7.4 2.5 8.3

High school diploma or GED .............. 9,996 100.0 41.5 10.8 19.0 13.1 4.9 2.5 8.3

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ......... 9,954 100.0 28.7 12.1 27.6 17.9 3.2 2.3 8.1

Bachelor’s degree or higher ............... 8,741 100.0 12.8 12.8 41.8 20.8 1.9 2.0 8.0

Poverty level income2

2006–2008:

0%–149% .......................... 9,941 100.0 42.7 4.0 18.6 14.9 5.2 5.5 9.3

0%–99% ......................... 6,191 100.0 44.9 1.9 20.1 12.0 6.9 4.8 9.5

150%–299% ........................ 10,800 100.0 31.6 11.7 21.0 15.9 2.3 5.5 12.0

300% or more ....................... 14,533 100.0 18.5 14.6 34.4 15.7 1.3 5.9 9.6

2002:

0%–149% .......................... 9,525 100.0 40.5 4.7 20.8 15.0 6.9 3.4 8.7

0%–99% ......................... 6,088 100.0 42.1 5.0 20.4 13.7 7.1 4.1 7.7

150%–299% ........................ 9,998 100.0 33.4 9.4 25.3 16.1 5.0 2.1 8.7

300% or more ....................... 15,490 100.0 19.9 13.7 35.6 19.1 2.8 1.5 7.3

Intent to have more children

2006–2008:

Intends more ........................ 14,260 100.0 – 0.3 47.6 26.7 4.4 5.7 15.3

Intends no more ...................... 23,382 100.0 44.2 16.0 15.8 9.6 2.5 5.0 6.9

2002:

Intends more ........................ 14,213 100.0 * 0.2 51.4 26.8 8.3 2.0 11.3

Intends no more ...................... 23,361 100.0 44.0 14.9 17.7 12.3 3.5 2.1 5.5

Race and Hispanic origin

2006–2008:

Hispanic ........................... 6,072 100.0 33.5 5.8 19.5 16.1 4.4 8.3 12.4

Non-Hispanic:

White, single race ................... 24,353 100.0 23.0 12.9 32.7 14.7 2.1 5.1 9.6

Black, single race ................... 4,605 100.0 39.9 1.9 20.9 16.2 7.5 5.2 8.4

All other single race and multiple race ....... 3,184 100.0 27.3 6.6 18.4 27.3 3.0 3.7 13.8

2002:

Hispanic ........................... 5,370 100.0 33.8 4.4 22.0 18.5 7.3 5.3 8.8

Non-Hispanic:

White, single race ................... 25,513 100.0 23.9 11.7 34.4 16.6 4.2 1.5 7.8

Black, single race ................... 4,754 100.0 39.2 2.3 22.7 19.8 9.4 1.5 5.2

All other single race and multiple race ....... 2,472 100.0 20.9 7.0 25.4 27.7 5.2 1.5 12.4

– Quantity zero.

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.

1Limited to women 22–44 years of age at time of interview.

2Limited to women 20–44 years of age at time of interview.

NOTE: Standard errors are in Appendix Table II.
Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 29

Table 12. Number of women aged 15–44 years, percentage currently using contraception, and percentage who used each of the specified

contraceptive methods in the month of interview, according to current marital status: United States, 2006–2008

Marital and cohabitation status

All women Currently married Not currently married

Most Most Most

effective Used effective Used effective Used

method specific method specific method specific

Contraceptive status and method used method1 used method1 used method1

Number of women in thousands ................ 61,864 27,006 34,858

Percentage that used the method

Currently using contraception .................. 61.8 61.8 78.6 78.6 48.7 48.7

Female sterilization....................... 16.7 16.7 23.6 23.6 11.4 11.4

Male sterilization ........................ 6.1 6.7 12.7 13.7 1.0 1.3

Pill ................................. 17.3 17.9 16.3 17.4 18.1 18.3

NorplantTM, LunelleTM, or patch ............... 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

3-month injectable (Depo-ProveraTM)............ 2.0 2.0 1.4 1.4 2.4 2.5

Contraceptive ring ....................... 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.8 1.8

Intrauterine device (IUD) ................... 3.4 3.4 5.3 5.3 1.9 2.0

Condom ............................. 10.0 13.9 11.7 13.8 8.6 14.0

Periodic abstinence—calendar rhythm ........... 0.5 1.1 1.0 1.8 0.2 0.6

Periodic abstinence—natural family planning ....... 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.7 * *

Withdrawal ............................ 3.2 6.2 4.5 7.3 2.2 5.4

Other methods2 ......................... 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.3

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.

1Percentages will not add to the total who were using contraception because more than one method could have been used in the month of interview. Respondents could list as many as four current

contraceptive methods.

2Includes diaphragm (with or without jelly or cream), emergency contraception, female condom or vaginal pouch, foam, cervical cap, TodayTM sponge, suppository or insert, jelly or cream (without

diaphragm), and other methods.

NOTE: Standard errors are in Appendix Table III.
Page 30 [ Series 23, No. 29

Table 13. Number of women aged 15–44 years, percentage currently using contraception, and percentage who used the specified

contraceptive method in the month of interview, according to Hispanic origin and race: United States, 2006–2008

Non-Hispanic

Hispanic White, single race Black, single race Other single race or multiple race

Most Most Most Most

effective Used effective Used effective Used effective Used

method specific method specific method specific method specific

Contraceptive status and method used method1 used method1 used method1 used method1

Number of women in thousands.............. 10,377 37,660 8,452 5,375

Percentage that used the method

Currently using contraception ............... 58.5 58.5 64.7 64.7 54.5 24.5 59.2 59.2

Female sterilization .................... 19.6 19.6 14.9 14.9 21.8 21.8 16.1 16.1

Male sterilization ...................... 3.4 3.6 8.3 9.1 1.1 1.3 3.9 4.6

Pill .............................. 11.4 11.5 21.2 22.0 11.4 11.9 10.9 11.0

NorplantTM, LunelleTM, or patch ............. 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.0

3-month injectable (Depo-ProveraTM) ......... 2.6 2.6 1.4 1.4 4.1 4.1 1.8 1.8

Contraceptive ring ..................... 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.8 0.8

Intrauterine device (IUD) ................. 4.8 4.8 3.3 3.3 2.8 3.0 2.2 2.2

Condom ........................... 9.4 11.3 9.5 13.6 8.8 14.8 16.2 19.6

Periodic abstinence—calendar rhythm......... 0.6 1.5 0.5 1.0 * 0.5 1.0 2.1

Periodic abstinence—natural family planning .... * * * 0.4 * * * *

Withdrawal ......................... 3.0 5.7 3.3 6.7 2.1 3.4 5.1 8.5

Other methods2 ...................... 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.5 * * * 0.5

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.

1Percentages will not add to the total who were using contraception because more than one method could have been used in the month of interview. Respondents could list as many as four current

contraceptive methods.

2Includes diaphragm (with or without jelly or cream), emergency contraception, female condom or vaginal pouch, foam, cervical cap, TodayTM sponge, suppository or insert, jelly or cream (without

diaphragm), and other methods.

NOTE: Standard errors are in Appendix Table IV.
Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 31

Table 14. Number of women aged 15–44 years, percentage currently using contraception, and percentage who used the specified

contraceptive method in month of interview, according to age at interview: United States, 2006–2008

15–24 25–34 35–44

Contraceptive status and method

Most

effective

method

used

Used

specific

method1

Most

effective

method

used

Used

specific

method1

Most

effective

method

used

Used

specific

method1

Number of women in thousands ................

Currently using contraception ..................

Female sterilization.......................

Male sterilization ........................

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

NorplantTM, LunelleTM, or patch ...............

3-month injectable (Depo-ProveraTM)............

Contraceptive ring .......................

Intrauterine device (IUD) ...................

Condom .............................

Periodic abstinence—calendar rhythm ...........

Periodic abstinence—natural family planning .......

Withdrawal ............................

Other methods2 .........................

41.3

0.7

0.2

20.7

0.6

2.7

2.2

2.1

9.9

0.2

–

1.9

0.2

20,570

41.3

0.7

0.2

20.7

0.6

2.7

2.2

2.1

15.4

0.3

*

5.3

0.2

19,837

Percentage that used the method

67.2 67.2

14.9 14.9

3.9 4.4

20.1 20.9

1.1 1.1

2.5 2.5

1.9 1.9

4.3 4.4

12.6 17.7

0.7 1.5

0.3 0.4

4.4 8.4

0.5 0.9

76.5

33.8

13.9

11.5

0.4

0.8

0.5

3.8

7.6

0.7

0.1

3.3

0.2

21,457

76.5

33.8

15.2

12.5

0.4

0.9

0.5

3.8

8.9

1.5

0.6

5.0

0.3

– Quantity zero.

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.

1Percentages will not add to the total who were using contraception because more than one method could have been used in the month of interview. Respondents could list as many as four current

contraceptive methods.

