From Vital and Health Statistics of the National Center for Health Statistm N_PRW~~ l?ibb982 

PUBLICATIONS3HANM 

EDITORIALLIBWY

Contraceptive Use Patterns, Prior Source, and Pregnancy 

History of Female Family Planning Patients:United States, 1980 

by Eugenia Eckard, Division of Health Care Statistics 

a 

According to data from the 1980 National Reporting System for Family Planning Services, an 

estimated 4,977,000 women visited an organized 

family planning clinic in the United States at least 

once during the survey year. This represents ahnost a 

15 percent increase over the number of women who 

received medical services from family planning clinics 

in the previous year.1 Using data from this survey, 

the report looks at the contraceptive use patterns and 

pregnancy status of women during the time they 

visited an organized family planning clinic in 1980. 

The National Reporting System for Family Planning Services (NRSFPS) is a sample survey conducted 

the Division of Health Care Statistics of the 

ional Center for Health Statistics. It was begun in 

2 for the purpose of collecting information on 

visits to clinics for medical family planning services in 

the United States and its territories. These services are 

set up under a variety of administrative auspices, 

which include local health departments, public and 

private hospitals, and voluntary organizations such as 

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., 

community groups, and neighborhood health centers. 

Medical family planning visits to private physicians’ 

offices are excluded from the survey. 

In the survey, a family planning patient is defined 

as a woman who made a visit for medical family 

planning services related to contraception, infertility 

treatment, or sterilization. The overwhelming majority of patients are patients seeking methods of 

contraception. Persons seeking only pregnancy or 

venereal disease tests are not counted as family 

planning patients, nor are persons interested only in 

obtaining contraceptive supplies (that is, diaphragm, 

foam, jelly, cream. or condom) or counseling. 

The Clinic Visit Record (CVR) is the basic form 

used to collect data from the family planning patients 

in the National Reporting System for Family Planning Services. The 14 items on the Clinic Visit Record 

ver basic sociodemographic information about the 

ient and other questions pertaining to family 

ning. Other data in this report are based on 

information obtained either by observation, from 

medical records, or, in those clinics that collect data 

through participation in a computerized record system, from locally developed forms that contain the 

CVR items. 

Although the primary sampling unit in NRSFPS is 

the family planning visit, an unduplicated count of 

patients is obtained by identifying each new patient 

at her fust visit and each continuation and readmission patient at her first visit in the survey year. 

(Continuation and readmission patients are referred 

to as “return” patients in this report.) Data based on 

patients rather than on visits are inherently limited 

because patients’ responses to NRSFPS data items 

may change from one visit to another. 

Other data sources from the National Center for 

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

from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 

which is also conducted by the Division of Health 

Care Statistics, cover visits to office-based physicians’ 

practices that include family planning services.z The 

National Survey of Family Growth, conducted by the 

Division of Vital Statistics in 1973 and 1976, 

provides more detailed statistics on women who made 

family planning visits to their physicians or to 

organized family planning clinics in the 3 years prior 

to each survey. Unlike those for the other two 

surveys, data for the National Survey of Family 

Growth were collected by means of personal interviews with a national sample of women 15-44 years 

of age who were ever married or never married with 

offspring living in the household. More details about 

the National Survey of FamiIy Growth and its data 

pertaining to family planning visits are provided in 

the latest report based on the 1976 survey.g 

Further discussion of NRSFPS survey methodology, the sampling variation associated with the 

statistics, and definitions of certain terms used in this 

report are included in the technical notes and can be 

found in earlier reports.’Ls 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Public Health Service, Office of Health Research, Statistics, and Technology 

