Number 67 n August 14, 2013

Infertility and Impaired Fecundity in the United States,
 

1982–2010: Data From the National Survey of
 

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

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

Abstract

Objectives—This report presents nationally representative estimates and

trends for infertility and impaired fecundity—two measures of fertility

problems—among women aged 15–44 in the United States. Data are also

presented on a measure of infertility among men aged 15–44.

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

Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), which consisted of 22,682 interviews with

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

response rate for women in the 2006–2010 NSFG was 78%, and for men was

75%. Selected trends are shown based on prior NSFG years.

Results—The percentage of married women aged 15–44 who were infertile

fell from 8.5% in 1982 (2.4 million women) to 6.0% (1.5 million) in 2006–2010.

Impaired fecundity among married women aged 15–44 increased from 11% in

1982 to 15% in 2002, but decreased to 12% in 2006–2010. Among all women,

11% had impaired fecundity in 2006–2010. Both infertility and impaired

fecundity remain closely associated with age for nulliparous women. Among

married, nulliparous women aged 35–44, the percentage infertile declined from

44% in 1982 to 27% in 2006–2010, reflecting greater delays in childbearing over

this period. Among married women in 2006–2010, non-Hispanic black women

were more likely to be infertile than non-Hispanic white women. Some form of

infertility (either subfertility or nonsurgical sterility) was reported by 9.4% of

men aged 15–44 and 12% of men aged 25–44 in 2006–2010, similar to levels

seen in 2002.

Keywords: current fertility problems • nonsurgical sterility • male fertility

problems • demographic trends

Introduction

As part of its overall mission to

collect data on fertility and the

intermediate factors that explain birth

rates in the United States, the National

Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) has

provided two population-based,

nationally representative measures for

fertility problems: infertility (since

1973) and impaired fecundity (since

1982) (1–4). Infertility is defined as a

lack of pregnancy in the 12 months

prior to survey, despite having had

unprotected sexual intercourse in each

of those months with the same husband

or partner. Impaired fecundity is defined

as physical difficulty in either getting

pregnant or carrying a pregnancy to live

birth. NSFG data are used to monitor

the prevalence and correlates of

infertility and to evaluate the use,

efficacy, and safety of infertility services

and treatments. The survey is also used

in research on the causes of infertility

and provides information to guide

programs for the primary and secondary

prevention of infertility among women

and men (4,5).

This report presents trends and

national estimates for both NSFG-based

measures of fertility problems among

women, and one measure of infertility

among men, in the United States, using

the most recently available data from

the 2006–2010 NSFG. By using a

standardized approach to monitoring the

prevalence of impaired fecundity among

all women aged 15–44 since 1982, and

12-month infertility among married

women since 1973, NSFG provides

demographic ‘‘snapshots’’ of the impact

of societal trends such as delayed

marriage and childbearing, and tracks

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Center for Health Statistics 
Page 2	 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013

the potential demand for infertilityrelated medical services.

Data from the 2002 NSFG showed

that an estimated 12% of women

(7.3 million) in the United States had

impaired fecundity or difficulties

conceiving or bringing a pregnancy to

term (1). This represented a significant

increase from both the percentage

(8.4%) and number (4.5 million) seen in

1982 (2,6). In 2002, 7.4% of married

women aged 15–44 (2.1 million) were

infertile for at least 12 consecutive

months, a slight decrease from 8.5%

seen in 1982 (1). The reasons for these

disparate trends in infertility and

impaired fecundity are not completely

understood, but both measures are likely

affected by the upward shifts in age at

first marriage and age at first birth

among women (1,2,7–12), as well as

trends in surgical sterilization (13–15).

In addition, the past two decades have

seen an increasing range and availability

of medical treatment options for

infertility (4). Amidst these societal

trends, it is widely recognized that

estimates of infertility will vary,

sometimes significantly, based on the

definitions and study methodology used,

particularly with regard to defining the

‘‘at-risk’’ population (16–21).

Despite uncertainty as to how many

individuals are affected by infertility in

the United States, considerable research

has focused on several known or

potential causes of infertility or impaired

fecundity, apart from the welldocumented decline in natural fecundity

with female age (22–25). These include

sexually transmitted infections such as

chlamydia, pelvic inflammatory disease,

environmental toxins, and certain

lifestyle factors closely associated with

fertility problems, such as smoking and

obesity (4,26). In addition, there are

known disparities in the diagnosis and

treatment of infertility by socioeconomic

and demographic factors that may raise

questions about differential access to

infertility services and potentially unmet

need for these services (27–31). In this

context, NSFG data are useful for

measuring and monitoring infertility and

fecundity status consistently over time.

This report focuses on the most

recent trends in infertility and impaired

fecundity through 2010. Topics include:

+	 Trends in the overall numbers and

percentages of women, by fecundity

and infertility status (the table and

Figures 1 and 2 in the main text, plus

Table 1 on p. 13).

+	 Fecundity and infertility status, by

selected sociodemographic

characteristics such as age, parity, and

education (Tables 2–4 and

Figures 3–6).

+	 Multivariate analysis for infertility

and impaired fecundity (Table 5).

+	 Infertility status among men aged

15–44 (Table 6).

A companion report on the use of

infertility services is forthcoming.

Methods

Data source

NCHS has conducted NSFG seven

times: in 1973 and 1976 with samples

of married and formerly married

women; in 1982, 1988, and 1995 with

samples of women of all marital status

categories; and in 2002 and 2006–2010

with national samples of both women

and men aged 15–44. Each time, the

interviews were conducted in person by

trained female interviewers in the

selected persons’ homes.

The current report is based

primarily on interviews conducted

with women from June 2006 through

June 2010. The 2006–2010 NSFG

was based on 22,682 face-to-face

interviews—12,279 with women and

10,403 with men, aged 15–44, in the

household population of the United

States. The 2006–2010 sample is a

nationally representative multistage area

probability sample. The response rate

for the 2006–2010 NSFG was 77%

overall: 78% for women and 75% for

men. Further details on the methods and

procedures of NSFG have been

published previously (32–34).

Infertility and impaired

fecundity measures

To present population-based trends

over time for fertility problems, this

report uses two measures that have been

consistently defined for women since

the 1982 NSFG: infertility status and

fecundity status.

Infertility status among women

Infertility status, as coded in the

INFERT variable, reflects a measure

typically used by physicians and others

to identify couples who may warrant

medical evaluation to see whether

fertility treatment services could help

them have a baby. The INFERT variable

is constructed based on answers to

detailed questions on contraceptive use,

sexual activity, and marital or cohabiting

status. When neither the respondent nor

her current husband or cohabiting

partner is surgically sterile, a woman is

defined as infertile at time of interview

if, during the previous 12 months or

longer, she and her husband or partner

were continuously married or

cohabiting, were sexually active each

month, had not used contraception, and

had not become pregnant.

This measure has traditionally been

limited to married or cohabiting women

because infertility is a couple-based

phenomenon; unless he or she is

completely sterile, either partner may

potentially achieve pregnancy with a

different partner. This measure does not

attempt to distinguish whether the

infertility stems from the female or male

partner. Also, the measure requires at

least 12 months of sexual relationship

with the same partner and reliable

reporting of contraception and

pregnancy, and married or cohabiting

women’s reporting of these experiences

is less prone to misreporting.

Infertility status, as shown in

Tables 1 and 4, has three categories:

surgically sterile, infertile, and presumed

fertile. The ‘‘presumed fertile’’ category

is a residual category indicating that the

married or cohabiting woman is neither

surgically sterile nor infertile at the time

of interview.

Fecundity status among women

Fecundity status, as coded in the

FECUND variable, describes the

physical ability of a woman to have a
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013	 Page 3

child and not simply to conceive a

pregnancy. This measure is defined for

all women, regardless of their

relationship status. As with the infertility

measure, married or cohabiting women

are classified as surgically sterile on

FECUND if their husbands or

cohabiting partners are surgically sterile.

In addition, married or cohabiting

women are asked separate questions

about fertility problems encountered by

each member of the couple, whereas

single, noncohabiting women can report

only about their own impaired fecundity.

For the purposes of the fecundity status

measure, this means that a married or

cohabiting woman could be classified as

surgically sterile or as having impaired

fecundity solely on the basis of her

husband’s or cohabiting partner’s status.

As shown in this report, fecundity

status has three main categories:

surgically sterile, having impaired

fecundity, and presumed fecund. As with

the INFERT variable, the FECUND

variable is constructed based on

responses to NSFG survey questions,

not by a medical examination. Also, the

‘‘presumed fecund’’ category is a

residual category indicating that the

woman does not meet the conditions of

surgical sterility or impaired fecundity.

Women were classified as surgically

sterile if they (or their current husband

or cohabiting partner) had an unreversed

sterilizing operation, for example, a

tubal sterilization, hysterectomy, or

vasectomy. The category is further

divided into contraceptive and

noncontraceptive subcategories, based

on the reasons reported for the

sterilizing operation.

Impaired fecundity includes women

in the following three subgroups:

nonsurgically sterile, subfecund, and

long interval without conception.

Nonsurgically sterile—Women

who have not reported any

sterilization operations for

themselves or their current husband

or cohabiting partner are asked the

following questions, and are defined

as nonsurgically sterile if they

answer ‘‘no’’ to either question:

+ Some women are not physically

able to have children. As far as

you know, is it physically possible

for you, yourself, to have (a/

another) baby?

+	 If the woman is married or

cohabiting: What about

[HUSBAND/PARTNER]? As far as

you know, is it physically possible

for him to father a baby in the

future?

Subfecund—Women not already

responding as surgically or

nonsurgically sterile are asked the

following questions about physical

difficulties having a baby, and a

‘‘yes’’ answer on any question is

considered subfecundity:

+	 Some women are physically able

to have (a/another) baby, but have

difficulty getting pregnant or

carrying the baby to term. As far

as you know, would you, yourself,

have any difficulty getting

pregnant (again) or carrying

(a/another) baby (after this

pregnancy)?

+	 If the woman is married or

cohabiting: As far as you know,

does [HUSBAND/PARTNER] have

any difficulty fathering a baby?