2Includes diaphragm (with or without jelly or cream), emergency contraception, female condom or vaginal pouch, foam, cervical cap, TodayTM sponge, suppository or insert, jelly or cream (without

diaphragm), and other methods.

NOTE: Standard errors are in Appendix Table V.
Page 32 [ Series 23, No. 29

Table 15. Number of women aged 15–44 years who ever used a selected method of contraception, percentage who discontinued that

method due to dissatisfaction and the reasons for discontinuation, and use and discontinuation of the pill by Hispanic origin and race:

United States, 2006–2008

Pill

Method Non-Hispanic

Black or

White, African

Depo­ single American,

Reason Pill Condom ProveraTM Patch Hispanic race single race

Number in thousands

Total who ever used the method ........... 45,082 49,521 12,050 5,415 6,382 29,510 5,802

Percent (standard error)

Percentage who discontinued method........ 30.1 (1.08) 10.8 (1.02) 43.4 (2.14) 50.4 (2.78) 35.2 (2.80) 28.5 (1.34) 29.8 (2.43)

Number in thousands

Total who stopped using the method due to

dissatisfaction ...................... 13,589 5,340 5,234 2,728 2,247 8,411 1,729

Reason for discontinuation Percent (standard error)

Too expensive ...................... 2.9 (0.57) 2.9 (1.42) 2.0 (1.48) 3.4 (1.87) 3.4 (1.63) 3.3 (0.71) 1.4 (0.92)

Insurance did not cover it ............... 2.1 (0.57) * * * * 2.6 (0.65) *

Too diffcult to use .................... 9.9 (1.47) 7.7 (1.86) * 8.7 (2.14) 10.2 (3.04) 9.3 (2.02) 13.6 (2.53)

Too messy......................... 0.3 (0.12) 8.9 (1.67) 0.4 (0.19) 5.9 (1.91) * * *

Your partner did not like it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 (0.43) 41.4 (4.63) * * * 1.3 (0.45) *

You had side effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.7 (1.83) 12.0 (2.52) 75.5 (3.15) 42.2 (5.09) 65.8 (4.30) 63.1 (2.75) 59.1 (3.23)

You were worried you might have side

effects .......................... 12.5 (1.46) * 8.3 (1.78) 8.2 (2.40) 16.6 (4.47) 12.7 (1.78) 8.4 (2.50)

You worried the method would not work ...... 2.5 (0.58) 23.0 (4.03) 1.0 (0.36) 7.6 (2.98) 2.6 (0.92) 2.1 (0.80) 5.0 (1.91)

The method failed, you became pregnant ..... 10.1 (1.32) 5.2 (1.75) 2.4 (0.50) 11.2 (3.40) 10.9 (3.21) 10.4 (1.89) 11.2 (2.22)

The method did not protect against disease .... 1.8 (0.74) – 0.5 (0.31) * * 2.2 (1.17) 1.7 (0.96)

Doctor told you not to use the method again.... 5.7 (1.12) 1.7 (0.92) 5.1 (1.23) 5.0 (1.65) 4.3 (1.13) 6.6 (1.65) 5.6 (1.53)

Decreased your sexual pleasure ........... 5.4 (0.86) 40.0 (4.71) 4.2 (1.15) * 4.4 (1.42) 6.3 (1.31) 4.2 (2.90)

Too difficult to obtain .................. 2.1 (0.56) – * * * 2.6 (0.87) 2.5 (1.08)

Did not like changes to menstrual cycle....... 10.6 (1.37) * 25.5 (2.90) 8.4 (2.81) 9.2 (2.66) 11.0 (1.77) 10.6 (2.38)

Other ............................ 9.8 (1.08) 10.8 (2.89) 5.7 (1.04) 15.0 (2.85) 7.6 (2.37) 10.9 (1.63) 9.5 (1.56)

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.

– Quantity zero.
Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 33

Appendix I. Technical

Notes

Sample Design and

Fieldwork Procedures

The 2006–2008 National Survey of

Family Growth, or NSFG, was based on

13,495 face-to-face interviews—7,356

with women and 6,139 with men—aged

15–44 years in the household population

of the United States. The interviews

were administered in person by trained

female interviewers in the selected

persons’ homes. The 2006–2008 sample

is a nationally representative multistage

area probability sample drawn from 85

areas across the country. The sample is

designed to produce national, not state,

estimates.

Persons were selected for the NSFG

in five major steps:

+	 Large areas (counties and cities)

were chosen first.

+	 Within each large area or ‘‘Primary

Sampling Unit,’’ groups of adjacent

blocks, called segments, were

chosen at random.

+	 Within segments, addresses were

listed and some addresses were

selected at random.

+	 The selected addresses were visited

in person, and a short ‘‘screener’’

interview was conducted to see if

anyone 15–44 years of age lived

there.

+	 If so, one person was chosen at

random for the interview and was

offered a chance to participate.

To protect the respondent’s privacy,

only one person was interviewed in each

selected household. In 2006–2008 as

well as in 2002, teenagers and black and

Hispanic adults were sampled at higher

rates than others.

The NSFG questionnaires and

materials were reviewed and approved

by the NCHS Research Ethics Review

Board (formerly known as the

Institutional Review Board or IRB), and

by the IRB at the University of

Michigan. The female questionnaire

lasted an average of about 70 minutes.

All respondents were given written and

oral information about the survey and

were informed that participation was

voluntary. Adult respondents 18–44

years of age were asked to sign a

consent form but were not required to

do so. For minors 15–17 years of age,

signed consent was required first from a

parent or guardian, and then signed

assent was required from the minor.

Consent forms were signed electronically on the interviewer’s computer.

The overall response rate for the survey

was about 75%—about 76% for women

and 73% for men.

About 100 female interviewers were

hired and trained by the survey

contractor, the University of Michigan’s

Institute for Social Research, under the

supervision of NCHS. Interviewing

occurred from about July 1, 2006,

through December 2008. All of the data

in this report were collected by

computer-assisted personal interviewing

(CAPI). The questionnaires were

programmed into laptop computers and

administered by an interviewer, usually

in the respondent’s home. Respondents

in the 2006–2008 survey were offered

$40 as a ‘‘token of appreciation’’ for

their participation. More detailed

information about the methods and

procedures of the study has been

described in a report on the planning

and development of the continuous

NSFG (1) and another report on the

continuous NSFG’s sample design,

weighting, imputation, and variance

estimation (20).

All weighted numbers in this report

were individually rounded to the nearest

thousand. In addition, all percentages

were rounded to the nearest tenth (e.g.,

23.1%). Aggregate numbers and

percentages may not always add to the

total because of this rounding.

Sampling Errors in the

2006–2008 National Survey

of Family Growth

Looking at Tables 1, 4, and 9,

which contain trend data from several

NSFG surveys, readers may notice that

the standard errors (and therefore the

confidence intervals) of comparable

statistics are somewhat larger in

2006–2008 than they were in the 1995

and 2002 NSFG surveys. This is a

predictable result of the design of the

2006–2008 NSFG, which has been

interviewing in a smaller number of

areas (85 areas, or ‘‘Primary Sampling

Units,’’ in 2006–2008 compared with

120 areas in 2002 and 198 areas in

1995). This use of a smaller number of

areas at a time reduces the cost of the

NSFG and increases quality control, but

it increases sampling errors.

For most statistics in this report,

these increased sampling errors do not

pose a problem, because most groups

shown in this report are based on large

sample sizes. If an analyst wishes to

examine a very small segment of the

population, such as Hispanic female

contraceptive users 20–24 years of age,

it may be worthwhile to use a somewhat

larger group, such as Hispanic female

contraceptive users 20–29 years of age,

to compensate for the larger standard

errors.

The next NSFG data file is

expected to be released in 2011. That

file will have the 13,495 interviews

completed in 2006–2008, plus another

9,000 or more conducted from January

2009 through June 2010, for a total of

approximately 22,500 interviews drawn

from 110 areas. Sampling errors using

those data are expected to be

significantly smaller because of the

larger sample size, and the larger

number of areas from which the

interviews are drawn. That sample will

allow analyses of small subgroups for

both men and women.