6 
2 

Highlights 

This report examines the contraceptive use patterns and pregnancy history of women who visited 

organized family planning clinics in 1980, analyzing 

the data according to age, race, and patient status 

(new patient or return patient). The 1980 patient 

population was relatively young–88.3 percent were 

under 30 years of age (figure 1). More than 54 

percent had never had a live birth; only 23.6 percent 

had two or more children. Figure 2 shows that the 

majority of women who visited a ‘family planning 

clinic were white women (71.4 percent); 26.1 percent 

were black, and 2.5 percent were of other races. More 

than one-third (35.7 percent) of the women who 

visited clinics in 1980 were new patients; 64.2 

percent of the women were returning to a family 

planning clinic (figure 3). A more detailed presentation of the patients’ characteristics is provided in a 

report soon to follow.G 

100 

r 

90 

t80 

k 

50 I 

Under 20 20-29 30 years 

yeara years and over 

Age 

NOTE: Numbersmay not add to totalsdue to rounding. 

SOURCE: Divisionof Health CareStatistics, National Centerfor 

Health Statistics: Data from the National ReportingSystemfor 

Family PlanningServices. 

Figure 1. Percent distribution of female family planning patients 

by age: United States, 1980 

100 ~ 

I 

90 

t 

80 

t 71.4 

26.1 

White Black Other 

Race 

NOTE: Numbersmay not add to totals due to rounding. 

SOURCE: Divisionof Health CareStatistics,National Centerfor 

Health Statistics: Data from the National ReportingSystemfor 

Family PlanningServices. 

Figure 2. Percent distribution of female family planning patients 

by race: United States, 1980 

( 

100


90 

80 [

I 

70 ~ 64.2 

New patients Return patients 

Patient status 

NOTE: Numbersmay not add to totals due to rounding. 

SOURCE: Divisionof Health CareStatistics,National Centerfor 

Health Statistics: Data from the National ReportingSystamfor 

Family PlanningServices. 

Figure 3. Percent distribution of female family planning patients 

by patient status: United States, 1980 ( 

)


B


D

-----

Contraceptiveuseand priorsotirce 

Table 1 shows that more than half of the women 

who visited a family planning clinic (55.9 percent) in 

1980 had used the pill prior to their visit. Women 

aged 20-29 were more likely than women of any 

other age group to have used the pill before their visit 

(63. 1 percent). The IUD had been used by 7.1 

percent of all the women and was more likely to have 

been used by women 30 years of age and over (18.9 

percent) than by women under the age of 30. Other 

methods that had been used by the women prior to 

their first visit included the diaphragm (4.3 percent); 

foam, jelly, or cream (3.8 percent); and other or 

unknown methods (3.7 percent). About 1 out of 4 of 

the women had never used a method regularly prior 

to their visit to a family planning clinic. More than 

twice as many teenage women as women aged 20 or 

over had not used a method regularly before visiting a 

clinic (41.9 percent). 

More women had received their prior method of 

contraception at the clinic they visited during the 

admceMa3 

survey year than at any other source (39.3 percent). 

Ahnost 9 percent of the women had received their 

prior method from another 

thereby making the clinic a 

for about 48 percent of the 

clinics in 1980. The remainder 

their yrior method either 

percent), a private physician 

family planning clinic, 

source of prior method 

women enrolled in the 

of the women received 

from a hospital (2.0 

(18.4 percent), a drugstore (2.7 percent), or other (including unknown) 

sources (3.6 percent). 

A larger proportion of women aged 20-29 (43.8 

percent) and of women 30 years of age and over 

(43.7 percent) had obtained their prior method from 

the clinic in which they were enrolled at the time of 

the survey than had teenage women (30.6 percent). 

Another family planning clinic was the source of the 

prior method for 5.9 percent of the women under 20 

years of age, for 10.7 percent of the women aged 

20-29, and for 8.8 percent of the women 30 years of 

age and over. Women in their twenties were about as 

Table 1. Number of female family planning patients and percent distribution by contraceptive use, according to age: United States, 1980 

Age 

Contraceptive use 

A/f ages Under 20-29 30 years 

20 years years and over 

Number in thousands 

All female patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,977 1,703 2,691 583 