+	 At any time has a medical doctor

ever advised you never to become

pregnant (again)?

Long interval without conception

(or 36-month infertility)—Women

not already classified as surgically

sterile, nonsurgically sterile, or

subfecund could be defined as

having a ‘‘long interval without

conception’’ if they had been

continuously married or cohabiting,

were sexually active in each month,

had not used contraception, and had

not had a pregnancy for 36

consecutive months or longer.

Presumed fecund is a residual

ategory (as was ‘‘presumed fertile’’

ith infertility status) and means that

he woman—or couple, if married or

ohabiting—was not surgically sterile

nd did not have impaired fecundity.

he percentage of currently married

omen with impaired fecundity is

igher than the percentage of married

c

w

t

c

a

T

w

h

women with 12-month infertility

because impaired fecundity includes

problems carrying pregnancies to live

birth in addition to problems conceiving,

whereas infertility includes only

problems conceiving. However,

12-month infertility is not strictly a

subset of impaired fecundity for married

women or cohabiting women, as

explained below.

Relationship between infertility

and impaired fecundity

Despite the broader definition of

impaired fecundity that includes

problems carrying pregnancies to live

birth, not all married or cohabiting

women with 12-month infertility will

necessarily have impaired fecundity. The

main reason for this is that impaired

fecundity includes a component of

36-month infertility, rather than

12-month infertility. Some married or

cohabiting women who have not been

infertile as long as 36 months may be

categorized as presumed fecund on the

impaired fecundity measure, based on

their answers to the questions about

nonsurgical sterility and subfecundity.

Because of this potential but incomplete

overlap of the two measures of fertility

problems for married or cohabiting

women, some analyses of infertility

services focus on women with ‘‘current

fertility problems,’’ defined as having

either infertility or impaired fecundity

(Table 5). For example, among the 3.53

million married women aged 15–44 with

current fertility problems in 2006–2010,

31% had both impaired fecundity and

12-month infertility, 57% had only

impaired fecundity, and 12% had only

12-month infertility. A similar extent of

overlap in these measures was seen

among married women aged 15–44 with

current fertility problems in 1995 and

2002.

Infertility status among men

Although a completely analogous

measure of infertility cannot be

constructed for men as for women,

NSFG does include data from which to

construct a fairly comparable measure

(Table 6). Infertility status among men is

based on directly asked questions about
Page 4 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013

surgical sterility and men’s physical

ability to father a child. Men are coded

into four categories based on responses

they give for themselves or their current

wives or cohabiting partners:

Surgically sterile—If they reported

an unreversed vasectomy or some

other reason for surgical sterility, or

they reported that their wives or

cohabiting partners are surgically

sterile

Nonsurgically sterile—If they

responded ‘‘no’’ to the following

question that parallels the question

women are asked about nonsurgical

sterility:

Some men are not physically able to

father children. As far as you know,

is it physically possible for you,

yourself to biologically father a

child in the future?

Men are also coded in this category

if their current wives or cohabiting

partners are nonsurgically sterile.

Subfertile—If they respond ‘‘yes’’

to the following question about their

subfertility, paralleling the question

women are asked about

subfecundity:

Some men are physically able to

father a child, but would have

difficulty doing so. As far as you

know, would you have any difficulty

fathering a child?

Presumed fertile—A residual

category indicating that he (or his

current wife or cohabiting partner)

did not meet the definitions for the

other categories.

Demographic and behavioral

variables

The data on infertility and impaired

fecundity presented in this report are

shown with respect to several key social

or demographic characteristics, including

age, parity (or number of biological

children fathered by men), marital or

cohabiting status, educational

attainment, percent of poverty level of

household, and Hispanic origin and race.

These characteristics have been chosen

because prior studies have documented

their association either with fertility

problems or with timing of attempts to

have a child. For example, prior

literature (22–25) has demonstrated the

marked decline in women’s physical

ability to have a child (fecundity) with

increasing age, particularly among those

trying to have their first child. Factors

such as educational attainment have

been correlated with fertility

impairments, but by way of their

association with older ages when

women first try to have a child (10).

All characteristics reflect the

respondent’s status at the time of

interview. Parity—the number of live

births a woman has had—is

dichotomized as 0, or 1 or more.

Similarly for men, their number of

biological children is shown as 0, or 1

or more. Primary infertility or primary

impaired fecundity is defined as

physical difficulties having a first child,

and childless (nulliparous) women who

are infertile would be said to have

primary infertility. Secondary infertility

or impaired fecundity would be defined

among those who have had at least one

child at the time of interview and are

experiencing physical difficulties having

another child.

The measure of marital or

cohabiting status used in this report is

based only on relationships with

opposite-sex spouses or partners, in

keeping with the marital or cohabiting

status variables that have been defined

across all NSFG surveys to date. The

measure of education used here is

generally limited to those aged 25–44,

to enable showing a top category of

Master’s degree or higher; younger

respondents may still be attending

school to earn these degrees. Where

sample sizes did not permit this level of

detail (Table 5 and Figure 3), the top

category used was Bachelor’s degree or

higher, and results were based on the

larger group of women aged 22–44.

Percent of poverty level is based on a

comparison of each respondent’s

household income with the poverty

thresholds for a family of this size, as

defined by the U.S. Census Bureau;

adjustments are not made for variations

in cost of living in the place where the

respondent resides. This measure is

shown only for respondents aged 20–44,

to exclude potentially misreported or

incompletely reported household

incomes for teenagers. The definitions

of Hispanic origin and race used in this

report comply with the 1997 guidelines

from the Office of Management and

Budget (35), taking into account

multiple-race reporting. In selected

tables where sample sizes permit, Asian

persons are shown separately.

The 2006–2010 NSFG and earlier

NSFG surveys offer several strengths

for studying infertility and impaired

fecundity in the U.S. household

population. In addition to rigorous

quality control measures and good

response rates (32–34), NSFG includes

detailed data on sexual activity,

contraception, pregnancy, marriage, and

cohabitation, such that reliable and

consistent measures of fertility problems

can be defined over time. Although the

NSFG age range of 15–44 excludes

measurement of fertility problems

among older women who may still be

pursuing childbearing, using nationally

representative survey data—rather than

non-probability-based samples of

women or couples ‘‘trying to conceive’’

or those seeking medical help for

infertility—allows NSFG to derive a

more generalizable estimate of the

prevalence of fertility problems in the

U.S. household population in this age

group.

Although NSFG collects

information on fertility intentions and

desires, its two measures of fertility

problems are not contingent on these

factors. This is both a strength and a

limitation for understanding the

population-based estimates. On the one

hand, NSFG measures may provide a

more accurate snapshot of the fecundity

and infertility status of the general

reproductive-age population,

independent of any sociodemographic

selectivity or temporal trends associated

with who ‘‘seeks pregnancy’’ and when

they do so in their life course. On the

other hand, these measures can be

misconstrued as direct indicators of the

need (or unmet need) for infertility

services (36). Some data users may not

recognize that an individual or couple
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013	 Page 5

can remain infertile or fulfill the

definition of impaired fecundity for

years after they have stopped trying to

have a child. In sum, NSFG measures

for women can be used in conjunction

with fertility intentions and desires to

provide population-based estimates of

potential demand for infertility services

and to assess the extent to which this

demand is met.

For men, first included in NSFG in

2002, the time trend for providing

nationally representative estimates is

shorter than for women. Also, given that

a significant association with age and

male infertility is not generally seen

until ages beyond the NSFG upper

bound of 44, it is unlikely that the

NSFG-based estimates of male infertility

will show the same prevalence or

differentials seen among women.

However, these data can still provide a

useful estimate of infertility for the

general population from the male

perspective.

Statistical analysis

All estimates in this report are

based on sampling weights designed to

produce unbiased estimates of men and

women aged 15–44 in the United States.

The statistical package SAS, version 9.3

(http://www.sas.com), was used to

produce all estimates of percentages and

numbers in this report. SAS

SURVEYFREQ procedures were used to

estimate the sampling errors of the

statistics because these procedures take

into account the use of weighted data

and the complex design of the sample in

calculating estimates of standard errors

and in performing significance tests.

Each table in this report (with the

exception of Table 5, which shows

logistic regression results for women)

includes standard errors as a measure of

the precision of each point estimate

(percentage) presented.

The significance of differences

among subgroups was determined by

standard two-tailed t tests using point

estimates and their standard errors. For

selected comparisons, Wald chi-square

tests of overall association were also

performed within SAS PROC

SURVEYFREQ, and symbols denoting

these test results are included in selected

tables. No adjustments were made for

multiple comparisons. Terms such as

‘‘greater than’’ and ‘‘less than’’ indicate

that a statistically significant difference

was found. Terms such as ‘‘similar’’ or

‘‘no difference’’ indicate that the

statistics being compared were not

significantly different. Lack of comment

regarding any difference does not mean

that significance was tested and ruled

out.

In the description of the results

below, when the percentage being cited

is below 10%, the text will cite the

exact percentage to one decimal point.

To make reading easier and to remind

the reader that the results are based on

samples and subject to sampling error,

percentages above 10% will generally

be shown rounded to the nearest whole

percent. Percentages are not shown if

the denominator is fewer than 100 cases

or the numerator is fewer than 5 cases.

When a percentage or other statistic is

not shown for this reason, an asterisk

footnote (*) is inserted to signify that

the statistic does not meet standards of

reliability or precision. For most

statistics presented in this report, the

denominators are much larger than 100.

Although this report is primarily

intended to provide basic descriptive

statistics for key population subgroups

that may guide future multivariate

analyses, Table 5 shows multiple logistic

regression (PROC SURVEYLOGISTIC)

results for 12-month infertility, impaired

fecundity, and a combined measure

indicating either of these measures.

Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for these

infertility measures among women aged

22–44 are shown, controlling for age,

parity, marital or cohabiting status,

education, percent of poverty level, and

Hispanic origin and race. Table 5 shows

95% confidence intervals for each AOR,

along with a p value indicating the

statistical significance of the AOR.