Standard errors for the statistics are

shown in most of the tables of this

report. In Tables 10–14, however

standard errors were omitted to make

the tables easier to read. The standard

errors for the statistics in Tables 10–14

are shown in Appendix Tables I–V.
Page 34 [ Series 23, No. 29

Table I. Number of women aged 15–44 years who are currently using a method of contraception and percent distribution by method,

according to selected characteristics: United States, 2002 and 2006–2008

Sterilization

Number Using

in any 3-month Other

Characteristic thousands method Female Male Pill Condom injectable IUD methods

Percent distribution (standard errors)

All women1

2006–2008 ...................... 38,214 100.0 27.1 (1.46) 9.9 (0.83) 28.0 (1.32) 16.1 (0.94) 3.2 (0.38) 5.5 (0.83) 10.2 (0.70)

2002 .......................... 38,109 100.0 27.0 (0.92) 9.2 (0.61) 30.6 (0.93) 18.0 (0.70) 5.3 (0.45) 2.0 (0.27) 7.9 (0.51)

Age

2006–2008:

15–19 years .................... 2,941 100.0 * – 54.1 (3.63) 22.8 (2.59) 9.4 (1.67) 3.6 (2.02) 10.1 (2.04)

20–24 years .................... 5,548 100.0 2.4 (0.73) 0.7 (0.31) 48.0 (2.87) 24.5 (1.91) 5.1 (1.17) 5.9 (1.20) 13.4 (1.93)

25–29 years .................... 6,583 100.0 15.0 (1.74) 3.3 (0.81) 35.1 (2.53) 20.5 (1.94) 5.2 (1.01) 6.2 (1.18) 14.7 (1.76)

30–34 years .................... 6,737 100.0 29.3 (3.17) 8.3 (1.27) 24.8 (2.39) 17.1 (2.45) 2.2 (0.53) 6.6 (1.69) 11.7 (1.51)

35–39 years .................... 7,859 100.0 37.6 (3.18) 16.5 (2.13) 19.3 (2.33) 11.2 (2.01) 1.0 (0.44) 5.8 (2.09) 8.6 (2.14)

40–44 years .................... 8,547 100.0 50.2 (3.23) 19.6 (2.97) 11.1 (1.94) 8.8 (1.53) 1.1 (0.41) 4.2 (1.13) 5.1 (1.09)

2002:

15–19 years .................... 3,096 100.0 – – 52.8 (3.31) 27.0 (2.89) 13.9 (2.36) * 6.0 (1.24)

20–24 years .................... 5,975 100.0 3.6 (0.71) 0.8 (0.31) 52.3 (2.58) 23.1 (1.99) 10.1 (1.34) 1.8 (0.32) 8.3 (1.28)

25–29 years .................... 6,291 100.0 15.1 (1.45) 4.2 (0.71) 37.6 (2.12) 20.5 (1.93) 6.5 (0.90) 3.7 (0.77) 12.4 (1.52)

30–34 years .................... 7,105 100.0 27.5 (1.75) 9.2 (1.17) 31.5 (1.95) 17.1 (1.30) 4.2 (0.87) 3.1 (0.74) 7.5 (0.98)

35–39 years .................... 7,688 100.0 41.2 (2.19) 14.2 (1.66) 18.6 (1.66) 15.7 (1.49) 2.1 (0.66) 1.5 (0.46) 6.8 (1.18)

40–44 years .................... 7,955 100.0 50.3 (2.57) 18.4 (2.00) 10.9 (1.13) 11.5 (1.63) 1.6 (0.72) 1.1 (0.57) 6.2 (1.27)

Marital or cohabiting status

2006–2008:

Currently married................. 21,238 100.0 30.0 (2.19) 16.2 (1.41) 20.7 (1.90) 14.9 (1.26) 1.7 (0.41) 6.7 (1.11) 9.8 (1.05)

Currently cohabiting ............... 4,855 100.0 22.9 (2.97) 3.2 (0.88) 32.5 (3.16) 14.3 (1.92) 4.4 (0.90) 6.6 (2.09) 16.2 (2.28)

Formerly married, not cohabiting ....... 3,144 100.0 58.2 (3.66) 3.8 (1.19) 18.9 (3.00) 6.7 (1.35) 4.2 (1.05) 3.5 (1.47) 4.7 (0.99)

Never married, not cohabiting ......... 8,978 100.0 11.5 (1.54) 0.8 (0.29) 46.0 (2.16) 23.2 (1.86) 5.7 (0.68) 2.7 (0.83) 10.1 (1.29)

2002:

Currently married................. 20,655 100.0 29.8 (1.50) 15.4 (1.07) 23.6 (1.13) 16.4 (0.97) 3.1 (0.43) 2.6 (0.40) 9.1 (0.77)

Currently cohabiting ............... 4,039 100.0 25.4 (2.40) 3.1 (0.78) 33.2 (2.33) 18.1 (1.97) 9.3 (1.57) 1.7 (0.50) 9.3 (1.45)

Formerly married, not cohabiting ....... 3,924 100.0 54.9 (2.32) 3.3 (1.15) 19.1 (1.97) 12.5 (1.77) 2.7 (0.64) 2.9 (0.90) 4.6 (0.94)

Never married, not cohabiting ......... 9,491 100.0 10.0 (1.29) 0.9 (0.22) 49.4 (2.33) 23.4 (1.40) 9.6 (1.09) 0.5 (0.23) 6.2 (0.89)

Parity

2006–2008:

0 births ....................... 11,919 100.0 2.0 (0.41) 2.0 (0.40) 55.3 (2.22) 24.6 (1.94) 3.3 (0.60) 0.3 (0.10) 12.6 (1.39)

1 birth........................ 6,163 100.0 12.8 (1.89) 9.0 (2.03) 29.8 (2.60) 22.1 (2.82) 4.2 (0.89) 8.4 (1.81) 13.7 (1.49)

2 births ....................... 10,490 100.0 34.9 (2.31) 17.4 (2.08) 14.4 (2.04) 12.0 (1.30) 3.3 (0.69) 10.9 (2.33) 7.2 (0.82)

3 or more births ................. 9,643 100.0 58.7 (3.10) 12.1 (2.09) 7.9 (1.53) 6.3 (1.18) 2.3 (0.54) 4.2 (0.66) 8.5 (1.83)

2002:

0 births ....................... 11,786 100.0 2.0 (0.42) 3.2 (0.53) 56.8 (1.85) 24.4 (1.43) 5.7 (0.72) 0.5 (0.22) 7.5 (0.90)

1 birth........................ 6,702 100.0 13.0 (1.35) 4.7 (0.91) 33.0 (1.91) 22.4 (1.54) 10.0 (1.28) 2.4 (0.62) 14.6 (1.67)

2 births ....................... 10,415 100.0 38.2 (1.84) 1.5 (1.69) 17.9 (1.43) 14.3 (1.32) 3.8 (0.54) 3.3 (0.57) 7.1 (0.85)

3 or more births ................. 9,205 100.0 56.4 (2.03) 13.2 (1.37) 9.8 (1.05) 10.6 (1.39) 3.2 (0.58) 2.4 (0.51) 4.5 (0.93)

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.

– Quantity zero.

1Includes women of other or multiple race and origin groups and women who do not know whether they intend to have more children, not shown separately.

NOTE: Standard errors are for percentages in Table 10.
Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 35

Table II. Number of women aged 15–44 years who are currently using a method of contraception and percent distribution by method,

according to selected characteristics: United States, 2002 and 2006–2008

Number Using Sterilization

in any 3-month Other

Characteristic thousands method Female Male Pill Condom injectable IUD methods

Percent distribution (standard errors)

Education1

2006–2008:

No high school diploma or GED........ 4,166 100.0 55.4 (3.72) 3.1 (1.13) 10.4 (1.75) 9.5 (1.64) 6.2 (1.53) 4.0 (1.46) 11.3 (2.14)

High school diploma or GED.......... 8,669 100.0 42.5 (2.58) 13.0 (1.77) 18.4 (2.29) 10.1 (1.35) 2.9 (0.62) 4.9 (0.86) 8.3 (1.58)

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ..... 9,324 100.0 27.4 (2.20) 11.1 (2.00) 23.4 (1.99) 15.7 (1.53) 2.7 (0.79) 7.2 (1.38) 12.5 (1.59)

Bachelor’s degree or higher .......... 10,962 100.0 16.3 (3.26) 13.6 (1.70) 34.7 (2.23) 20.2 (2.25) 0.7 (0.25) 5.7 (1.62) 8.6 (1.15)

2002:

No high school diploma or GED........ 3,887 100.0 55.3 (3.24) 2.8 (1.10) 10.6 (1.44) 13.2 (1.67) 7.4 (1.59) 2.5 (0.64) 8.3 (1.59)

High school diploma or GED.......... 9,996 100.0 41.5 (1.58) 10.8 (0.96) 19.0 (1.34) 13.1 (1.06) 4.9 (0.78) 2.5 (0.59) 8.3 (1.15)

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ..... 9,954 100.0 28.7 (1.71) 12.1 (1.59) 27.6 (1.76) 17.9 (1.38) 3.2 (0.50) 2.3 (0.54) 8.1 (1.16)

Bachelor’s degree or higher .......... 8,741 100.0 12.8 (1.43) 12.8 (1.47) 41.8 (1.88) 20.8 (1.81) 1.9 (0.41) 2.0 (0.46) 8.0 (1.01)

Poverty level income2

2006–2008:

0%–149% ..................... 9,941 100.0 42.7 (2.47) 4.0 (0.79) 18.6 (1.55) 14.9 (1.65) 5.2 (0.81) 5.5 (1.06) 9.3 (1.34)

0%–99%..................... 6,191 100.0 44.9 (3.50) 1.9 (0.83) 20.1 (2.63) 12.0 (1.41) 6.9 (1.14) 4.8 (1.12) 9.5 (2.06)