Percent distribution 

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

Prior contraceptive method 

Pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.9 49.0 63.1 42.5 

IUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 1.8 7.9 18.9 

Diaphrsgm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

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

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

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

4.3 

3.8 

3.7 

1.2 

3.1 

2.9 

5.7 

3.7 

3.1 

7.1 

6.6 

9.1 

Nomethod used regularly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.1 41.9 16.5 15.7 

Source of prior method 

Same service site .,....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.3 30.6 43.8 43.7 

Other service site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 5.9 10.7 8.g 

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

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

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

2.1 

18.4 

1.1 

14.2 

2.2 

20.7 

4.1 

20.2 

Drugstore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 3.1 2.4 3.1 

0ther2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 3.3 3.6 4.5 

Nomethod used regularly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.1 41.9 16.5 15.7 

Contraceptive method adopted or continued 

Pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.7 74.1 63.1 35.7 

IUD: : : : : : : : : :::::.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 2.2 7.9 18.2 

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 3.8 8.7 9.8 

~amrjelly, or cream.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 5.0 5.1 9.5 

cr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 1.3 2.6 8.8 

e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.6 13.5 12.6 18.1 

I ln~]”d~~ na~~al me~~~d~ and st~~iliz~tion. 

21ncludes unknowns. 

NOTE: Numbers may not add to totals duo to rounding. 
4 

likely as women over20 years of age to have seen a 

private physician for their prior method (each about 

20 percent), while 14.2 percent of the teenage 

women had visited a physician’s office for a method 

prior to visiting a clinic. The smallest proportion ,of 

all women, regardless of age, had obtained their prior 

method from a hospital, a drugstore, or other sources. 

The majority of women who visited a family 

planning clinic (63.7 percent) adopted or continued 

to use the pill as a method of contraception. Women 

under 20 years of age were more likely than other 

women to adopt or continue with the pill (74.1 

percent). Sixty-three percent of the women in their 

twenties adopted or continued with the pill, while 

only 35.7 percent of the women 30 years of age and 

over chose this method. The IUD, chosen by 7.1 

percent of all of the women, was more popular 

among the older women (18.2 percent) than for 

women under 30. The diaphragm was adopted or 

continued by 7.2 percent of the women enrolled in 

family planning clinics. The teenage women were not 

as likely as the women 20 years of age or over to 

choose the diaphragm. A little fewer than 6 percent 

of the women adopted foam, jelly, or cream as a 

contraceptive method and another 3 percent of the 

women chose other methods. As many as 13.6 

percent of all women who visited the clinics did no 

choose a method after the visit. The reasons for no 9 

doing so included being pregnant, trying to become 

pregnant, or relying on a partner for a contraceptive 

method. More of the women over 29 than women in 

their twenties or younger were in this category. 

Table 2 shows the pattern of contraceptive use 

for white and black women separately. It can be seen 

that the proportion of white women using the various 

methods differed only slightly from the overall 

pattern because most patients at the clinics were . 

white. A larger proportion of black women used the 

pill prior to visiting a clinic in 1980 than did the 

white women who visited a clinic (58.9 percent 

compared with 55.0 percent). The proportion of 

black women who used the IUD prior to their visit 

was slightly more than 8 percent, compared with 6.5 

percent of white women having used this method. A 

larger proportion of white women (4.9 percent) than 

of black women (2.9 percent) used the diaphragm 

prior to their visit. There was no significant difference 

in the proportions of black or white women whose 

Table 2. Number of female family planning patients and percent distribution by contraceptive use, according to race: United States, 1980 

Race 

Contraceptive use 

All races White Black � 

Number in thousands 

All female patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,977 3,552 1,301 

Percent distribution 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,0 100.0 100.0 

Prior contraceptive method 

Pill . . . . . . . . . 55.9 55.0 58.9 

IUD”:::::::::::::::::: : : : : : : : : : : : : : ::::::... . . . . . . 7.1 6<5 8.3 

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 4.9 2.9 

Foam, jelly, or cream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 3.9 3.5 

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 3,9 3.2 

Nomethod usedragularly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.1 2!5.7 23.2 