Results

Trends in infertility and

impaired fecundity

Table 1 shows the percent

distribution, by fecundity and infertility

status, for all women and for married

women aged 15–44 in the United States

for NSFG years 1982, 1988, 1995,

2002, and 2006–2010.

+	 Among all women aged 15–44, the

percentage with impaired fecundity

increased significantly, from 8.4% in

1982 and 1988 to 10% in 1995. After

reaching 12% in 2002, the percentage

remained stable at 11% in 2006–

2010.

+	 Among married women aged 15–44,

a similar pattern was seen for

impaired fecundity, although with

higher percentages through 2002:

11% of married women in 1982 and

1988 had impaired fecundity; the

percentage rose to a high of 15% in

2002, and fell in 2006–2010 to 12%.

+	 The key subgroup of impaired

fecundity that appears to drive the

increase from 1982 to 2002 is the

subfecund group—those for whom it

is physically difficult or dangerous to

have a baby. There was no significant

change over time in the nonsurgically

sterile or long interval without

conception subgroups of impaired

fecundity. In 1982, 6.7% of married

women aged 15–44 were subfecund.

After reaching a high of 11%

subfecund in 2002 when impaired

fecundity was at its highest point

(15%), the percentage subfecund

among married women was 10% in

2006–2010.

+	 A higher percentage of married

women (or their husbands or

partners) were surgically sterile for

contraceptive reasons, compared with

the levels seen among all women

regardless of marital status. For

example, in 2006–2010 35% of

married women aged 15–44 were

surgically sterile for contraceptive

reasons, compared with 21% of

women in that age group as a whole.

As a result of these higher levels of

surgical sterilization and impaired

fecundity among married women, a

smaller proportion (roughly one-half)

were in the residual category ‘‘presumed

fecund.’’

Figure 1 and the bottom panel of

Table 1 show that the percentage of

married women who were infertile has
Percent

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

12-month infertility 

Impaired fecundity 

11.2 

8.5 

7.9 

7.1 7.4 

6.0 

10.8 10.7 

12.9 

15.1 

12.1 

1965 1982 1988 1995 2002 2006– 

2010 

NOTES: Infertility is defined as lack of pregnancy in the 12 months prior to survey, despite unprotected intercourse with 

husband in each month. Impaired fecundity is defined as physical difficulties getting pregnant or carrying a pregnancy to 

live birth. Impaired fecundity was not defined in the 1965 National Fertility Study. See Methods for more details. 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 1982–2010, and National Fertility Study, 1965 (Reference 3 

and Table 1 in the present report). 

Page 6	 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013

Figure 1. Percentages with infertility and impaired fecundity among married women aged

15–44: United States, 1965–2010

Table. Numbers (in millions) of women aged 15–44 with infertility or impaired fecundity:

United States, 1965 through 2006–2010

2006–

Status 1965 1982 1988 1995 2002 2010

Number in millions

All women 15–44, impaired fecundity........... --­ 4.56 4.85 6.16 7.26 6.71

0 births (primary impaired fecundity).......... --­ 1.92 2.21 2.79 2.99 3.07

1 or more births (secondary impaired fecundity). . . - - ­ 2.64 2.64 3.37 4.27 3.63

Married women 15–44 with impaired fecundity ..... --­ 3.06 3.13 3.84 4.28 3.10

0 births (primary impaired fecundity).......... --­ 1.11 1.13 1.41 1.30 1.07

1 or more births (secondary impaired fecundity). . . - - ­ 1.95 1.99 2.43 2.98 2.04

Married women 15–44 with infertilty ........... 2.96 2.39 2.30 2.10 2.09 1.53

0 births (primary infertility) ................ 0.51 1.00 1.02 0.97 0.85 0.70

1 or more births (secondary infertility) ......... 2.48 1.39 1.27 1.12 1.24 0.83

- - - Data not available. The 1965 National Fertility Study was limited to married women and did not measure impaired fecundity.

NOTE: Total numbers in millions may differ from sum of numbers by parity, due to rounding.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 1982 to 2006–2010; National Fertility Study, 1965 (see Reference 3).

fallen from 11% in 1965 [based on the women aged 15–44 has fallen to 12%,

1965 National Fertility Study (NFS)] to similar to the level seen in 1995.

8.5% in 1982 and 6.0% in 2006–2010 The table above provides the

based on NSFG. (The 1965 NFS was estimated numbers of women with

conducted by Princeton University and infertility or impaired fecundity over

is a predecessor survey to NSFG.) This this same period. The table also includes

is in contrast to the trend for impaired the estimated numbers of married,

fecundity, particularly through 2002, as infertile women, based on the 1965

illustrated in Figure 1. In the most NFS. Even as percentages may remain

recent NSFG data, the prevalence of relatively stable over this period, the

impaired fecundity among married absolute numbers may show more

dramatic changes due to the larger size

of the post-World War II Baby Boom

cohorts, and this can give the impression

of an increase in prevalence.

+	 Looking first at the most inclusive

measure of impaired fecundity among

all women aged 15–44, the absolute

numbers increased by about 2.7

million women, from 4.56 million in

1982 to 7.26 million in 2002, then

fell slightly to 6.71 million in

2006–2010.

+	 In all years from 1982 to 2006–2010,

primary impaired fecundity among all

women aged 15–44, or impaired

fecundity among nulliparous women,

represented slightly less than one-half

of all women with impaired

fecundity. When limited to married

women, primary impaired fecundity

represented closer to one-third of the

total.

+	 Commensurate with the trend in

percentages infertile seen in Table 1,

the numbers of married women aged

15–44 with 12-month infertility

decreased from nearly 3 million in

1965 to 1.5 million in 2006–2010.

The proportion experiencing

difficulties having their first child

(primary infertility), among married

infertile women, increased

significantly, from 17% in 1965 to

41%–46% in 1982–2010 (Figure 2),

which is consistent with patterns and

trends in delayed childbearing over

these years (10).

Fecundity status

Table 2 shows the percent

distribution of all women aged 15–44,

by fecundity status and selected

socioeconomic and demographic

characteristics for 2006–2010.

+	 When looking at age among all

women, regardless of parity, impaired

fecundity was significantly associated

with age, with 7.0% having impaired

fecundity among women aged 15–24

and 13% among those aged 25–44.

Among women aged 25–44, the

strong association commonly

expected with impaired fecundity was

seen only when looking at nulliparous

women, with 14% of nulliparous
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013	 Page 7 Percent 

NOTES: Infertility is defined as lack of pregnancy in the 12 months prior to survey, despite unprotected intercourse with 

husband in each month. Primary infertility refers to infertility among nulliparous women. See Methods for more details. 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 1982–2010, and National Fertility Study, 1965 (Reference 3 

and text table in the present report). 

17 

42 

44 

46 

41 

46 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

1965 1982 1988 1995 2002 2006–2010 

Figure 2. Percentage of married infertile women with primary infertility: United States,

1965–2010 Percent 

NOTE: Impaired fecundity is defined as physical difficulties getting pregnant or carrying a pregnancy to live birth. See 

Methods for more details. 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010. (Tables 2–4 in the present report.) 

6 

11 

7 

14 

11 

9 

17 

14 

9 

27 

39 

25 

30 

47 

30 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

Impaired fecundity, 

all women 

Impaired fecundity, 

married women 

Infertility, 

married women 

15–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 

Age (years) 

Figure 3. Impaired fecundity and infertility among nulliparous women, by age:

United States, 2006–2010

women aged 25–29 having impaired

fecundity, compared with 30% of

those aged 40–44 (Figure 3).

+	 Higher levels of impaired fecundity

were seen among currently married,

currently cohabiting, and formerly

married women, compared with

never-married, not cohabiting women,

who are on average younger than

these other groups.

+	 No significant variation was seen in

percentages with impaired fecundity

by educational attainment among

women aged 25–44; however,

education is strongly tied to overall

fecundity status by patterns of

surgical sterilization and delayed

childbearing. Women with less than a

high school education were more

likely to have undergone surgical

sterilization for contraceptive reasons

(44%) than women with a Bachelor’s

degree (21%) or a Master’s degree or

higher (16%). Similarly, women with

these higher levels of education were

more likely to still be fecund

(65%–71%), compared with those

with a high school education or less

(42%–43%), presumably because

these latter women started and

completed their fertility at younger

ages and opted for surgical

sterilization (9,14).

+	 A similar pattern was seen for percent

of poverty level, with no variation in

the percentages with impaired

fecundity but a significant association

between poverty level and surgical

sterilization.

+	 Among the Hispanic origin and race

groups, roughly equal percentages of

Hispanic, non-Hispanic white, and

non-Hispanic black women had

impaired fecundity (10%–12%);

Asian women showed a lower

percentage (6.7%).

+	 Although no variation in impaired

fecundity was seen among the three

main race and origin groups

presented in Table 2, Figure 4

illustrates that a different pattern of

primary impaired fecundity may exist

by educational attainment and race

and origin. Among nulliparous

Hispanic women aged 22–44, no

difference in levels of impaired

fecundity was seen relative to
Page 8	 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013 Percent 

NOTE: Impaired fecundity is defined as physical difficulties getting pregnant or carrying a pregnancy to live birth. See 

Methods for more details. 

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

21 

16 

20 

26 

12 

16 

13 13 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

All Hispanic Non-Hispanic 

white 

Non-Hispanic 

black 

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

Figure 4. Impaired fecundity among nulliparous women aged 22–44, by education and

race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2006–2010

education. However, for nulliparous,

non-Hispanic white and black

women, those with a Bachelor’s

degree or higher were less likely to

have impaired fecundity than those

with less education.

Given the greater likelihood that

married women would attempt

childbearing or be in the position to test

their fecundity, Table 3 shows the

fecundity status of married women.

Many of the same patterns noted in this

table for married women were evident

among all women aged 15–44 (Table 2).

+ Impaired fecundity increased with age

among nulliparous women, from 11%

of those aged 15–24 and 25–29 to

47% of those aged 40–44.