150%–299%.................... 10,800 100.0 31.6 (2.66) 11.7 (1.79) 21.0 (1.91) 15.9 (1.43) 2.3 (0.56) 5.5 (0.74) 12.0 (1.55)

300% or more................... 14,533 100.0 18.5 (2.02) 14.6 (1.53) 34.4 (1.92) 15.7 (1.53) 1.3 (0.37) 5.9 (1.55) 9.6 (1.15)

2002:

0%–149% ..................... 9,525 100.0 40.5 (2.18) 4.7 (1.12) 20.8 (1.60) 15.0 (1.16) 6.9 (0.97) 3.4 (0.53) 8.7 (1.16)

0%–99%..................... 6,088 100.0 42.1 (2.65) 5.0 (1.62) 20.4 (1.92) 13.7 (1.45) 7.1 (1.22) 4.1 (0.73) 7.7 (1.30)

150%–299%.................... 9,998 100.0 33.4 (1.91) 9.4 (1.23) 25.3 (1.54) 16.1 (1.31) 5.0 (0.74) 2.1 (0.66) 8.7 (0.97)

300% or more................... 15,490 100.0 19.9 (1.23) 13.7 (0.97) 35.6 (1.34) 19.1 (1.29) 2.8 (0.49) 1.5 (0.30) 7.3 (0.83)

Intent to have more children

2006–2008:

Intends more ................... 14,260 100.0 – 0.3 (0.14) 47.6 (1.98) 26.7 (1.71) 4.4 (0.66) 5.7 (0.97) 15.3 (1.40)

Intends no more ................. 23,382 100.0 44.2 (2.14) 16.0 (1.34) 15.8 (1.47) 9.6 (0.97) 2.5 (0.36) 5.0 (0.90) 6.9 (0.90)

2002:

Intends more ................... 14,213 100.0 * 0.2 (0.13) 51.4 (1.56) 26.8 (1.40) 8.3 (0.83) 2.0 (0.34) 11.3 (0.89)

Intends no more ................. 23,361 100.0 44.0 (1.26) 14.9 (0.95) 17.7 (0.94) 12.3 (0.76) 3.5 (0.46) 2.1 (0.39) 5.5 (0.58)

Race and Hispanic origin

2006–2008:

Hispanic ...................... 6,072 100.0 33.5 (3.47) 5.8 (1.55) 19.5 (2.45) 16.1 (1.53) 4.4 (0.87) 8.3 (1.25) 12.4 (1.54)

Non-Hispanic:

White, single race ............... 24,353 100.0 23.0 (1.76) 12.9 (1.01) 32.7 (1.68) 14.7 (1.15) 2.1 (0.32) 5.1 (1.04) 9.6 (0.91)

Black, single race ............... 4,605 100.0 39.9 (2.71) 1.9 (0.76) 20.9 (1.65) 16.2 (2.48) 7.5 (1.56) 5.2 (1.75) 8.4 (1.34)

All other single race and multiple race .... 3,184 100.0 27.3 (5.89) 6.6 (2.89) 18.4 (3.25) 27.3 (5.06) 3.0 (0.93) 3.7 (0.82) 13.8 (2.33)

2002:

Hispanic ...................... 5,370 100.0 33.8 (2.48) 4.4 (0.69) 22.0 (1.40) 18.5 (1.69) 7.3 (1.35) 5.3 (0.89) 8.8 (0.96)

Non-Hispanic:

White, single race ............... 25,513 100.0 23.9 (1.19) 11.7 (0.83) 34.4 (1.17) 16.6 (0.92) 4.2 (0.54) 1.5 (0.29) 7.8 (0.70)

Black, single race ............... 4,754 100.0 39.2 (2.05) 2.3 (0.87) 22.7 (1.92) 19.8 (1.43) 9.4 (1.20) 1.5 (0.53) 5.2 (0.77)

All other single race and multiple race . . 2,472 100.0 20.9 (2.88) 7.0 (2.82) 25.4 (2.62) 27.7 (3.21) 5.2 (1.34) 1.5 (0.70) 12.4 (3.01)

– Quantity zero.

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.

1Limited to women 22–44 years of age at time of interview.

2Limited to women 20–44 years of age at time of interview.
Page 36 [ Series 23, No. 29

Table III. Number of women aged 15–44 years, percentage currently using contraception, and percentage who used each of the specified

contraceptive methods in the month of interview, according to current marital status: United States, 2006–2008

Marital and cohabitation status

All women Current married Not currently married

Most Most Most

effective Used effective Used effective Used

method specific method specific method specific

Contraceptive status and method used method1 used method1 used method1

Number of women in thousands ................ 61,864 27,006 34,858 
 

Percentage (standard error) that used the method

Currently using contraception .................. 61.8 (1.22) 61.8 (1.21) 78.6 (1.25) 78.6 (1.25) 48.7 (1.91) 48.7 (1.91) 
 

Female sterilization....................... 16.7 (0.96) 16.7 (0.96) 23.6 (1.82) 23.6 (1.82) 11.4 (0.92) 11.4 (0.92) 
 

Male sterilization ........................ 6.1 (0.53) 6.7 (0.58) 12.7 (1.14) 13.7 (1.23) 1.0 (0.19) 1.3 (0.27) 
 

Pill ................................. 17.3 (0.83) 17.9 (0.86) 16.3 (1.46) 17.4 (1.50) 18.1 (1.16) 18.3 (1.15) 
 

NorplantTM, LunelleTM, or patch ............... 0.7 (0.12) 0.7 (0.12) 0.7 (0.20) 0.7 (0.20) 0.7 (0.14) 0.7 (0.14) 
 

3-month injectable (Depo-ProveraTM)............ 2.0 (0.24) 2.0 (0.24) 1.4 (0.32) 1.4 (0.32) 2.4 (0.27) 2.5 (0.28) 
 

Contraceptive ring ....................... 1.5 (0.22) 1.5 (0.22) 1.0 (0.25) 1.1 (0.26) 1.8 (0.36) 1.8 (0.36) 
 

Intrauterine device (IUD) ................... 3.4 (0.52) 3.4 (0.52) 5.3 (0.85) 5.3 (0.85) 1.9 (0.46) 2.0 (0.46) 
 

Condom ............................. 10.0 (0.63) 13.9 (0.69) 11.7 (1.03) 13.8 (1.13) 8.6 (0.62) 14.0 (0.84) 
 

Periodic abstinence—calendar rhythm ........... 0.5 (0.10) 1.1 (0.16) 1.0 (0.23) 1.8 (0.30) 0.2 (0.07) 0.6 (0.16) 
 

Periodic abstinence—natural family planning ....... 0.1 (0.06) 0.4 (0.13) 0.2 (0.07) 0.7 (0.28) * * 
 

Withdrawal ............................ 3.2 (0.33) 6.2 (0.42) 4.5 (0.69) 7.3 (0.79) 2.2 (0.31) 5.4 (0.53) 
 

Other methods2 ............ ............ 0.3 (0.09) 0.5 (0.11) 0.3 (0.10) 0.6 (0.15) 0.2 (0.11) 0.3 (0.11) 
 

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.

1Percentages will not add to the total who were using contraception because more than one method could have been used in the month of interview. Respondents could list as many as four current
 

contraceptive methods.
 

2Includes diaphragm (with or without jelly or cream), emergency contraception, female condom or vaginal pouch, foam, cervical cap, TodayTM sponge, suppository or insert, jelly or cream (without
 

diaphragm), and other methods.
 

Table IV. Number of women aged 15–44 years, percentage currently using contraception, and percentage who used the specified

contraceptive method in the month of interview, according to Hispanic origin and race: United States, 2006–2008

Race and Hispanic origin

Non-Hispanic

Hispanic White, single race Black, single race Other single race or multiple race

Contraceptive status and method

Most

effective

method

used

Used

specific

method1

Most

effective

method

used

Used

specific

method1

Most

effective

method

used

Used

specific

method1

Most

effective

method

used

Used

specific

method1

Number of women in thousands ......... 10,377 37,660 8,452 5,375

Percentage (standard error) that used the method

Currently using contraception...........

Female sterilization ...............

Male sterilization .................

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

NorplantTM, LunelleTM, or patch ........

3-month injectable (Depo-ProveraTM) ....

Contraceptive ring ................

Intrauterine device (IUD) ............

Condom ......................

Periodic abstinence—calendar rhythm ....

Periodic abstinence—natural family

planning ......................

Withdrawal.....................

Other methods2 ........ ........