Source of prior method 

Same service site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.3 37.0 46.1 

Other aervice sita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 8.7 9.3 

Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 1.5 3.5 

Private physician, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4 19.9 14.0 

Drugstore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 3.2 1,5 

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 4.0 2.5 

Nomethod used regularly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.1 25.7 23.2 

Contraceptive method adopted or continued 

Pill . . . . . . . . . 63.7 63.5 65.0 

IUD”::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::. . . . . . . . . 7.1 6.6 8.0 

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 8.1 4.9 

Foam, jelly, or cream .,..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,6 4.8 7.7 

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 2.7 3.0 

Non. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.6 14.3 11.4 

0 

1 I n~l~das natural methods and sterilization. 

‘Includes unknowns. 

NOTE: Numbers may not add to totals dua to rounding. 
0


prior method was foam, jelly, or cream or in the 

proportions who used other methods. A slightly 

larger proportion (although not statistically signifiant) of white women than of black women had 

never used a method regularly prior to their clinic 

visit (25.7 percent compared with 23.2 percent). 

Table 2 also shows that the clinic, either the one 

of current enrollment or some other clinic, was the 

source of prior method for a larger proportion of 

black women than for white women. About 46 

percent of the black women had obtained their prior 

method from the same clinic, and another 9.3 percent 

of them had obtained the method from another 

clinic. Thirty-seven percent of white women obtained 

their prior method from the same clinic, and 8.7 

percent from another clinic. While only 1.5 percent 

of the white women visited hospitals for their prior 

method, 3.5 percent of black women did so. It is 

clear that black women who were enrolled in a family 

planning clinic were more likely than white women to 

have previously sought services of a family planning 

clinic. On the other hand, a larger proportion of 

white women (19.9 percent) than of black women 

(14.0 percent) had visited a private physician for their 

prior method. Black women also were less likely than 

white women to have obtained a prior method from a 

drugstore or from other sources. 

Table 2 also shows the type of method adopted 

or continued according to race. The pill was the 

method adopted by most women, regardless of race. 

More than 3 out of 5 white women and black women 

adopted or continued to use the pill over any other 

method. Looking at the two other effective methods 

(the IUD and diaphragm), there is no significant 

difference between the proportion of white and black 

women who chose the IUD; a larger proportion of 

white women than of black women chose the 

diaphragm. On the other hand, black women were 

more likely than white women to choose foam, jelly, 

or cream after the visit. A larger proportion of white 

women than black women (14.3 percent compared 

with 11.4 percent) chose no method after their visit, 

suggesting that they may already have been pregnant, 

were trying to become pregnant, or were relying on 

their partner for contraception. A small proportion of 

both racial groups chose other methods (2.7 percent 

of white women and 3.0 percent of black women). 

Data in table 3 reveal strong evidence that the 

Table 3. Number of female family planning patients and percent distribution by contraceptive use, according to patient status United States, 1980 

Contraceptive use All 

patients 

All female patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,977 

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

Prior contraceptive method 

Pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.9 

IUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 

Foam, jelly, orcream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 

Nomethod used regularly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.1 

Source of prior method 

Sameeervice site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.3 

Other service site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 

Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 

Private physician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4 

Drugstore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 2.7 

0ther2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 

Nomethod usedregularly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.1 

Contraceptive method adopted or continued 

Pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.7 

IUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 

oam, jelly, or cream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 

cr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......C.C.... 2.9 

e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.6 

1 Includes natural methods and sterilization. 

21ncludes unknowns. 

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

Patient status 

New 

patients 

Number in thousands 

1,779 

Percent distribution 

100.0 

31.5 

2.9 

2.4 

4.3 

4.2 

54.6 

. . . 

. . . 

. . . 