+ Although no significant association

was seen between impaired fecundity

and education, a strong inverse

association was again evident

between contraceptive surgical

sterilization and education. The net

effect of these patterns in surgical

sterilization and impaired fecundity

was that a higher percentage of

women aged 25–44 with Bachelor’s

degrees (56%) or Master’s degrees or

higher (64%) were presumed fecund,

compared with 35%–37% of women

with a high school education or less.

+	 As seen among all women aged

15–44 in (Table 2), married Asian

women were less likely to have

impaired fecundity (8.4%) and less

likely to be surgically sterile for

contraceptive reasons (17%) relative

to the three other race and Hispanic

origin groups shown.

Infertility status

The percent distribution of married

or cohabiting women aged 15–44, by

infertility status, is shown in Table 4.

Women are categorized as surgically

sterile, infertile, or presumed fertile.

+	 Due to sample size constraints for

cohabiting women, subgroup

estimates of infertility can only be

shown for married women. However,

the 2006–2010 data show that about

the same percentage of cohabiting

women were infertile (4.9%) as

compared with married women

(6.0%).

+	 As seen for impaired fecundity, the close

association between infertility and age is

evident only among nulliparous women,

that is, among those experiencing

primary infertility. Among married

nulliparous women, 25% of those aged

35–39 and 30% of those aged 40–44

were infertile, compared with 7.3%–

9.1% of women aged 15–34.

+	 Figure 3 further illustrates the age

pattern seen with impaired fecundity

and infertility. When looking at

impaired fecundity among all women

regardless of marital status, a more

gradual ‘‘stair-step’’ increase can be

seen. In contrast, among married

women, the levels of both impaired

fecundity and infertility were similar

for age groups under 35, with a

significant increase in age-specific

percentages seen for those aged

35–39 and 40–44.

+	 No clear association was seen

between infertility and education or

poverty-level income, but these

factors were closely linked to the

percentages surgically sterile.

+	 Figure 5 shows the difference in

prevalence of infertility by age

among married nulliparous women

between 1982 and 2006–2010.

Broader age groups were needed for

this comparison because the numbers

of married nulliparous women over

age 30 in 1982 were too small to

subdivide as was possible in 1995

and 2006–2010—again indicative of

the greater delays in childbearing

over this period. Among the youngest

age group (ages 15–24), no

significant change in percentages

infertile was seen. However, among

the older age groups, significantly

lower levels of infertility were

observed among married nulliparous

women. For example, 44% of these

women aged 35–44 in 1982 were

infertile, compared with 27% in

2006–2010.

Fertility intentions among

women with fertility

problems

Figure 6 illustrates the correspondence

of these NSFG measures with the intent to

have another child. As noted in the

‘‘Methods’’ section, NSFG measures are

intended to provide a snapshot of the
Percent 

NOTE: Infertility is defined as lack of pregnancy in the 12 months prior to survey, despite unprotected intercourse with 

husband in each month. See Methods for more details. 

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

11 

18 

44 

5 

14 

31 

7 

9 

27 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

15–24 25–34 

Age (years) 

35–44 

1982 1995 2006–2010 

Percent 

NOTES: Infertility is defined as lack of pregnancy in the 12 months prior to survey, despite unprotected intercourse with 

husband in each month. Impaired fecundity is defined as physical difficulties getting pregnant or carrying a pregnancy to 

live birth. See Methods for more details. 

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

59 58 

64 

39 

46 

53 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

All women with 

impaired fecundity 

Married women with 

impaired fecundity 

Married women with 

infertility 

Nulliparous Parous 

National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013	 Page 9

Figure 5. Infertility among married nulliparous women, by age: United States, 1982, 1995,

and 2006–2010

Figure 6. Percentage of women aged 15–44 with infertility or impaired fecundity who

intend to have a child (or another child), by parity: United States, 2006–2010

infertility and fecundity status of all women

aged 15–44, regardless of their fertility

intentions or their experience in trying to

have a child. Some women who meet the

definitions of impaired fecundity or

12-month infertility may never have

wanted to have a child, or may no longer

want to have a child, perhaps having

already had a child with the aid of fertility

treatment. The percentages who intended to

have a child (or another child) at the time

of interview, among women with fertility

problems, may provide a more specific

indicator of the potential demand for

infertility services.

+	 Among all women with impaired

fecundity, a higher percentage of

women with primary impaired

fecundity (59%) intended to have a

child than those with secondary

impaired fecundity (39%).

+	 The data for married women with

infertility or impaired fecundity

suggest a similar pattern by parity.

For example, 64% of nulliparous

married women with 12-month

infertility intended to have a child,

compared with 53% of parous,

married, infertile women.

+	 Put another way, roughly 40% of

women with primary fertility

problems, and about 50%–60% of

those with secondary fertility

problems, did not intend to have a

child (or another child) in the future.

Multivariate analysis of

fertility problems

Table 5 presents multivariate

logistic models showing the odds ratios

for impaired fecundity, infertility, or

either of these measures among women

aged 22–44. This age group is chosen to

provide a more reliable view of college

education. These models adjust for the

demographic characteristics included in

Tables 2–4, to assess what

characteristics may have the strongest

net effect on the odds of these fertility

problems.

+	 Using women aged 22–29 who have

had a child as the reference group,

nulliparous women were generally

more likely to have infertility or

impaired fecundity. Nulliparous

women aged 35–44 were at least
Page 10	 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013

three times as likely as parous

women aged 22–29 to have impaired

fecundity. For infertility, a more

pronounced association with age was

seen among nulliparous women, with

adjusted odds of infertility increasing

from 2.38 for those aged 22–29 to

nearly 13 for those aged 40–44.

+ Never-married, noncohabiting women

were less likely to have impaired

fecundity than married women. In the

model for 12-month infertility, which

is defined only for married or

cohabiting women, no difference was

seen for cohabiting women compared

with married women.

+ In these adjusted models, neither

education nor percent of poverty level

income showed a net association with

infertility or impaired fecundity.

+ No difference by race and Hispanic

origin was seen for impaired

fecundity among all women aged

22–44. However, for infertility,

non-Hispanic black women were

about 1.8 times more likely to have

infertility than either Hispanic or

non-Hispanic women.

Male infertility status

Table 6 shows an infertility status

measure from the male perspective. This

measure reflects the man’s own

infertility status and, if he is married or

cohabiting, the status of his wife or

partner. Although similar to the female

measures, these estimates are not

intended as a direct comparison with the

female-based estimates of infertility or

fecundity status because of the

differences in the level of detail

collected in the male and female NSFG

questionnaires. Also, it is expected that

estimates of infertility for men in this

age group would vary from estimates

for women. Given the typical age

differences between spouses or partners,

the age distribution of wives or

cohabiting partners of men aged 25–44,

as shown in the table, would be

somewhat younger than 25–44.

+ Overall, there was no change in the

infertility status of men aged 15–44

between 2002 and 2006–2010.

+	 For men aged 15–44, as for women,

there was a close association between

age and surgical sterility: 40% of men

aged 40–44 (or their wives or

partners) were surgically sterile,

compared with 0.3% of men aged

15–24 and 3.4% of men aged 25–29.

+	 Thirty-one percent of men aged

25–44 who were currently married

reported surgical sterilization,

compared with 22% of those

currently cohabiting, 13% of those

formerly married, and 0.3% of

never-married men.

+	 In contrast to what was seen among

nulliparous women, the association

between infertility and age for men

who had no biological children was

much weaker in this age range of

25–44. There was no association

between men’s subfertility and age

among childless men; however,

overall infertility did appear to be

higher for those aged 40–44 (14%),

compared with those aged 25–29 with

no children (7.2%). This is consistent

with evidence that men’s physical

ability to father a child declines with

age (22,37), although less appreciably

than women’s fecundity prior to

age 44.

+	 The data suggest that higher levels of

surgical sterilization were seen among

men with lower levels of education

and household income, similar to the

pattern for women. For example, 24%

of men aged 25–44 with less than a

high school education were surgically

sterile or had wives or partners who

were surgically sterile, compared with

15% of men with Master’s degrees or

higher.

+	 A higher percentage of non-Hispanic

white men aged 25–44 reported

surgical sterilization for themselves or

their wives or partners (23%),

compared with Hispanic men and

non-Hispanic black men (each 17%)

and Asian men (4%).

Conclusion

This report provides trends and

national estimates for NSFG-based

measures of infertility and impaired

fecundity among women—and one

measure of infertility status for men—

in the United States, using the most

recently available data from the

2006–2010 NSFG. In 2006–2010, 11%

of all women aged 15–44, and 12% of

married women in that age group, had

impaired fecundity. When limited to

older women aged 25–44, the

prevalence of impaired fecundity does

not change significantly, remaining at

12%–13%. The increase seen in

impaired fecundity over the period

1982–2002 was driven by the subfecund

category of impaired fecundity—women

reporting that it was physical difficult or

dangerous to carry a baby to term.

However, the overall prevalence of

impaired fecundity appears to have

plateaued since 2002. Among men aged

25–44 in 2006–2010, 12% reported

some type of infertility, either

nonsurgical sterility or subfertility.

Although this measure is not directly

comparable with either measure of

fertility problems in the female NSFG,

the estimate is similar to the 12% of

women aged 25–44 with impaired

fecundity.

NSFG-based estimates of impaired

fecundity and 12-month infertility

presented in this report for the total

population of women aged 15–44 fall

within the range of estimates from other

national demographic and health

surveys; however, definitions and survey

methodology vary markedly between the

United States and other countries

(38,39). One key difference is that other

national estimates may be based on the

denominator of couples seeking

pregnancy, and others (including some

using NSFG data) may be limited to

individuals seeking pregnancy or those

who intend a child (38–40). Given the

significant societal trends in delayed

marriage and childbearing over the past

decades, estimates restricted to such

subgroups may be higher than general

population estimates due to the

compositional changes in who is seeking

pregnancy.