58.5 (1.90)

19.6 (2.09)

3.4 (0.91)

11.4 (1.53)

1.5 (0.43)

2.6 (0.52)

1.2 (0.42)

4.8 (0.77)

9.4 (0.98)

0.6 (0.33)

*

3.0 (0.47)

0.5 (0.35)

58.5 (1.90)

19.6 (2.09)

3.6 (0.92)

11.5 (1.53)

1.5 (0.43)

2.6 (0.53)

1.2 (0.42)

4.8 (0.77)

11.3 (1.08)

1.5 (0.43)

*

5.7 (0.75)

0.6 (0.35)

64.7 (1.59)

14.9 (1.22)

8.3 (0.71)

21.2 (1.11)

0.5 (0.09)

1.4 (0.20)

1.6 (0.33)

3.3 (0.67)

9.5 (0.78)

0.5 (0.13)

*

3.3 (0.49)

0.3 (0.07)

64.7 (1.59)

14.9 (1.22)

9.1 (0.76)

22.0 (1.12)

0.5 (0.09)

1.4 (0.21)

1.7 (0.33)

3.3 (0.67)

13.6 (0.88)

1.0 (0.20)

0.4 (0.20)

6.7 (0.63)

0.5 (0.12)

54.5 (2.54)

21.8 (1.89)

1.1 (0.42)

11.4 (1.13)

0.6 (0.16)

4.1 (0.84)

1.7 (0.69)

2.8 (0.95)

8.8 (1.30)

*

*

2.1 (0.47)

*

24.5 (2.54)

21.8 (1.89)

1.3 (0.50)

11.9 (1.39)

0.6 (0.16)

4.1 (0.84)

1.7 (0.69)

3.0 (0.96)

14.8 (1.55)

0.5 (0.20)

*

3.4 (0.61)

*

59.2 (3.00)

16.1 (3.70)

3.9 (1.73)

10.9 (1.88)

1.0 (0.55)

1.8 (0.52)

0.8 (0.31)

2.2 (0.46)

16.2 (3.16)

1.0 (0.52)

*

5.1 (1.23)

*

59.2 (3.00)

16.1 (3.70)

4.6 (1.82)

11.0 (1.88)

1.0 (0.55)

1.8 (0.53)

0.8 (0.31)

2.2 (0.46)

19.6 (3.27)

2.1 (0.72)

*

8.5 (1.66)

0.5 (0.26)

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.

1Percentages will not add to the total who were using contraception because more than one method could have been used in the month of interview. Respondents could list as many as four current

contraceptive methods.

2Includes diaphragm (with or without jelly or cream), emergency contraception, female condom or vaginal pouch, foam, cervical cap, TodayTM sponge, suppository or insert, jelly or cream (without

diaphragm), and other methods.
Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 37

Table V. Number of women aged 15–44 years, percentage currently using contraception, and percentage who used the specified

contraceptive method in month of interview, according to age at interview: United States, 2006–2008

Age

15–24 25–34 35–44

Most Most Most

effective Used effective Used effective Used

method specific method specific method specific

Contraceptive status and method used method1 used method1 used method1

Number of women in thousands 20,570 19,837 21,457

Percentage (standard error) that used the method

Currently using contraception .................. 41.3 (2.19) 41.3 (2.19) 67.2 (1.46) 67.2 (1.46) 76.5 (1.36) 76.5 (1.36) 
 

Female sterilization....................... 0.7 (0.20) 0.7 (0.20) 14.9 (1.41) 14.9 (1.41) 33.8 (1.94) 33.8 (1.94) 
 

Male sterilization ........................ 0.2 (0.08) 0.2 (0.08) 3.9 (0.56) 4.4 (0.59) 13.9 (1.40) 15.2 (1.43) 
 

Pill ................................. 20.7 (1.43) 20.7 (1.42) 20.1 (1.21) 20.9 (1.18) 11.5 (1.30) 12.5 (1.46) 
 

NorplantTM, LunelleTM, or patch ............... 0.6 (0.15) 0.6 (0.15) 1.1 (0.29) 1.1 (0.29) 0.4 (0.19) 0.4 (0.19) 
 

3-month injectable (Depo-ProveraTM)............ 2.7 (0.40) 2.7 (0.40) 2.5 (0.40) 2.5 (0.41) 0.8 (0.25) 0.9 (0.25) 
 

Contraceptive ring ....................... 2.2 (0.55) 2.2 (0.55) 1.9 (0.35) 1.9 (0.35) 0.5 (0.18) 0.5 (0.18) 
 

Intrauterine device (IUD) ................... 2.1 (0.58) 2.1 (0.58) 4.3 (0.70) 4.4 (0.70) 3.8 (0.92) 3.8 (0.92) 
 

Condom ............................. 9.9 (0.79) 15.4 (1.02) 12.6 (1.14) 17.7 (1.34) 7.6 (0.97) 8.9 (1.00) 
 

Periodic abstinence—calendar rhythm ........... 0.2 (0.07) 0.3 (0.12) 0.7 (0.25) 1.5 (0.34) 0.7 (0.23) 1.5 (0.33) 
 

Periodic abstinence—natural family planning ....... – * 0.3 (0.16) 0.4 (0.18) 0.1 (0.06) 0.6 (0.34) 
 

Withdrawal ............................ 1.9 (0.37) 5.3 (0.55) 4.4 (0.55) 8.4 (0.91) 3.3 (0.75) 5.0 (0.74) 
 

Other methods2 ............ ............ 0.2 (0.07) 0.2 (0.08) 0.5 (0.20) 0.9 (0.26) 0.2 (0.08) 0.3 (0.10) 
 

– Quantity zero.

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.

1Percentages will not add to the total who were using contraception because more than one method could have been used in the month of interview. Respondents could list as many as four current

contraceptive methods.

2Includes diaphragm (with or without jelly or cream), emergency contraception, female condom or vaginal pouch, foam, cervical cap, TodayTM sponge, suppository or insert, jelly or cream (without

diaphragm), and other methods.
Page 38 [ Series 23, No. 29

Appendix II.

Definitions of Terms

Age

In this report, age (recode = AGER)

is based on the respondent’s age as of

the date of the interview. This may

differ slightly from the respondent’s age

at the time of the household screening

interview. Persons were eligible for the

main NSFG interview if they were

15–44 years of age when the household

screening interview was conducted.

Age at first sexual intercourse

In this report, age at first sexual

intercourse (recode = SEX1AGE) is

defined as the woman’s age at her first

intercourse after menarche. It is based

on the following question:

‘‘Thinking back after your first

menstrual period, how old were you

when you had sexual intercourse for

the first time?’’

At risk of unintended

pregnancy

As discussed in the text surrounding

Tables 4–8, this term (recode =

CONSTAT1) refers to women who have

a chance of becoming pregnant at the

date of interview, but do not want to

become pregnant now: they are either

(a) using a contraceptive method or

(b) they are not using contraception but

they have had intercourse in the 3

months before the interview and are not

pregnant or trying to become pregnant.

‘‘Risk of unintended pregnancy’’ is

measured by combining several

categories of the CONSTAT1 recode in

the NSFG data file. Calculating

contraceptive use or nonuse as a

proportion of those who are ‘‘at risk of

unintended pregnancy’’ allows better

comparisons between groups of women

by age, race, parity, marital status, and

other characteristics.

Women who are not at risk of

unintended pregnancy at the date of

interview are those who are not using

contraception because they are:

+	 Currently pregnant or postpartum

(5.4%).

+	 Trying to become pregnant (4.1%).

+	 Had never had intercourse, or had

not had intercourse recently

(19.2%).

+	 Were sterile from surgery (most

commonly, hysterectomy) (0.4%).

+	 Were sterile for nonsurgical

reasons (1.7%).

Those who are ‘‘at risk of unintended

pregnancy’’ include two groups:

+	 The 62% of women who are

currently using contraception

(because method use does

sometimes result in unintended

pregnancy).

+	 The 7.3% of women who have had

intercourse in the last 3 months but

were not currently using contraception.

In this report, women using all

contraceptive methods, including male

and female sterilization, are classified as

‘‘at risk and using a method.’’ This was

done for several reasons: first, because

female sterilization is the second most

commonly used method, and male

sterilization is the fourth most

commonly used; together they account

for 37% of all contraceptive users in the

United States. It is inaccurate to say that

this large group is not using contraception. Second, sterilization has a low

but non-zero risk of failure (22), so it can

be viewed as appropriate to consider these

women as ‘‘at risk and using a method.’’

An alternative definition of ‘‘at risk

of unintended pregnancy’’ can be

constructed that classifies those using

male or female sterilization as ‘‘not at

risk of unintended pregnancy.’’ If we

were to define ‘‘at risk of unintended

pregnancy’’ this way, then the proportion

using contraception is 84% and the

proportion ‘‘at risk but not using’’ is 16%

overall (compared with 11% using the

definition used in Table 8), 14% for

Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women,

and 25% for black women. Given how

common sterilization is in the United

States, however, this definition was not

used in this report.

Contraceptive use at first

sexual intercourse

This variable (recode =

SEX1MTHD1– 4) is defined only for

women who have ever had intercourse

after menarche. The recodes used are

SEX1MTHDI-4, which describe whether

a method was used at all the first time a

woman had intercourse after menarche,

and if so, what method(s). If she did

report using a method at first intercourse

after menarche, she was asked what

method she used and what other

method(s) she used at the same time, if

any.