32.7 

5.5 

7.3 

54.6 

60.3 

4.1 

7.5 

6.8 

2.6 

18.6 

Return 

patients 

3,197 

100.0 

69.5 

9.4 

5.4 

3.5 

3.5 

8.7 

61.1 

13.7 

3.2 

10.5 

1.2 

1.6 

8.7 

65.5 

8.8 

7.0 

4.9 

3.0 

10.8 

A 1 

0 
6 

family planning clinics provide most of their patients 

with the most effective means of contraception 

currently available–the pill, the IUD, or the diaphragm. More than twice as many return patients as 

new patients had used the pill (69.5 percent compared with 31.5 percent). Another 14.8 percent of 

the return patients had used either the IUD or the 

diaphragm prior to their visit; only 5.3 percent of the 

new patients had done so. Before visiting a family 

planning clinic, more than half of the new patients 

(54.6 percent) had never used a method regularly. 

However, after enrolling in an organized family 

planning clinic, close to 72 percent of the new 

patients chose the pill, the IUD, or the diaphragm– 

three of the most effective methods. 

The greatest proportion of the new patients who 

had used a method prior to their visit had obtained it 

from a private physician (32.7 percent). An overwhelming majority of return patients, as expected, 

had obtained their prior method from the same site 

of current visit (61.1 percent) or from another service 

site (13.7 percent). Only 3.2 percent of the return 

patients had visited a hospital for their prior method. 

About 1 out of 10 of the return patients received 

their prior method from a private physician, despit 

previous enrollment in an organized family plannin 

clinic. A considerably larger proportion of the new9 

patients than of the return patients had obtained a 

prior method either from a drugstore or from other 

sources (12.8 percent compared with 2.8 percent), 

Unlike the new patients, the proportion of return 

patients adopting or continuing to use the pill or the 

IUD decreased after their visit. A higher proportion 

of new patients adopted or continued with foam, 

jelly, or cream as a method than had used it before 

the clinic visit (6.8 percent compared with 4.3 

percent). The proportion of return patients who 

chose this method also increased after the visit, but 

still was a smaller proportion than that of new 

patients who adopted foam, jelly, or cream. Further, 

a larger proportion of new patients than of return 

patients chose no method at the end of the visit ( 18.6 

percent compared with 10.8 percent). 

h 
dmcedaa7 

Pregnancy history 

Tables 4, 5, and 6 show the number of preg­

[cies, live births, and fetal deaths for women 

according to age, race, and patient status. Table 4 

shows that a larger proportion of women under 20 

years of age than of older women had had no 

pregnancies, no live births, and no fetal deaths. This 

suggests the importance of the family planning 

services for preventing a f~st pregnancy among 

teenage women, However, close to one-third (31.7 

percent) of the teenage patients had been pregnant at 

least once before visiting a clinic. More than half of 

all the women (56.5 percent) had been pregnant at 

least once, but fewer than half had had a live birth. 

As many as 22.7 percent of the women had had at 

least one fetal death. 

As expected, a larger proportion of women 30 

years of age or over had had two or more pregnancies 

or two or more live births than had younger women. 

About threequarters of the women over 29 years of 

age had had two or more pregnancies, compared with 

35.6 percent of the women 20-29 years of age and 

7.4 percent of the women under 20. About 70 

percent of the women aged 30 years or over had had 

two or more live births, compared with 26.2 percent 

of the women in their twenties and 3.6 percent of 

men under 20 years of age. 

The majority of women in every age group had 

not experienced a fetal death. The proportion of 

women who had had at least one fetal death, 

however, increased with age, probably because the 

proportion of women who had one or more pregnancies also increased with age. Thus for the women 

30 years of age or over, who had had more 

pregnancies, there had also been more fetal deaths 

than among women under 30 years of age. 

In table 5 the number of pregnancies, live births, 

and fetal deaths are distributed according to race. A 

larger proportion of white women than of black 

women had never had a pregnancy (46.8 percent 

compared with 34.0 percent) or a live birth (58.7 

percent compared with 42.1 percent). Conversely, a 

larger proportion of black women than of white 

women had had two or more pregnancies and two or 

more live births. However, there is no significant 

difference in the proportions of white and black 

women who have had at least one fetal death (22.3 

percent and 24.0 percent, respectively). 