As seen with NSFG data, as well as

National Survey of Fertility Barriers

data (36), infertility or impaired

fecundity is not synonymous with

intentions to have a child. There is value

in determining the population-based

prevalence of fertility problems
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013	 Page 11

independent of fertility intentions, with

the recognition that there are a wide

range of responses to infertility that may

not involve medical services. Also,

fertility intentions may change over the

course of time in response, for example,

to changes in relationship status,

socioeconomic status, and availability of

infertility services, further highlighting

the role of population-based,

consistently measured indicators such as

impaired fecundity and 12-month

infertility. In recent years, there have

been advancements in the measurement

of infertility due to both earlier

detection and an improved

understanding of optimal times for

medical intervention (5). Data from

NSFG have been an integral part of this

ongoing work to evaluate and improve

the measurement techniques needed to

estimate the prevalence and correlates of

fertility problems in the United States.

References

1.	 Chandra A, Martinez GM, Mosher

WD, et al. Fertility, family planning,

and reproductive health of U.S.

women: Data from the 2002 National

Survey of Family Growth. National

Center for Health Statistics. Vital

Health Stat 23(25). 2005. Available

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

series/sr_23/sr23_025.pdf.

2.	 Chandra A, Stephen EH. Impaired

fecundity in the United States:

1982–1995. Fam Plann Perspect

30(1):34–42. 1998.

3.	 Mosher WD, Pratt WF. Fecundity

and infertility in the United States,

1965–88. Advance Data No. 192.

Hyattsville, MD: National Center for

Health Statistics. 1990. Available

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

ad/ad192.pdf.

4.	 Macaluso M, Wright-Schnapp TJ,

Chandra A, Johnson R, Satterwhite

CL, Pulver A, et al. A public health

focus on infertility prevention,

detection, and management. Fertil

Steril 93(1):16.e1–10. 2010.

5.	 Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention. A national public health

action plan for the detection,

prevention, and management of

infertility. 2012. Available from:

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductive

health/Infertility/PublicHealth.htm

[Accessed March 22, 2013].

6.	 Mosher WD, Pratt WF. Fecundity,

infertility, and reproductive health in

the United States, 1982. National

Center for Health Statistics. Vital

Health Stat 23(14). 1987. Available

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

series/sr_23/sr23_014.pdf.

7.	 Abma J, Chandra A, Mosher W, et

al. 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. Available from: http://www.

cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/

sr23_019.pdf.

8.	 Goodwin P, McGill B, Chandra A.

Who marries and when? Age at first

marriage in the United States: 2002.

NCHS data brief, no 19. Hyattsville,

MD: National Center for Health

Statistics. 2009. Available from:

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

databriefs/db19.pdf.

9.	 Martinez G, Daniels K, Chandra A.

Fertility of men and women aged

15–44 years in the United States:

National Survey of Family Growth,

2006–2010. National health statistics

reports; no. 51. Hyattsville, MD:

National Center for Health Statistics.

2012. Available from: http://www.

cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr051.pdf.

10. Mathews TJ, Hamilton BE. Delayed

childbearing: More women are

having their first child later in life.

NCHS data brief, no 21. Hyattsville,

MD: National Center for Health

Statistics. 2009. Available from:

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

databriefs/db21.pdf.

11. Stephen EH, Chandra A. Updated

projections of infertility in the United

States: 1995–2025. Fertil Steril

70(1):30–4. 1998.

12. Stephen EH, Chandra A. Declining

estimates of infertility in the United

States: 1982–2002. Fertil Steril

86(3):516–23. 2006.

13. Chandra A. Surgical sterilization in

the United States: Prevalence and

characteristics, 1965–95. National

Center for Health Statistics. Vital

Health Stat 23(20). 1998. Available

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

series/sr_23/sr23_020.pdf.

14. Jones J, Mosher W, Daniels K.

Current contraceptive use in the

United States, 2006–2010, and

changes in patterns of use since

1995. National health statistics

reports; no. 60. Hyattsville, MD:

National Center for Health Statistics.

2012. Available from: http://

www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/

nhsr060.pdf.

15. Mosher WD, Jones J. Use of

contraception in the United States:

1982–2008. National Center for

Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat

23(29). 2010. Available from:

http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/

series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf.

16. Fidler AT, Bernstein J. Infertility:

From a personal to a public health

problem. Public Health Rep

114(6):494–511. 1999.

17. Gurunath S, Pandian Z, Anderson

RA, Bhattacharya S. Defining

infertility—A systematic review of

prevalence studies. Hum Reprod

Update 17(5):575–88. 2011.

18. Guzick DS, Swan S. The decline of

infertility: Apparent or real? Fertil

Steril 86(3):524–26. 2006.

19. Marchbanks PA, Peterson HB, Rubin

GL, Wingo PA. Research on

infertility: definition makes a

difference. The Cancer and Steroid

Hormone Study Group. Am J

Epidemiol 130(2):259–67. 1989.

20. Olive DL, Pritts EA. Estimating

infertility: The devil is in the details.

Fertil Steril 86(3):529–30. 2006.

21. Thoma ME, McLain AC, Louis JF,

King RB, Trumble AC, Sundaram R,

Buck Louis GM. Prevalence of

infertility in the United States as

estimated by the current duration

approach and a traditional

constructed approach. Fertil Steril

99(5):1324–31. 2013.

22. Dunson DB, Baird DD, Colombo B.

Increased infertility with age in men

and women. Obstet Gynecol

103(1):51–6. 2004.

23. Leridon H. Human fertility: The

basic components. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press. 1977.

24. Menken J. Age and fertility: How

late can you wait? Demography

22(4):469–83. 1985.

25. van Noord-Zaadstra BM, Looman

CW, Alsbach H, Habbema JD, te

Velde ER, Karbaat J. Delaying

childbearing: Effect of age on

fecundity and outcome of pregnancy.

BMJ 302(6789):1361–5. 1991.

26. Kelley-Weeder S, Cox CL. The

impact of lifestyle risk factors on

female infertility. Women Health

44(4):1–23. 2006.
Page 12 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013

27. Bitler M, Schmidt L. Health 36. Greil AL, McQuillan J, Johnson K,

disparities and infertility: Impacts of Slauson-Blevins K, Shreffler KM.

state-level insurance mandates. Fertil The hidden infertile: Infertile women

Steril 85(4):858–65. 2006. without pregnancy intent in the

28. Boivin J, Bunting L, Collins JA, United States. Fertil Steril

Nygren KG. International estimates 93(6):2080–3. 2010.

of infertility prevalence and 37. Eskenazi B, Wyrobek AJ, Sloter E,

treatment-seeking: Potential need and Kidd SA, Moore L, Young S, Moore

demand for infertility medical care. D. The association of age and semen

Hum Reprod 22(6):1506–12. 2007. quality in healthy men. Hum Reprod

29. Chandra A, Stephen EH. Infertility 18(2):447–54. 2003.

service use among U.S. women: 38. Dyer SJ. International estimates on

1995 and 2002. Fertil Steril infertility prevalence and treatment

93(3):725–36. 2010. seeking: Potential need and demand

30. Elster NR. ART for the masses? for medical care. Hum Reprod 24(9):

Racial and ethnic inequality in 2379–80. 2009.

assisted reproductive technologies. 39. Mascarenhas MN, Flaxman SR,

DePaul J Health Care Law 9(1):719– Boerma T, Vanderpoel S, Stevens

33. 2005. GA. National, regional, and global

31. Hirsh MB, Mosher WD. trends in infertility prevalence since

Characteristics of infertile women in 1990: A systematic analysis of 277

the United States and their use of health surveys. PLoS Med

infertility services. Fertil Steril 9(12):e1001356. 2012.

47(4):618–25. 1987. 40. Bushnik T, Cook JL, Yuzpe AA,

32. Groves RM, Mosher WD, Lepkowski Tough S, Collins J. Estimating the

J, Kirgis NG. Planning and prevalence of infertility in Canada.

development of the continuous Hum Reprod 27(3):738–46. 2012.

National Survey of Family Growth.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Vital Health Stat 1(48). 2009.

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

nchs/data/series/sr_01/sr01_048.pdf.

33. Lepkowski JM, Mosher WD, Davis

KE, et al. The 2006–2010 National

Survey of Family Growth: Sample

design and analysis of a continuous

survey. National Center for Health

Statistics. Vital Health Stat 2(150).

2010. Available from: http://

www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/

sr02_150.pdf.

34. Lepkowski JM, Mosher WD, Groves

RM, et al. Responsive design,

weighting, and variance estimation in

the 2006–2010 National Survey of

Family Growth. National Center for

Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat

2(158). 2013. Available from:

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

sr_02/sr02_158.pdf.

35. Office of Management and Budget.

Revisions to the standards for the

classification of federal data on race

and ethnicity. Fed Regist

62(210):58782–90. 1997. Available

from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

omb/fedreg_1997standards.
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013 Page 13

Table 1. Fecundity and infertility status of women aged 15–44: United States, 1982 through 2006–2010

Status 1982 1988 1995 2002 2006–2010

Numbers in thousands, all women 15–44 ............. 54,099 57,900 60,201 61,561 61,755

Numbers in thousands, married women 15–44 ......... 28,231 29,147 29,673 28,327 25,605

Percent distribution (standard error)

Fecundity status, all women 15–44................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Surgically sterile, contraceptive.................. 18.6 (0.8) 23.3 (0.6) 24.2 (0.5) 22.0 (0.7) 21.2 (0.8)

Surgically sterile, noncontraceptive ............... 6.7 (0.4) 4.7 (0.3) 3.1 (0.2) 1.5 (0.2) 1.5 (0.2)

Impaired fecundity.......................... 8.4 (0.6) 8.4 (0.4) 10.2 (0.3) 11.8 (0.5) 10.9 (0.4)

Nonsurgically sterile ....................... 1.7 (0.3) 1.4 (0.2) 1.7 (0.1) 2.4 (0.2) 1.7 (0.2)

Subfecund ............................. 5.6 (0.4) 5.7 (0.3) 7.7 (0.3) 8.7 (0.4) 8.7 (0.4)

Long interval without conception1 ............... 1.2 (0.3) 1.3 (0.2) 0.9 (0.1) 0.8 (0.1) 0.5 (0.1)