Current contraceptive status

This recode (recode = CONSTAT1)

is a measure of current contraceptive

use during heterosexual vaginal

intercourse. The primary purpose of this

recode is to measure risk of pregnancy;

the secondary purpose is to measure risk

of sexually transmitted diseases. All

respondents are classified by current

contraceptive status, first into those who

are using contraception in the month of

interview and those who are not.

Those who are not using contraception are classified into the following

categories, which may be viewed as ‘‘not

at risk of unintended pregnancy’’:

+	 They are currently pregnant or

postpartum.

+	 They are trying to become pregnant.

+	 They have never had intercourse or

they have not had intercourse within

the 3 months before the interview.

+	 They or their partner is sterile—

either nonsurgically or surgically for

noncontraceptive reasons.

A final category of nonusers

comprises those who are not using, but

they have had intercourse in the 3

months before the interview. These are

generally classified as ‘‘at risk of

unintended pregnancy.’’

Those who are using contraception

are classified by the method or methods

they are using. Those who are using

more than one method are classified by

the most effective method they are

using. If multiple contraceptive methods
Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 39

are being used at the time of interview,

up to three additional methods are coded

into separate variables (CONSTAT2–

CONSTAT4), in order of their

effectiveness. (Very few respondents

reported four methods in a month, and

none reported more than four.)

This report presents results from the

CONSTAT1 recode (the most effective

method currently used) in Tables 4–11,

and the results of CONSTAT1–4

(all methods currently used) in

Tables 12–14. The categories of current

contraceptive status are defined in the

following way, in two broad groups—

those not using contraception and those

using contraception. The categories of

nonusers of contraception are described

first.

Noncontraceptors

Nonsurgically sterile—A woman was
 

classified as nonsurgically sterile if she
 

reported that it was impossible for her
 

or her husband or cohabiting partner to
 

have a baby for any reason other than
 

surgical sterilization. Nonsurgical
 

reasons for sterility include menopause;
 

sterility from accident, illness,
 

congenital causes; or unexplained
 

inability to conceive.
 

Surgically sterile (female–
 

noncontraceptive)—If a woman was
 

surgically sterile at the time of interview
 

for noncontraceptive reasons, then she
 

was classified as surgically sterile
 

(female–noncontraceptive). ‘‘Surgically
 

sterile’’ means that the woman is
 

completely unable to have a baby due to
 

an operation. ‘‘Noncontraceptive’’
 

reasons include medical reasons such as
 

trouble with female reproductive organs
 

and high likelihood of miscarrying or
 

having an unhealthy baby. Most of those
 

classified in this category were women
 

who had had a hysterectomy.
 

Pregnant—The recode RCURPREG
 

was defined as ‘‘yes, currently
 

pregnant’’ if the woman answered ‘‘yes’’
 

to either of these questions:
 

‘‘Are you pregnant now?’’ or for those

in doubt, ‘‘Do you think you are

probably pregnant or not?’’ If the

recode RCURPREG = ‘‘yes,’’ then

CONSTAT1 was coded ‘‘pregnant.’’

Seeking pregnancy—A woman was

classified as seeking pregnancy if she

reported that she was not using a

method at the time of interview because

she or her partner wanted her to become

pregnant as soon as possible.

Postpartum—A woman was classified

as postpartum if she reported that she

was not currently using a method, was

not trying to become pregnant, and her

last pregnancy had ended 6 weeks or

less before the time of interview.

Other nonusers—Women who reported

that they were using no contraceptive

methods for any reason in the month of

interview and could not be otherwise

classified were considered nonusers.

Included are:

+	 Women who never had (voluntary)

intercourse since their first menses.

+	 Women who have had intercourse, but

not in the 3 months prior to interview.

+	 Women who had intercourse at some

time in the 3 months prior to

interview but were not using a

method in the month of interview.

Contraceptors

Women in the NSFG used a ‘‘Life

History Calendar’’ to record the month

and year in which significant events

happened in their lives, including

marriages and cohabitations, and births

and other pregnancies. Women used

their life history calendars to help them

answer more accurately about

contraceptive use, both ever in their

lives, and in the 3–4 years prior to the

date of interview (for example, January

2003 to the month of interview for

women interviewed in 2006). The

interviewer asked whether the

respondent had ever used each of about

22 methods, and showed her a card

listing these 22 methods (all the

methods that were currently available in

the United States). Next, the interviewer

asked the respondent to record on the

life history calendar the contraceptive

methods the respondent used each

month from January 2003 (or her first

intercourse if it was later than January

2003) to the month of interview, if she

was interviewed in 2006. If she was

interviewed in 2008, she would be asked

to record the methods she used in

January 2005 to the month of interview.

The interviewer would read the following

to the respondent and help her fill in the

information on the life history calendar.

ED-4b. ‘‘I need to find out about

the birth control methods you used

each month between (DATE OF

FIRST METHOD USE OR

JANUARY xxxx) and (DATE OF

INTERVIEW). Remember to include

methods men use—such as condoms,

vasectomy, and withdrawal—in your

answer.

Looking at the methods on Card 37,

please write the methods you used

each month on the calendar. I need to

know about all the methods you used,

so if you used more than one method

in a month, please record all the

methods you used that month.’’

They then reviewed the entries for

each month and the interviewer entered

the methods into the computer for each

month. This recording continued through

the month of the interview. The method

or methods used in the month of

interview comprise the methods used

in the current contraceptive status

classification in Table 4–14.

If the woman reported using two or

more methods in the month of interview,

she was classified by the most effective

method she used for CONSTAT1.

Priority was given to contraceptive

methods in the following order:

Female (contraceptive) sterilization

had the highest priority, followed by

male (contraceptive) sterilization,

NorplantTM or ImplanonTM implant,

LunelleTM (1-month injectable),

Depo-ProveraTM (3-month

injectable), pill, contraceptive patch,

contraceptive ring, morning-after

pill (emergency contraception),

IUD, diaphragm (with or without

jelly or cream), male condom,

female condom or vaginal pouch,

foam, cervical cap, TodayTM sponge,

suppository or insert, jelly or cream

(without diaphragm), periodic

abstinence by natural family

planning or temperature rhythm

methods, periodic abstinence by

calendar rhythm method,

withdrawal, and other methods.
Page 40 [ Series 23, No. 29

Thus, in Tables 4–11, if a woman or

couple was using the pill and the male

condom, they would be classified as

using the pill, because it has a lower

failure rate. In Tables 12–14, however,

the use of both methods would be

recorded.

Education

Highest grade or degree (recode =

HIEDUC). This is based on a series of

questions that measure the highest

degree received as well as the highest

grade or year of school completed. The

categories of HIEDUC were defined as

follows:

No high school diploma or

GED—The woman has not received

a high school degree, General

Educational Development high

school equivalency diploma (GED),

or college diploma.

High school diploma or GED—The

highest degree the woman obtained

is a high school diploma or GED,

and her highest completed grade of

school is 12 or lower.

Some college, no bachelor’s

degree—The highest degree the

woman obtained is a high school

diploma or GED, but the highest

grade of school completed is higher

than 12, or the highest degree is an

Associate’s degree.

Bachelor’s degree or higher—The

woman reported having a college or

university degree at the bachelor’s

level or higher, regardless of highest

grade completed.

The tables in this report show data

for education only for women aged

22–44 years at interview because large

percentages of women 15–21 years of

age are still attending school. Using the

full age range of 15–44 would

misclassify many young women still

attending school as having low

educational attainment.

Education of respondent’s

mother

This is a measure (recode =

EDUCMOM) of the respondent’s

mother’s (or mother-figure’s)

educational attainment. For women who

had not lived with both biological or

both adoptive parents from birth or

adoption to age 18, this question was

asked to determine whether she had a

mother or mother-figure:

‘‘Who, if anyone, do you think of as

the woman who mostly raised you

when you were growing up?’’

Response categories included: biological

mother, adoptive mother, stepmother,

father’s girlfriend, foster mother,

grandmother, other female relative,

female nonrelative, no such person, or

other.

All respondents, except for those

who did not identify a mother figure,

were then asked:

‘‘Please look at Card 11. What is

the highest level of education (your

mother/she) completed?’’

– Less than high school

– High school graduate or GED

– Some college but no degree

– 2-year college degree (e.g.,

Associate’s degree)

– 4-year college graduate (e.g., BA,

BS)

– Graduate or professional school

These were combined into the same

four categories as was the respondent’s

education: less than high school; high

school graduate or GED; some college

including 2-year degrees; and Bachelor’s

degree or higher.

Effectiveness of contraceptive

methods

The 13.5% of contraceptive users

who were using more than one method

in the month before the interview were

classified in Tables 4–11 by the most

‘‘effective’’ method they were using.

This section defines ‘‘effectiveness,’’

and how it is measured in the NSFG.

The ranking of the effectiveness of

methods uses data (when available) and

other knowledge to estimate the failure

rate for each method when used by a

national sample of users. A failure rate

is simply the percent who have a

pregnancy in the first 12 months of

using the method. Much of this

knowledge is based on analysis of data

from previous cycles of the NSFG and

from clinical trials (e.g., 21,22). This

measure is sometimes called ‘‘typical

use,’’ or ‘‘use-effectiveness,’’ and is the

best estimate of the likely failure rate

for a national cross-section of users.