Table 6 shows the number of pregnancies, live 

births, and fetal deaths for women according to 

whether the woman was a new or a return patient. 

More than half of the new patients (55.7 percent) had 

not had a pregnancy, compared with 36.7 percent of 

return patients. This means that a higher proportion 

of the return patients (63.3 percent) than of the new 

patients (44.3 percent) had had at least one pregnancy. This is also the case with number of live 

births. The majority of new patients (55.7 percent) 

had not had a live birth at the time of their visit, and 

fewer than half of return patients had not had one 

(48.5 percent). Because return patients were more 

likely to have been pregnant than were new patients, 

it is understandable that return patients were also 

more likely to have experienced at least one fetal 

death (25.4 percent compared with 17.9 percent). 

e 

* 

Table 4. Number of female family planning patients and percent distribution by pregnancy history, according to age: United States, 1980 

Age 

Pregnancy history 

All ages 

Under 20-29 30 years 

20 years years and over 

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

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

Number of pregnancies 

o	 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1 . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Zor more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Number of live births 

o	 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . .. . . . ... . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 2or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Number of fetal deaths 

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

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

2or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

4,977 

100.0 

43.5 

25.8 

30.7 

54.3 

22.1 

23.6 

77.3 

16.9 

5.8 

Number in thousands 

1,703 2,691 

Percent distribution 

100.0 100.0 

68.3 34.9 

24.3 29.5 

7.4 35.6 

79.4 47.0 

17.0 26.8 

3.6 26.2 

85.9 74.0 

12.2 19.1 

1.9 6.9 

583 

100.0


10.9 

13.0 

76.1 

15.0 

15.1 

69.9 

67.1 

20.6 

12.2 

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

Table 5. Number of female family planning patients and percent distribution by pregnancy history, according to race: United States, 1980 

Race 

Pregnancy history 

All races White Black 

Number in thousands 

All female patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,977 3,552 1,301 

Percent distribution 

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

Number of pregnancies 

o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.5 46.8 34.0 

1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.8 25.0 28.5 

Zormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.7 28.2 37.5 

Number of live births 

o	 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.3 58.7 42.1 

1::::::::::::::::: : : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.1 19.8 28.8 

Zormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.6 21.5 29.1 

Number of fetal deaths 

o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.3 77.7 76.0 

1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.9 16.8 17.5 

2ormore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8 5.5 6.5 

NOTE: Numbers may notaddto totals due to rounding. 

Table6. Number of female family pIanning patients andpercent distribution bypregnancy history, according topatient Wtus: United States, 1980 -. 

Patient status . 

Pregnancy history All New Return 

patients patients patients 

Numberinthousends 

Allfemalepatients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,977 1,779 3,197 

Percent distribution 

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

Number of pregnancies 

43.5 55.7 36.7 

25.8 22.6 27.6 

30.7 21.7 35.7 

Number of live births 

54.3 64.8 48.5 

22.1 18.9 23.8 

23.6 16,3 27.7 

Number of fetal deaths 

77.3 82.0 74.6 

16.9 13.4 18.8 

5.8 4.5 6.6 

NOTE: Numbers may notaddto totals dua to rounding. 

4’ 
� 

ackEdaa9 . 

References 

National Center for Health Statistics, E. Eckard: Women who e use organized family planning services: United States, 1979. 

Vital and Health Statistics. Series 13-No. 62. DHHS Pub. No. 

(PHS) 82-1723. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Govemment Printing Office, Jan. 1982. 

2 National Center for Health Statistics, B. K. Cypress: Office 

visits for family planning, National Ambulatory Medical Care 

Survey: United States, 1977. Advance Data From Vital and 

Health Statistics, No. 49. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 79-1250. 

Public Health Service. Hyattsville, Md., Apr. 16, 1979. 