Presumed fecund2 ......................... 66.3 (0.9) 63.6 (0.7) 62.5 (0.6) 64.7 (0.8) 66.5 (0.9)

Fecundity status, married women 15–44 ............. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Surgically sterile, contraceptive.................. 29.6 (1.2) 36.2 (0.9) 36.6 (0.7) 32.7 (1.4) 35.1 (1.3)

Surgically sterile, noncontraceptive ............... 9.3 (0.8) 6.2 (0.4) 4.1 (0.3) 2.1 (0.3) 1.8 (0.3)

Impaired fecundity.......................... 10.8 (0.8) 10.7 (0.6) 12.9 (0.5) 15.1 (0.9) 12.1 (0.8)

Nonsurgically sterile ....................... 2.0 (0.4) 1.6 (0.3) 2.0 (0.2) 2.9 (0.4) 1.5 (0.2)

Subfecund ............................. 6.7 (0.6) 6.8 (0.4) 9.4 (0.5) 10.7 (0.7) 9.6 (0.7)

Long interval without conception1 ............... 2.1 (0.4) 2.3 (0.3) 1.6 (0.2) 1.5 (0.3) 1.0 (0.2)

Presumed fecund2 ......................... 50.3 (1.3) 46.9 (0.9) 46.3 (0.8) 50.1 (1.5) 51.0 (1.3)

Infertility status, married women 15–44 .............. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Surgically sterile ........................... 38.9 (1.3) 42.4 (0.9) 41.0 (0.7) 34.8 (1.4) 36.9 (1.4)

Infertile3 ................................ 8.5 (0.8) 7.9 (0.6) 7.1 (0.4) 7.4 (0.6) 6.0 (0.5)

Presumed fertile2 .......................... 52.6 (1.3) 49.7 (0.9) 51.9 (0.7) 57.8 (1.4) 57.1 (1.4)

1

Equivalent to at least 36 months of infertility. Specifically, it refers to married or cohabiting women who have been exposed to the risk of pregnancy with the same husband or partner for at least
 

36 consecutive months but have not had a pregnancy.
 2

Residual categories based on those who do not fulfill the definitions of the other categories shown.
 3

Married or cohabiting women are classified as infertile if they have been exposed to the risk of pregnancy with the same husband or partner for at least 12 consecutive months but have not had a
 

pregnancy. Data shown are for married women.
 

NOTES: Fecundity and infertility status for married or cohabiting women reflects the status of their husbands or partners as well. Standard errors for 1982 and 1988 are based on approximate
 

standard error tables published in Reference 13.
 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 1982, 1988, 1995, 2002, and 2006–2010.
 
Page 14 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013

Table 2. Fecundity status of all women aged 15–44, by selected characteristics: United States, 2006–2010

Surgically sterile

Number in Impaired Presumed

Characteristic thousands Total Contraceptive Noncontraceptive fecundity1 fecund2

Percent distribution (standard error)

All women 15–443 ............. ............. 61,755 100.0 21.2 (0.8) 1.5 (0.2) 10.9 (0.4) 66.5 (0.9)

Age

15–24 years ............................... 20,842 100.0 0.9 (0.2) * 7.0 (0.5) 92.0 (0.6)

25–44 years ............................... 40,912 100.0 31.6 (1.1) 2.2 (0.2) 12.8 (0.6) 53.4 (1.1)

25–29 years ............................. 10,535 100.0 12.8 (1.1) 0.3 (0.1) 12.6 (0.9) 74.3 (1.5)

30–34 years ............................. 9,188 100.0 25.1 (2.0) 1.6 (0.5) 12.2 (1.2) 61.1 (2.2)

35–39 years ............................. 10,538 100.0 38.3 (1.8) 1.8 (0.4) 13.9 (1.1) 46.0 (1.9)

40–44 years ............................. 10,652 100.0 49.1 (2.0) 4.9 (0.7) 12.5 (1.2) 33.5 (1.9)

Marital or cohabiting status

Currently married. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,605 100.0 35.1 (1.3) 1.8 (0.3) 12.1 (0.8) 51.0 (1.3)

Currently cohabiting .......................... 6,910 100.0 18.8 (1.6) 1.7 (0.5) 12.8 (1.4) 66.7 (2.1)

Never married, not cohabiting .................... 23,581 100.0 4.1 (0.4) 0.5 (0.2) 7.9 (0.6) 87.5 (0.8)

Formerly married, not cohabiting .................. 5,659 100.0 33.2 (2.3) 3.1 (0.6) 15.0 (1.5) 48.7 (2.2)

Parity and age

0 births .................................. 27,401 100.0 1.6 (0.2) 0.8 (0.2) 11.2 (0.7) 86.4 (0.8)

15–24 years ............................. 17,061 100.0 * * 6.4 (0.6) 93.4 (0.6)

25–29 years ............................. 4,751 100.0 1.2 (0.5) 0.2 (0.1) 13.7 (1.8) 84.9 (1.9)

30–34 years ............................. 2,145 100.0 1.0 (0.6) * 16.9 (2.8) 81.5 (2.8)

35–39 years ............................. 1,805 100.0 5.7 (1.2) 2.5 (1.1) 26.5 (3.2) 65.3 (3.4)

40–44 years ............................. 1,639 100.0 14.4 (3.3) 7.9 (2.4) 30.2 (4.2) 47.5 (4.3)

1 or more births ............................ 34,353 100.0 36.9 (1.0) 2.0 (0.3) 10.6 (0.6) 50.5 (1.0)

15–24 years ............................. 3,781 100.0 4.7 (1.0) * 9.8 (1.4) 85.5 (1.7)

25–29 years ............................. 5,784 100.0 22.3 (1.7) 0.4 (0.2) 11.7 (1.2) 65.7 (1.9)

30–34 years ............................. 7,042 100.0 32.4 (2.4) 1.8 (0.6) 10.8 (1.2) 54.9 (2.2)

35–39 years ............................. 8,733 100.0 45.0 (2.0) 1.6 (0.5) 11.3 (1.2) 42.1 (2.0)

40–44 years ............................. 9,013 100.0 55.4 (2.2) 4.4 (0.8) 9.3 (1.1) 31.0 (2.0)

Education4

No high school diploma or GED................... 6,054 100.0 44.3 (2.6) 2.3 (0.7) 12.0 (1.4) 41.5 (2.3)

High school diploma or GED..................... 9,999 100.0 41.8 (1.8) 3.3 (0.6) 12.2 (1.2) 42.7 (1.7)

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ................ 11,424 100.0 29.9 (1.5) 2.2 (0.5) 14.3 (1.1) 53.6 (1.6)

Bachelor’s degree ........................... 9,455 100.0 21.2 (1.7) 1.5 (0.5) 12.2 (1.2) 65.1 (1.8)

Master’s degree or higher ...................... 3,980 100.0 16.0 (2.2) 0.5 (0.2) 12.9 (2.1) 70.5 (2.4)

Percent of poverty level5

0–99 ................................... 10,554 100.0 29.0 (1.7) 1.8 (0.4) 12.6 (1.2) 56.6 (2.1)

100–299 ................................. 21,133 100.0 27.8 (1.2) 1.7 (0.3) 11.5 (0.7) 59.0 (1.2)

300–399 ................................. 9,311 100.0 29.2 (1.9) 1.8 (0.6) 10.3 (1.2) 58.8 (1.9)

400 or more ............................... 10,279 100.0 14.1 (1.5) 1.8 (0.5) 14.1 (1.3) 70.0 (1.8)

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latina ........................... 10,474 100.0 21.7 (1.6) 1.1 (0.3) 9.7 (0.6) 67.5 (1.7)

Not Hispanic or Latina:

White, single race .......................... 37,384 100.0 22.2 (1.1) 1.6 (0.2) 11.1 (0.6) 65.1 (1.2)

Black or African American, single race ............. 8,451 100.0 19.9 (1.5) 1.5 (0.3) 11.6 (0.8) 67.0 (1.6)

Asian, single race .......................... 2,456 100.0 10.3 (2.5) – 6.7 (1.6) 83.0 (2.9)

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

– Quantity zero.
 1

Consists of nonsurgically sterile, subfecund, and long interval without conception, as shown separately in Table 1.
 2

A residual category based on those who do not fulfill the definitions of the other categories shown.
 3

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

Limited to women aged 25–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 5

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

NOTES: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Fecundity status for married or cohabiting women reflects the status of their current husbands or partners as well.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010.
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013 Page 15

Table 3. Fecundity status of married women aged 15–44, by selected characteristics: United States, 2006–2010

Surgically sterile

Number in Impaired Presumed

Characteristic thousands Total Contraceptive Noncontraceptive fecundity1 fecund2

Percent distribution (standard error)

All married women 15–443 ........... ........... 25,605 100.0 35.1 (1.3) 1.8 (0.3) 12.1 (0.8) 51.0 (1.3)

Age

15–24 years ............................... 1,935 100.0 2.8 (1.1) * 9.0 (2.0) 87.7 (2.1)

25–44 years ............................... 23,670 100.0 37.7 (1.3) 2.0 (0.3) 12.4 (0.8) 48.0 (1.3)

25–29 years ............................. 4,679 100.0 15.6 (1.8) * 10.3 (1.5) 73.9 (2.0)

30–34 years ............................. 5,446 100.0 28.4 (2.7) 2.0 (0.8) 12.8 (1.6) 56.7 (2.7)

35–39 years ............................. 6,808 100.0 43.2 (2.4) 1.0 (0.5) 14.1 (1.3) 41.8 (2.4)

40–44 years ............................. 6,736 100.0 55.0 (2.4) 4.2 (0.9) 11.8 (1.4) 29.1 (2.4)

Parity and age

0 births .................................. 5,032 100.0 5.4 (1.1) 1.3 (0.7) 21.2 (2.0) 72.1 (2.3)

15–24 years ............................. 951 100.0 – * 11.0 (3.7) 87.9 (3.8)

25–29 years ............................. 1,651 100.0 3.3 (1.5) – 11.1 (2.3) 85.6 (2.6)