‘‘Perfect use,’’ which is often measured

in clinical trials, is the failure rate

obtained when a method is used by a

selected sample of participants who are

instructed how to use the method

consistently and correctly; clinical-trial

failure rates are usually lower than

failure rates in representative national

samples (21,22).

Two recent sources (21,22) were

used to obtain the typical-use failure

rates as estimated from previous cycles

of the NSFG. These rates are shown in

Table A in the text. They are: female

sterilization and male sterilization (less

than 1%, most effective), implant (1%),

injectable (7%), pill (9%), male

condom (17%), withdrawal (18%),

periodic abstinence (25%), and

spermicides (29%, least effective).

Along with the failure rates shown

previously, two other factors were

considered: One of these was an attempt

to preserve comparability with previous

cycles of the NSFG. Priority was given to

comparability when the differences in

failure rates between some methods were

very small. The rankings for the newer

methods and those used by very small

proportions of women were assigned

based on the best information available.

Therefore, if a woman reported that she

had used the pill and the condom in the

last month, in Tables 4–11, she was

classified as using the pill, because the pill

has a lower failure rate (9%) than the

condom (17%). In Tables 12–14, however,

both the pill use and the condom use

would be recorded.

Ever-use of birth control

methods

These data are based on multiple

series of questions, the first of which

begins like this:

‘‘Card 30 lists methods that some

people use to prevent pregnancy or to

prevent sexually transmitted disease.

As I read each one, please tell me if
Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 41

you have ever used it for any reason.

Please answer yes even if you have

only used the method once.

– Have you ever used birth control

pills?

– Have you ever used condoms or

rubbers with a partner?

– Have you ever had sex with a

partner who had a vasectomy?

– Have you ever used DepoProveraTM, an injectable (or shot)

given once every 3 months?

– Have you ever used LunelleTM, a

once-a-month injection?

– Have you ever had sex with a

partner who used withdrawal or

‘‘pulling out’’?’’

This series of questions continued

until 11 methods had been asked about

individually. Then, the respondent was

asked the following:

‘‘On the right side of Card 30 is a

list of some other methods of birth

control. Which, if any of the

methods listed on that side of the

card have you ever used? Please

tell me the method even if you have

only used it once.’’

The methods that were listed on the

right side of the card are: Hormonal

implant (NorplantTM or ImplanonTM);

IUD, coil, loop; cervical cap;

diaphragm; female condom, vaginal

pouch; foam; jelly or cream;

suppository, insert; TodayTM sponge, and

other method. The interviewer would

record every method that the respondent

had used.

Other sections of the interview,

which captured a woman’s use of

contraceptive methods at specific

instances or periods of intercourse, were

used to ensure that ‘‘ever use’’ of these

methods were complete. The additional

information came from her life history

calendar, a month-by-month record of

birth control; the method she used the

first time she had intercourse; the

method she used the last time she had

intercourse; and whether she had

stopped using the method because of

dissatisfaction.

Marital status at interview

This variable (Recode =

RMARITAL) is based on the following

question in the interview:

‘‘Now I’d like to ask about your

marital status and living together.

Please look at Card 1. What is your

current marital or cohabiting status?’’

– Married

– Not married but living together

with a partner of the opposite sex

– Widowed

– Divorced

– Separated, because you and your

spouse are not getting along

– Never been married.

In this report, the categories

widowed, divorced, and separated were

combined into the ‘‘formerly married’’

category because of limitations of

sample size.

Parity

This refers to the number of live

births (recode = PARITY) the woman

has had. For example, a woman

classified as ‘‘parity 0’’ has never had a

live birth. ‘‘Parity 1’’ means that she has

had one live birth.

Poverty level income at

interview

The poverty index ratio (recode =

POVERTY) is measured for the year

before the year of interview. It was

calculated by dividing the total family

income by the weighted average

threshold income of families whose

head of household was under 65 years

of age, based on the poverty levels

defined by the U.S. Census Bureau for

the year preceding the interview. That is,

if the interview took place in 2006, the

respondent was asked to provide the

total family income for 2005 and

POVERTY would be calculated using

the 2005 Census definitions. This

definition of poverty status takes into

account the number of persons in the

family. Total family income includes

income from all sources for all members

of the respondent’s family.

For example, the Census-defined

poverty threshold for a family of four in

2005, was $19,971. So, if the total

family income was $40,000, the income

relative to the poverty level would be

200 ($40,000/19,971) × 100 = 200.29)

and a respondent would be classified in

the category ‘‘150–299%.’’

The tables in this report show data

by poverty-level income only for

women aged 20–44 years at interview.

Reports of income by younger women

are likely to be inaccurate because

younger respondents are more likely to

be trying to report the income of their

parent(s) and less likely to be

contributors to family income

themselves.

For 1,452 (781 women and 671

men) of the 13,495 respondents, or

10.8%, total family income for the year

preceding the NSFG interview was not

ascertained, and was imputed.

Race and Hispanic origin

Women were classified into a

Hispanic origin or race category, based

on the recode variable (recode =

HISPRACE2), HISPRACE, and the

intermediate variable, NUMRACE (a

count of the number of races the

respondent chose). HISPRACE has these

values:

1 = Hispanic

2 = Non-Hispanic white

3 = Non-Hispanic black

4 = Non-Hispanic other

NUMRACE is dichotomous: 1 = single

race, 2 = multiple races.

For respondents who were Hispanic

(HISPRACE = 1) or who were of only

1 race (NUMRACE = 1), HISPRACE2

= HISPRACE. If NUMRACE = 2, then

HISPRACE2 = 4. The categories of

HISPRACE2 are:

1 = Hispanic (regardless of race

reporting)

2 = Non-Hispanic white, single race

3 = Non-Hispanic black, single race

4 = Non-Hispanic other single race

or multiple race

For some tables, there are sufficient

numbers of non-Hispanic Asian, singlerace respondents to report statistical
Page 42 [ Series 23, No. 29

results for this subgroup of category 4,

non-Hispanic other single or multiple

race. There are too few respondents in

the other subgroups to report results for

them separately.

Interpretation of data by race and

Hispanic origin

Data are shown by race and

Hispanic origin in the tables because

NCHS is frequently asked to provide

data separately for white, black, and

Hispanic women. Race is associated

with a number of indicators of social

and economic status. Measures of

socioeconomic status (e.g., education

and income) are not always available for

the point in time when the event being

studied occurred. While characteristics

such as education and income change

over time, race and ethnicity do not

change, so they can be used at all points

in time as proxies for socioeconomic

status. Differences among white, black,

and Hispanic women in the variables

presented in the tables may be related to

the lower income and educational levels

of black and Hispanic women (36,

Tables 222, 223, 262, 569, 602, 669,

671, 689, 699) their limited access to

health care and health insurance, the

communities in which they live (37),

and other factors.

Sexually experienced

In this report, a female is sexually

experienced if she has ever had vaginal,

heterosexual intercourse at least once in

her life after menarche. Tables 1 and 2

of this report are based on this group of

women. This is measured by the

HADSEX recode.

Sexual intercourse

In this report, sexual intercourse

only includes vaginal intercourse

between a male and a female.
Appendix III. Details

on the Surveys of

Contraceptive Use

Shown in Table F

The United Nations Population

Division, Section on Fertility and

Family Planning, provided the following

details on the surveys summarized in

Table F of this report. See the website

cited in Table F for more information.

Australia

Name of survey: Australian Study of
 

Health and Relationships.
 

Data collection period: Mid-2001 to
 

mid-2002.
 

Data collection method: Computerassisted telephone interview.
 

Sample size: 19,307 men and women.
 

Questions on contraceptive use were
 

administered to 9,134 sexually active
 

women aged 16–59.
 

Sample weights: Data were adjusted to
 

match the Australian population (age,
 

sex, area of residence) based on the
 

2001 Census.
 

Response rate: 77.6%.
 

Contraceptive methods: Respondents
 

were allowed to indicate more than one
 

contraceptive method. The survey
 

indicated that the overall contraceptive
 

prevalence was 70.8%. Questions were
 

asked of women who had had
 

intercourse in the last 12 months.
 

Belgium

Name of survey: Enqueˆte de sante ́ par
 

interview.
 

Data collection period: 2004.
 

Data collection method: Self-reported
 

paper questionnaire.
 

Sample size: 12,650 persons. Questions
 

on contraceptive use were administered
 

to sexually active women aged 15–49.
 

Sample weights: Data were adjusted to
 

match basic population characteristics.
 

Response rate: 61.4% of households
 

contacted.
 

Contraceptive methods: Questions refer

to methods used during the previous 12

months. Respondents were allowed to

indicate more than one contraceptive

method. The tabulated results did

reclassify methods by main method.

Questions were asked of women who

had had intercourse in the last 12

months.