3National Center for Health Statistics, G. E. Hendershot and 

K. E. Bauman: Use of services for family planning and infertility: United States. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 23-No. 8. 

DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 82-1984. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Dec. 1981. 

4National Center for Health Statistics, B. J. Haupt: Background and development of the National Reporting System for 

Family Planning Services. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 

1-No. 13. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 78-1313. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Apr. 1978. 

5 National Center for Health Statistics, E. Eckard: Teenagers 

who use organized family planning services: United States, 

1978. Vital and 

Pub. No, (PHS) 

U.S. Government 

6 National Center 

on women who 

1980. Vital and 

Health Statistics. Series 13-No. 57. DHHS 

81-1718. Public Health Service. Washin#on. 

Printing Office, Aug. 1981, 

for Health Statistics, B. Bloom: Basic data 

use family planning clinics: United States, 

Health Statistics. Series 13-No. 67. Public 

Health Sew’ice, DHHS, Hyattsville, Md. To be published. 

Symbols 

. . . Data not available 

. . . Category not applicable 

Quantity zero 

0.0 Quantity more than zero but less than 

z 

* 

# 

0.05 

Quantity more than zero but less than 

500 where numbers are rounded to 

thousands 

Figure does not meet standards of 

reliability or precision 

Figure suppressed to comply with 

confidentiality requirements 
10 ackincedata 

Technical notes 

Sampling design 

The 1980 National Reporting System for Family 

Planning Services (NRSFPS) estimates are based on a 

stratified two-stage sampling design. In the first stage, 

a probability sample of 1,381 (about 1 in 4, 

nationally) family planning service sites was selected 

from a stratified sampling frame developed in 1976 

and updated for 1980. 

In the second stage of the sampling plan, family 

planning visits occurring at each sample site were 

systematically selected. The sampling rate assigned by 

the National Center for Health Statistics to each 

sample site depended on the site’s reported visit 

volume and the State in which the site was located. 

Overall, there were 14 visit sampling rates used to 

determine the proportion of each site’s family planning visits needed for the survey; the visit sampling 

rates ranged from 1/1 to 1/30. The 1980 NRSFPS 

sample for the United States encompassed 220,303 

female patient records. A report delineating the 

NRSFPS background, development, and evolution 

has been published.4 

Estimation 

The statistics provided by NRSFPS for 1980 are 

derived by a complex-estimation procedure. The 

estimation procedure used to produce essentially 

unbiased national estimates for the NRSFPS hds two 

principal components–inflation by the reciprocal of 

the probability of sample selection and adjustment 

for nonresponse. 

Sampling error 

The statistics presented in this report are based on 

a sample survey and therefore differ from those that 

would be obtained from a full-count (100 percent) 

survey using the same data collection procedures and 

definitions. 

The standard error is primarily a measure of the 

variability that OCCUI-Sby chance because a sample 

rather than the entire universe is surveyed. While the 

standard error, as calculated for this report, reflects 

some of the random variation inherent in the measurement process, it does not measure any systematic 

error that is present in the NRSFPS data. The relative 

standard error of an estimate is obtained by dividing 

the standard error of the estimate by the estimate 

itself and is sometimes expressed as a percent of the 

NOTE:Alist of references follows the text. 

estimate. The chances are about 0.68 that the interval � 

specified by the estimate plus or minus one standard 

error of the estimate contains the figure that would 

be obtained through a full-count survey of the 

sampling frame. The chances are about 0.95 that the 

interval specified by the estimate plus or minus two 

standard errors of the estimate contains the figure 

that would be obtained through a full-count survey of 

the sampling frame. 

To derive standard errors that would be applicable to a wide variety of statistics and could be 

derived at moderate costs, several approximations 

were required. For the basic categories of patients 

presented in this report, estimates of totals and 

relative standard errors of totals are shown in table I. 

The standard error for estimated percents of patients 

is shown in table II. 