30–34 years ............................. 936 100.0 * – 14.2 (3.3) 84.6 (3.4)

35–39 years ............................. 739 100.0 7.6 (2.4) * 39.3 (6.6) 52.5 (7.1)

40–44 years ............................. 754 100.0 19.9 (5.4) 7.1 (4.0) 47.1 (7.2) 25.9 (5.7)

1 or more births ............................ 20,573 100.0 42.3 (1.4) 2.0 (0.4) 9.9 (0.8) 45.8 (1.4)

15–24 years ............................. 984 100.0 5.5 (2.0) – 7.0 (2.0) 87.5 (2.4)

25–29 years ............................. 3,028 100.0 22.3 (2.4) * 9.9 (1.8) 67.6 (2.7)

30–34 years ............................. 4,510 100.0 34.1 (3.1) 2.5 (0.9) 12.5 (1.7) 51.0 (2.8)

35–39 years ............................. 6,068 100.0 47.6 (2.7) 1.0 (0.5) 11.0 (1.2) 40.5 (2.6)

40–44 years ............................. 5,982 100.0 59.4 (2.6) 3.8 (0.9) 7.4 (1.1) 29.5 (2.5)

Education4

No high school diploma or GED................... 2,837 100.0 52.0 (3.7) 1.5 (0.7) 11.3 (1.8) 35.3 (3.1)

High school diploma or GED..................... 5,351 100.0 49.0 (2.3) 3.3 (0.9) 10.5 (1.4) 37.2 (2.4)

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ................ 6,248 100.0 37.3 (2.0) 2.5 (0.8) 12.1 (1.4) 48.1 (2.2)

Bachelor’s degree ........................... 6,507 100.0 29.6 (2.3) 1.1 (0.6) 13.8 (1.7) 55.5 (2.3)

Master’s degree or higher ...................... 2,727 100.0 21.0 (3.0) 0.7 (0.3) 14.4 (2.7) 63.9 (3.3)

Percent of poverty level5

0–99 ................................... 3,029 100.0 37.9 (2.7) 1.6 (0.6) 10.1 (1.6) 50.4 (2.8)

100–299 ................................. 10,378 100.0 40.7 (1.9) 1.4 (0.5) 11.2 (1.1) 46.7 (1.9)

300–399 ................................. 6,246 100.0 38.6 (2.7) 2.3 (0.8) 10.8 (1.4) 48.3 (2.4)

400 or more ............................... 5,835 100.0 20.6 (2.3) 2.4 (0.8) 16.4 (1.9) 60.7 (2.5)

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latina ........................... 4,199 100.0 35.8 (2.9) 1.0 (0.4) 10.6 (1.5) 52.6 (2.3)

Not Hispanic or Latina:

White, single race .......................... 17,235 100.0 36.4 (1.8) 2.0 (0.5) 12.5 (1.0) 49.1 (1.7)

Black or African American, single race ............. 2,033 100.0 36.2 (3.3) 2.9 (1.1) 11.3 (1.7) 49.5 (3.4)

Asian, single race .......................... 1,292 100.0 17.0 (4.3) – 8.4 (2.3) 74.6 (4.8)

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

– Quantity zero.
 1

Consists of nonsurgically sterile, subfecund, and long interval without conception, as shown separately in Table 1.
 2

A residual category based on those who do not fulfill the definitions of the other categories shown.
 3

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

Limited to women aged 25–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 5

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

NOTES: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Fecundity status for married women reflects the status of their husbands as well.
 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010.
 
Page 16 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013

Table 4. Infertility status of married or cohabiting women aged 15–44, by selected characteristics: United States, 2006–2010

Number in Surgically Presumed

Characteristic thousands Total sterile Infertile1 fertile2

Percent distribution (standard error)

All married or cohabiting women 15–443 ............. 32,515 100.0 33.4 (1.1) 5.8 (0.4) 60.8 (1.1)

Marital or cohabiting status

Married .................................. 25,605 100.0 36.9 (1.4) 6.0 (0.5) 57.1 (1.4)

Cohabiting ................................ 6,910 100.0 20.5 (1.7) 4.9 (0.9) 74.6 (1.9)

All married women 15–443

Age:

15–24 years ............................. 1,935 100.0 3.3 (1.2) 3.7 (1.7) 92.9 (2.0)

25–44 years ............................. 23,670 100.0 39.7 (1.4) 6.2 (0.6) 54.2 (1.4)

25–29 years ............................ 4,679 100.0 15.8 (1.8) 5.6 (1.1) 78.7 (1.9)

30–34 years ............................ 5,446 100.0 30.5 (2.7) 4.6 (0.7) 65.0 (2.6)

35–39 years ............................ 6,808 100.0 44.2 (2.4) 7.8 (1.0) 48.0 (2.4)

40–44 years ............................ 6,736 100.0 59.1 (2.6) 6.2 (0.9) 34.7 (2.6)

Parity and age:

0 births ................................ 5,032 100.0 6.8 (1.3) 14.0 (1.6) 79.2 (1.9)

15–24 years ............................ 951 100.0 * 7.3 (3.5) 91.7 (3.6)

25–29 years ............................ 1,651 100.0 3.3 (1.5) 8.7 (2.5) 88.0 (2.8)

30–34 years ............................ 936 100.0 * 9.1 (2.1) 89.6 (2.3)

35–39 years ............................ 739 100.0 8.2 (2.4) 24.7 (5.3) 67.2 (5.8)

40–44 years ............................ 754 100.0 27.0 (6.5) 29.6 (6.1) 43.4 (7.3)

1 or more births ........................... 20,573 100.0 44.3 (1.4) 4.0 (0.5) 51.7 (1.5)

15–24 years ............................ 984 100.0 5.5 (2.0) * 94.1 (2.0)

25–29 years ............................ 3,028 100.0 22.6 (2.4) 3.9 (1.1) 73.6 (2.6)

30–34 years ............................ 4,510 100.0 36.5 (2.9) 3.6 (0.8) 59.8 (2.9)

35–39 years ............................ 6,068 100.0 48.6 (2.7) 5.8 (0.9) 45.7 (2.6)

40–44 years ............................ 5,982 100.0 63.2 (2.7) 3.2 (0.7) 33.6 (2.7)

Education:4

No high school diploma or GED ................. 2,837 100.0 53.4 (3.6) 5.7 (1.4) 40.9 (3.4)

High school diploma or GED ................... 5,351 100.0 52.3 (2.5) 6.4 (1.2) 41.4 (2.4)

Some college, no bachelor’s degree .............. 6,248 100.0 39.8 (1.9) 4.5 (0.8) 55.7 (2.2)

Bachelor’s degree .......................... 6,507 100.0 30.7 (2.4) 7.9 (1.1) 61.4 (2.6)

Master’s degree or higher ..................... 2,727 100.0 21.7 (3.0) 6.0 (1.8) 72.2 (3.3)

Percent of poverty level:5

0–99 .................................. 3,029 100.0 39.5 (2.6) 4.8 (1.2) 55.7 (2.8)

100–299................................ 10,378 100.0 42.0 (2.0) 5.4 (0.7) 52.6 (2.0)

300–399................................ 6,246 100.0 40.9 (2.6) 5.2 (1.0) 53.9 (2.5)

400 or more ............................. 5,835 100.0 23.0 (2.5) 8.7 (1.2) 68.3 (2.5)

Hispanic origin and race:

Hispanic or Latina .......................... 4,199 100.0 36.8 (2.8) 6.1 (1.2) 57.1 (2.6)

Not Hispanic or Latina:

White, single race ........................ 17,235 100.0 38.4 (1.8) 5.5 (0.6) 56.1 (1.8)

Black or African American, single race ............ 2,033 100.0 39.1 (3.5) 7.2 (1.6) 53.7 (3.4)

Asian, single race. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,292 100.0 17.0 (4.3) 5.6 (1.7) 77.4 (4.8)

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision; based on fewer than five cases in numerator.
 1

Married or cohabiting women are classified as infertile if they have been exposed to the risk of pregnancy with the same husband or partner for at least 12 consecutive months, but have not had
 

a pregnancy.
 2

A residual category based on those who do not fulfill the definitions of the other categories shown.
 3

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

Limited to women aged 25–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 5

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

NOTES: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Infertility status for married women reflects the status of their husbands as well.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010.
National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013 Page 17

Table 5. Adjusted odds ratios for selected measures of fertility problems among women aged 22–44: United States, 2006–2010

Either impaired

fecundity or 12-month

Characteristic Impaired fecundity1 12-month infertility2 infertility

Adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval)
 

Parity and age
 

0 births/22–29 years .............................. 1.31 (0.92–1.86) 2.38 (1.21–4.65)** 1.35 (0.97–1.88)^
 

0 births/30–34 years .............................. 1.86 (1.16–2.99) 3.18 (1.59–6.35)** 1.88 (1.20–2.94)*
 

0 births/35–39 years .............................. 3.13 (2.00–4.89)*** 10.09 (4.86–20.98)*** 3.16 (2.13–4.69)***
 

0 births/40–44 years .............................. 3.48 (2.26–5.36)*** 12.61 (6.19–25.71)*** 3.92 (2.58–5.96)***
 

1 or more births/22–29 years (reference) .................. 1.0 1.0 1.0 
 

1 or more births/30–34 years ......................... 0.91 (0.67–1.23) 1.09 (0.58–2.05) 0.89 (0.67–1.19)
 

1 or more births/35–39 years ......................... 0.97 (0.70–1.35) 1.65 (0.95–2.89)^ 0.94 (0.69–1.28)
 

1 or more births/40–44 years ......................... 0.77 (0.56–1.05) 0.64 (0.38–1.08)^ 0.72 (0.54–0.97)*
 

Marital or cohabiting status
 

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

Currently cohabiting ............................... 0.98 (0.74–1.31) 0.86 (0.55–1.35) 1.08 (0.83–1.42)
 

Formerly married, not cohabiting ....................... 1.21 (0.92–1.58) . . . 1.06 (0.81–1.39)
 

Never married, not cohabiting ......................... 0.68 (0.51–0.91)** . . .
 