France

Name of survey: Enqueˆte Cohorte
 

Contraception 2000.
 

Data collection period: October 2000
 

and January 2001.
 

Data collection method: Computerassisted telephone interview.
 

Sample weights: Data were adjusted
 

after post-stratification to make the
 

structure of the sample more comparable
 

to that of the female population of
 

metropolitan France. Data were also
 

adjusted for age, marital status, activity
 

status, and educational attainment.
 

Sample size: 3,155 women aged 18–44.
 

Response rate: Around 90%.
 

Contraceptive methods: The
 

questionnaire did not distinguish
 

between sterilizations for contraceptive
 

and medical reasons. Data on
 

contraceptive use to women married or
 

in union were provided to the United
 

Nations by INSERM.
 

Netherlands

Name of survey: Geboorteregeling 2003
 

(Birth Control in the Netherlands Survey
 

2003).
 

Data collection period: February to May
 

2003.
 

Data collection method: Computerassisted personal interview.
 

Sample weights: Data were adjusted to
 

match the population (age, sex, area of
 

residence, nationality, and marital status
 

of women).
 

Sample size: 14,221 households (men
 

and women aged 18–62). Questions on
 

contraceptive use were administered to
 

women aged 18–45.
 

Response rate: 57%.
 

Series 23, No. 29 [ Page 43

Norway

Name of survey: Survey on
 

Contraceptive Use 2005.
 

Data collection period: October 2005.
 

Data collection method: Web panel.
 

Sample size: 5,000 women aged 20–44
 

who were sexually active in the
 

previous 3 months.
 

Response rate: 41%.
 

Contraceptive methods: Women who
 

provided no information on the
 

contraceptive method used were
 

classified as not using contraception.
 

Portugal

Name of survey: Inque ́rito Nacional de
 

Sau ́de 2005–2006.
 

Data collection period: February 2005
 

and February 2006.
 

Data collection method: Computerassisted personal interview.
 

Sample size: 41,193 Portuguese
 

residents. Questions on contraceptive
 

use were administered to women aged
 

15–55.
 

Response rate: 76%.
 

Contraceptive methods: United Nations
 

Population Division (UNPD) estimated
 

the contraceptive prevalence for women
 

20–49 based on data on contraceptive
 

prevalence for 5-year age groups using
 

the UNPD publication ‘‘World
 

Population Prospects 2006’’ as the
 

population weights for women in
 

different age groups. The data published
 

by the United Nations refer to all
 

women of reproductive age, regardless
 

of marital status or recent sexual
 

activity.
 

Spain

Name of survey: Encuesta de
 

Fecundidad y Valores 2006.
 

Data collection period: 17 April to 31
 

May 2006.
 

Data collection method: Face-to-face
 

interview.
 

Sample weights: Data were adjusted to
 

ensure that the weighted sample
 

distribution across 50 provinces matched
 

the population.
 
Page 44 [ Series 23, No. 29

Sample size: 10,000 women aged 15 or

over residing in Spain. Questions on

contraceptive use were administered to

women aged 15–49.

Response rate: Over 90%.

United Kingdom

Name of survey: 2007 Omnibus Survey.

Data collection period: Modules on

contraception and sexual health were

administered in August, October, and

December 2007 and March 2008.

Data collection method: Computerassisted personal interview.

Sample weights: Data were adjusted to

ensure that the weighted sample

distribution across regions and across

age-sex groups matched that in the

overall population.

Sample size: 1,200 adults aged 16 or

over. Questions on contraceptive use

were administered to women aged

16–49.

Response rate: Around 70%.

Contraceptive methods: Respondents

were allowed to indicate more than one

contraceptive method. The survey

indicated that the overall contraceptive

prevalence (the percent using any

contraceptive method) for married or in

union women was 82%.

United States

The data shown for the United States in

Table F were taken from Table 7. For

married couples, the data were taken

directly from Table 7. For all marital

statuses, the data are from the total

column of Table 7, divided by the

proportion who had intercourse in the

last 3 months (80.8%). This makes the

percentages for the United States more

comparable to the percentages for

Australia, Belgium, and Norway.
Vital and Health Statistics

Series Descriptions

ACTIVE SERIES

Series 1. Programs and Collection Procedures—This type of report

describes the data collection programs of the National Center

for Health Statistics. Series 1 includes descriptions of the

methods used to collect and process the data, definitions, and

other material necessary for understanding the data.

Series 2. Data Evaluation and Methods Research—This type of

report concerns statistical methods and includes analytical

techniques, objective evaluations of reliability of collected

data, and contributions to statistical theory. Also included are

experimental tests of new survey methods, comparisons of

U.S. methodologies with those of other countries, and as of

2009, studies of cognition and survey measurement, and final

reports of major committees concerning vital and health

statistics measurement and methods.

Series 3. Analytical and Epidemiological Studies—This type of

report presents analytical or interpretive studies based on vital

and health statistics. As of 2009, Series 3 also includes

studies based on surveys that are not part of continuing data

systems of the National Center for Health Statistics and

international vital and health statistics reports.

Series 10. Data From the National Health Interview Survey—This

type of report contains statistics on illness; unintentional

injuries; disability; use of hospital, medical, and other health

services; and a wide range of special current health topics

covering many aspects of health behaviors, health status, and

health care utilization. Series 10 is based on data collected in

this continuing national household interview survey.

Series 11. Data From the National Health Examination Survey, the

National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, and

the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey—

In this type of report, data from direct examination, testing,

and measurement on representative samples of the civilian

noninstitutionalized population provide the basis for (1)

medically defined total prevalence of specific diseases or

conditions in the United States and the distributions of the

population with respect to physical, physiological, and

psychological characteristics, and (2) analyses of trends and

relationships among various measurements and between

survey periods.

Series 13. Data From the National Health Care Survey—This type of

report contains statistics on health resources and the public’s

use of health care resources including ambulatory, hospital,

and long-term care services based on data collected directly

from health care providers and provider records.

Series 20. Data on Mortality—This type of report contains statistics on

mortality that are not included in regular, annual, or monthly

reports. Special analyses by cause of death, age, other

demographic variables, and geographic and trend analyses

are included.

Series 21. Data on Natality, Marriage, and Divorce—This type of

report contains statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce

that are not included in regular, annual, or monthly reports.

Special analyses by health and demographic variables and

geographic and trend analyses are included.

Series 23. Data From the National Survey of Family Growth—These

reports contain statistics on factors that affect birth rates,

including contraception and infertility; factors affecting the

formation and dissolution of families, including cohabitation,

marriage, divorce, and remarriage; and behavior related to

the risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

These statistics are based on national surveys of women and

men of childbearing age.

DISCONTINUED SERIES

Series 4. Documents and Committee Reports—These are final

reports of major committees concerned with vital and health

statistics and documents. The last Series 4 report was

published in 2002. As of 2009, this type of report is included

in Series 2 or another appropriate series, depending on the

report topic.

Series 5. International Vital and Health Statistics Reports—This

type of report compares U.S. vital and health statistics with

those of other countries or presents other international data of

relevance to the health statistics system of the United States.

The last Series 5 report was published in 2003. As of 2009,

this type of report is included in Series 3 or another series,

depending on the report topic.

Series 6. Cognition and Survey Measurement—This type of report

uses methods of cognitive science to design, evaluate, and

test survey instruments. The last Series 6 report was

published in 1999. As of 2009, this type of report is included

in Series 2.

Series 12. Data From the Institutionalized Population Surveys—

The last Series 12 report was published in 1974. Reports

from these surveys are included in Series 13.

Series 14. Data on Health Resources: Manpower and Facilities—

The last Series 14 report was published in 1989. Reports on

health resources are included in Series 13.

Series 15. Data From Special Surveys—This type of report contains

statistics on health and health-related topics collected in

special surveys that are not part of the continuing data

systems of the National Center for Health Statistics. The last

Series 15 report was published in 2002. As of 2009, reports

based on these surveys are included in Series 3.

Series 16. Compilations of Advance Data From Vital and Health

Statistics—The last Series 16 report was published in 1996.

All reports are available online, and so compilations of

Advance Data reports are no longer needed.

Series 22. Data From the National Mortality and Natality Surveys—

The last Series 22 report was published in 1973. Reports

from these sample surveys, based on vital records, are

published in Series 20 or 21.

Series 24. Compilations of Data on Natality, Mortality, Marriage, and

Divorce—The last Series 24 report was published in 1996.

All reports are available online, and so compilations of reports

are no longer needed.

For answers to questions about this report or for a list of reports published

in these series, contact:

Information Dissemination Staff

National Center for Health Statistics

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

3311 Toledo Road, Room 5412

Hyattsville, MD 20782

1–800–232–4636

E-mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov

Internet: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Health Statistics

3311 Toledo Road

Hyattsville, MD 20782

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

MEDIA MAIL
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

CDC/NCHS
 

PERMIT NO. G-284
 

CS212601C

T37202 (8/2008)

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2010–1981, Series 23, No. 29