Nonsampling error 

Nonsampling error is present in most sample 

surveys and includes errors due to service site 

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

Through an unpublished evaluation study conducted 

in 1980, several problems associated with the collec- 0 

tion of data for NRSFPS (for example, adherence to 

NRSFPS definitions) were identified. 

Rounding 

Aggregate estimates of family planning patients in 

the tables are rounded to the nearest thousand. The 

Table 1. Number of female family planning patients and relative 

standard error, by age, race, and Patientstatus: Unitad States, 

1980 

Number Relative 

Age, race, and patient status of patients standard 

in error in 

thousands percent 

Age 

Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,977 3.8 

Under 20years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,703 4.0 

20-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,691 3.9 

30yearsand over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583 4.8 

Race 

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,552 4.0 

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,301 4.7 

Patient status o 

New patient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,779 4.4 

Return patient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,197 4.0 

4 
aduancedata 11 

Table Il. Approximate standard error of percent of female family planning patients, by age, race, and patient statux United States, 1980 

Esdmated percent o f patients 

Age, race, and patient status 

e 1 or 99 5 or 95 10 or 90 20 or 80 30 or 70 50 

Age Standard error in percentage points 

Alleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 

Under20years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.1 

20-29years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 

30yearsand over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.6 

Race 

( White . . . . 

Black . . . . 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. . . . . 

. . . . . 

. . . . . 

. . . . . 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

0.2 

0.4 

0.4 

0.8 

0.6 

1.1 

0.8 

1.4 

0.9 

1.6 

1.0 

1.8 ! 

Patient status 

Newpatient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.1 

Returnpatient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 

Example of use of table: An estimate Of 50 percent based on all teenaga patients has a standard error of 1.1 percent, or a relative standard error of 2.2 

percent ( 1.1 percent+ 50 percent). 

percents were computed based on unrounded estimates, and thus the figures may notsum tothe totals. 

Definitions 

Family planning service site. –A family planning 

service site is the location where medical family 

planning services are provided on a regular basis under 

the supervision of a physician. Private physicians’ 

offices and group medical practices are not considered sites unless they receive support through a 

.’ 

( 

. 

Department of Health and Human Services grant for 

the provision of family pkmntig services. Military 

service sites are excluded from the survey. 

Family planning visit.–A family planning visit is a 

visit to a family planning service site in which medical 

services related to contraception, infertility treatment, or sterilization are provided. 

Family planning patient. –A family planning 

patient is an individual who has made one or more 

9 family planning visits. 
12 dmcdata 

Recent Issues of Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics 

No. 81. Drug Utilization in Office Practice by Age and Sex of 

the Patient: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, United 

States, 1980 (In preparation) 

No. 80. Medication Therapy in Office Visits for Hypertension: 

National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, United States, 

1980 (In preparation) 

No. 79. Blood Lead Levels for Persons 6 Months-74 Years of 

Age: United States, 1.976-80 (Issued: May 12, 1982) 

SUGGE8T’ED CITATION


National Center for Health Statistics, E. Eckard:


Contraceptive use patterns, prior source, and


pregnancy history of female family planning


patienta: United States, 1980. Advance Data From


Vital and Health Statistics, No. 82. DHHS Pub. No.


(PHS) 82-1250. Public Health Service, Hyattsville,


Md. June 16, 1982.


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Public Health Service


Office of Health Research, Statistics, and Technology


National Center for Health Statistics


3700 East-West Highway


Hyattsville, Maryland 20782


OFFICIAL BUSINESS


PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300


To receive this publication regularly, 

contact the National Center for Health 

Statistics by calling 301.436-NCHS. 

From the Off ice of Health Rasearch, Statistics, and Technology 

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 82-1250 

No. 78. Drugs Most Frequently Used in Office-Based Practice” 

National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 1980 (Issued: May 

12, 1982) @ 

No. 77. 1980 Summary: Nationd~.Ambulatory Medical Care 

Survey (Issued: February 22, 1982) 

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HHS


HHS 396 F1.e
 THIRD CLASS


BULK RATE US.MAIL