Education3
 

No high school diploma or GED ....................... 1.07 (0.75–1.53) 1.18 (0.59–2.39) 1.06 (0.76–1.48)
 

High school diploma or GED ......................... 1.19 (0.88–1.61) 1.34 (0.82–2.20) 1.20 (0.90–1.61)
 

Some college, no bachelor’s degree..................... 1.24 (0.94–1.63) 0.76 (0.47–1.22) 1.20 (0.93–1.56)
 

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

Percent of poverty level
 

0–99 ........................................ 1.20 (0.87–1.66) 1.33 (0.70–2.55) 1.20 (0.89–1.63)
 

100–299 ...................................... 1.01 (0.76–1.33) 1.17 (0.75–1.83) 0.97 (0.74–1.28)
 

300–399 ...................................... 0.85 (0.61–1.18) 1.09 (0.66–1.80) 0.86 (0.63–1.19)
 

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

Hispanic origin and race4

Hispanic or Latina ................................ 0.87 (0.69–1.10) 1.43 (0.90–2.28) 0.85 (0.67–1.08)

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

Non-Hispanic black, single race ....................... 1.10 (0.87–1.40) 1.84 (1.10–3.06)* 1.16 (0.92–1.46)

^ p < 0.10.

* p < 0.05.

** p < 0.01.

*** p < 0.001.

. . . Category not applicable.
 1

Consists of nonsurgically sterile, subfecund, and long interval without conception, as shown separately in Table 1.
 2

Defined only for married or cohabiting women and indicates they have been exposed to the risk of pregnancy with the same husband or partner for at least 12 consecutive months but have not
 

had a pregnancy.
 3

GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 4

Women of other race and origin groups or multiple race groups are not included in the logistic regression models due to small sample size.
 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010.
Page 18 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013

Table 6. Infertilty status among men aged 15–44 and 25–44, by selected characteristics: United States, 2002 and 2006–2010

Some type of infertility1

Number in Surgically Nonsurgically Presumed

Characteristic thousands Total sterile1 Subtotal sterile Subfertile fertile2

Percent distribution (standard error)

2002, All men 15–443 ............ ............ 60,984 100.0 15.1 (1.0) 11.1 (0.6) 5.6 (0.5) 5.5 (0.5) 73.8 (1.0)

2006–2010, All men 15–443 .......... .......... 62,128 100.0 13.9 (0.7) 9.4 (0.5) 4.2 (0.3) 5.2 (0.4) 76.7 (0.8)

Age:

15–24 years ............................. 21,210 100.0 0.3 (0.1) 5.4 (0.6) 2.1 (0.3) 3.3 (0.5) 94.3 (0.6)

25–29 years ............................. 10,758 100.0 3.4 (0.5) 8.9 (1.0) 4.4 (0.7) 4.4 (0.7) 87.8 (1.1)

30–34 years ............................. 9,228 100.0 14.3 (1.4) 11.8 (1.1) 5.0 (0.8) 6.8 (1.0) 73.9 (1.7)

35–39 years ............................. 10,405 100.0 26.0 (1.9) 13.2 (1.4) 5.5 (0.9) 7.7 (1.1) 60.8 (2.0)

40–44 years ............................. 10,526 100.0 39.7 (2.6) 12.2 (1.3) 6.1 (1.0) 6.1 (1.0) 48.1 (2.4)

2006–2010, All men 25–443 ..................... 40,917 100.0 20.9 (1.0) 11.5 (0.6) 5.2 (0.4) 6.2 (0.5) 67.6 (1.1)

Marital or cohabiting status:

Currently married ......................... 22,119 100.0 31.0 (1.6) 15.8 (1.0) 6.8 (0.7) 9.0 (0.8) 53.2 (1.6)

Currently cohabiting ....................... 5,746 100.0 22.1 (2.2) 11.3 (1.5) 6.2 (1.3) 5.1 (1.0) 66.5 (2.2)

Never married, not cohabiting ................. 9,898 100.0 0.3 (0.1) 3.8 (0.6) 2.1 (0.4) 1.7 (0.4) 95.8 (0.6)

Formerly married, not cohabiting ............... 3,154 100.0 12.5 (2.3) 5.6 (1.4) 2.4 (1.1) 3.2 (1.1) 81.9 (2.7)

Number of biological children and father’s age:

0 biological children ....................... 14,967 100.0 5.1 (0.7) 10.5 (1.0) 5.1 (0.8) 5.4 (0.6) 84.4 (1.2)

25–29 years........................... 6,199 100.0 1.5 (0.5) 7.2 (1.4) 4.0 (1.1) 3.2 (0.8) 91.3 (1.4)

30–34 years........................... 3,547 100.0 5.0 (1.6) 13.0 (2.0) 5.8 (1.6) 7.2 (1.6) 82.0 (2.3)

35–39 years........................... 2,736 100.0 7.8 (2.0) 11.7 (2.1) 4.6 (1.2) 7.1 (1.9) 80.5 (2.5)

40–44 years........................... 2,484 100.0 11.2 (2.3) 14.0 (2.5) 7.2 (1.7) 6.7 (2.2) 74.9 (3.3)

1 or more biological children .................. 25,950 100.0 30.1 (1.4) 12.0 (0.7) 5.3 (0.6) 6.7 (0.6) 57.9 (1.3)

25–29 years........................... 4,559 100.0 6.0 (1.1) 10.9 (1.6) 4.9 (1.3) 6.0 (1.2) 83.1 (1.7)

30–34 years........................... 5,680 100.0 20.1 (2.2) 11.1 (1.5) 4.5 (1.0) 6.6 (1.0) 68.8 (2.2)

35–39 years........................... 7,669 100.0 32.4 (2.4) 13.7 (1.6) 5.8 (1.1) 7.9 (1.3) 53.8 (2.3)

40–44 years........................... 8,042 100.0 48.4 (3.0) 11.7 (1.5) 5.7 (1.2) 6.0 (1.1) 39.9 (2.7)

Education:4

No high school diploma or GED .............. 7,847 100.0 23.9 (2.0) 13.7 (1.4) 8.2 (1.2) 5.5 (0.9) 62.4 (2.1)

High school diploma or GED ................ 10,617 100.0 24.2 (1.9) 10.5 (1.2) 5.8 (0.9) 4.7 (0.7) 65.4 (1.7)

Some college, no bachelor’s degree............ 10,650 100.0 20.8 (1.7) 11.3 (1.2) 3.7 (0.6) 7.7 (1.1) 67.9 (1.9)

Bachelor’s degree ....................... 7,983 100.0 16.6 (1.6) 10.6 (1.5) 3.9 (0.9) 6.7 (1.2) 72.8 (2.1)

Master’s degree or higher .................. 3,820 100.0 15.2 (2.7) 12.0 (1.9) 5.0 (1.7) 7.0 (1.7) 72.8 (3.1)

Percent of poverty level:

0–99 ............................... 5,337 100.0 20.7 (2.5) 13.1 (1.6) 7.3 (1.2) 5.7 (0.9) 66.3 (2.8)

100–299 ............................. 15,462 100.0 21.9 (1.4) 10.8 (0.9) 5.8 (0.7) 5.0 (0.7) 67.3 (1.4)

300–399 ............................. 8,552 100.0 29.3 (2.2) 8.4 (1.1) 3.1 (0.9) 5.3 (0.9) 62.4 (2.3)

400 or more. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,566 100.0 13.6 (1.4) 13.9 (1.4) 5.2 (0.8) 8.8 (1.2) 72.4 (1.8)

Hispanic origin and race:

Hispanic or Latino ....................... 8,016 100.0 16.7 (1.3) 12.8 (1.3) 7.6 (1.0) 5.2 (0.8) 70.6 (1.7)

Not Hispanic or Latino:

White, single race. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,580 100.0 23.1 (1.4) 11.1 (0.8) 4.2 (0.5) 6.9 (0.7) 65.8 (1.4)

Black or African American, single race ......... 4,418 100.0 16.6 (2.2) 13.2 (1.6) 6.4 (1.1) 6.8 (1.2) 70.2 (2.5)

Asian, single race ...................... 1,658 100.0 3.5 (1.4) 12.8 (2.8) 8.4 (2.5) 4.3 (1.7) 83.7 (3.0)

1

For currently married or cohabiting men, these categories may reflect the status of their wives or cohabiting partners as well.
 2

A residual category based on those who do not fulfill the definitions of the other categories shown.
 3

Includes men of other or multiple race and origin groups, not shown separately.
 4

GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

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

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

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Health Statistics

3311 Toledo Road, Room 5419

Hyattsville, MD 20782

FIRST CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

CDC/NCHS

PERMIT NO. G-284

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

National Health Statistics Reports n Number 67 n August 14, 2013

Acknowledgments

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

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

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

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

Services:

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

• Office of Population Affairs

• National Center for Health Statistics, CDC

• Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, CDC

• Division of Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, CDC

• Division of Reproductive Health, CDC

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

• Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

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

2006–2010 NSFG.

This report was prepared under the general direction of Charles J. Rothwell, Director of the Division of Vital Statistics (DVS), and Stephanie J.

Ventura, Chief of the Reproductive Statistics Branch of DVS. The authors appreciate the valuable comments provided by William Mosher;

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

Science. We also thank Isaedmarie Febo-Vazquez and Yashodhara Patel for their helpful contributions to the preparation of this report. The

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

Wassell edited the report; typesetting was done by Annette F. Holman, and graphics were produced by Sarah M. Hinkle.

Suggested citation

Chandra A, Copen CE, Stephen EH. Infertility

and impaired fecundity in the United States,

1982–2010: Data from the National Survey of

Family Growth. National health statistics

reports; no 67. Hyattsville, MD: National

Center for Health Statistics. 2013.

Copyright information

All material appearing in this report is in the

public domain and may be reproduced or

copied without permission; citation as to

source, however, is appreciated.

National Center for Health Statistics

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

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

for Science

Division of Vital Statistics

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

Director
 

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

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

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

DHHS Publication No. 2013–1250 • CS241740