From Vital and Health Statistics of the National Center for Health Statistics Number 74 � September 4, 1981 

Visits to Family Planning Clinics: United States, 1979 

by Barbara Bloom, Division of Health Care Statistics 

a 

,0 

The National Reporting System for Family 

Planning Services is conducted by the Division of 

Health Care Statistics of the National Center for 

Health Statistics. It is an ongoing system that collects data on clinic-based visits for family planning 

services in the United States and some of its territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands). 

The scope of the National Reporting System for 

Family Planning Services includes medical family 

planning visits occurring in clinics (operated by 

public health departments, private organizations 

uch as affiliates of the Planned Parenthood Federtion of America, Inc., or hospitals) and in other 

sites that provide family planning services. Excluded 

from the scope of the National Reporting System 

for Family Planning Services are all family planning 

visits to private physicians’ offices and visits made 

only for the detection of pregnancy or venereal 

disease or only for obtaining contraceptive supplies 

or counseling. 

From 1972 through mid- 1977 the National 

Reporting System for Family Planning Services 

(NRSFPS) was conducted as a full-count survey, 

collecting information for every medical family 

planning visit at every participating site. Since July 1, 

1977, however, the system has been conducted as a 

sample survey. The sample design for NRSFPS is 

based on a stratified two-stage probability sample. 

The first stage was the selection of ctiics; the second 

stage was the selection of family planning visits 

occurring at each sampled clinic. 

This report examines visits made by women to 

family planning clinics in the United States in 1979. 

Its focus is on socioeconomic characteristics, pregnancy history, and contraceptive methods. The 

reader should note that data from the territories of 

Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands are exIuded. Male family planning visits are also excluded 

~ecause the number of male visits was too small for 

reliable estimates. Since the basic unit of analysis is 

visits, these data represent the services provided 

during the visits of clinic users over the period of a 

year. These data should not be interpreted as representing a profde of family planning clinic patients. 

Since the estimates in this report are based on a 

sampling of family planning clinics rather than on a 

complete enumeration, they are subject to sampling 

variability. The technical notes at the end of this 

report provide a brief description of sampling errors 

and guidelines for judging the precision of the estimates presented, as well as definitions of certain 

terms. used in NRSFPS. A more detailed description 

of the sample design and other defL?icions are being 

prepared- 1 

1978 data from NRSFPS that focus on visits to 

family planning clinicsz and on a patient profdes 

have been published. Other data on the utilization of 

family planning services are collected by means of 

two other surveys-the National Ambulatory Medical 

Care SurveyQ and the National Survey of Family 

Growth. 5 The National Ambulatory Medical Care 

Survey, also conducted by the Division of Health 

Care Statistics, collects data on visits to office-based 

physicians which include a family planning service. 

The National Survey of Family Growth, conducted 

by the Division of Vital Statistics, provides more 

detailed statistics on women who made family 

planning visits either to their own physicians or to 

organized family planning clinics in the 3 years prior 

to the time of the survey. Unlike the other two surveys, however, the 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 who had never 

married but who had offspring living in the household. 

Because of differences in the populations sampled, 

the definitions, and the data collection procedures, 

estimates on family planning visits from these data 

systems differ. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Public Health Service, Office of Health Research, Statistics, and Technology 
2 

Age, race, and ethnicity 

Women in the United States made 8,609,000 

visits to family planning clinics in 1979, representing 

a 16-percent increase over the number of visits 

reported in 1978. This increase, however, is largely 

attributed to the addition of 169 service sites to the 

universe in 1979. The majority, 89 percent, of these 

visits were made by women under 30 years of age: 

33 percent by teenagers, and 71 percent by women 

under 25 years of age (table 1). 

Table 1. Number and percent distributions of female family planning 

visits by selected socioeconomic characteristics: United States, 

1979 

Selected characteristic Number in Percent 

thousands distribution 

All visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,609 100.0 

Age 

Under 20 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,865 33.3 

20-24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,242 37.7 

25-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,529 17.8 

30 years Andover.......,.. . . 973 11.3 

Race 

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,057 70.4 

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,387 27.7 

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 1.9 

Ethnicity 

Hispanic origin or descent . . . . . . 1,001 11.6 

Not of Hispanic origin or descent. . 7,607 88.4 

Education 

Lessthan12 years . . . . . . . . . . . 3,422 39.7 

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,435 39.9 

13years or more . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,752 20.4 

Public assistance income 

Receives public assistance . . . . . . 1,208 14.0 

Does not receive public assistance. . 7,401 86.0 

NOTE: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Seventy percent of all visits were made by white 

women. However, looking at visits by age, the proportion of visits made by white women declined for 

the two oldest age groups. The proportion of visits 

by white women decreased from 72 percent for 

women under 25 years of age to 68 percent for 

women aged 25-29 years and 66 percent for women 

aged 30 years and over (table 2). At 28 percent 

overall, the proportion of visits by black women 

did not vary significantly with age. 

Visits by women of Hispanic origin or descent 

accounted for 12 percent of the total number of 

visits in 1979. (It should be noted that ethnic classification is independent of racial classification and 

may include persons of all races. For example, a 

woman of Hispanic origin or descent may be of any 

racial category. ) The proportion of visits by Hispanic 

women increased significantly with increasing age, 

ranging from 7 percent for teenagers to 22 percent 

for women aged 30 years and over. /’

T 

Education I 

NRSFPS findings reveal that in 197940 percent 

of the visits to family planning clinics in the United 

States were made by women with less than a high 

school education, that is, less than 12 years of education. Both visits by white women (40 percent) and 

visits by black women (40 percent) were the same as 

this national total (table 3). However, there were 

significantly fewer visits by black women who had 

some additional years of education beyond high 

school (16 percent) than the national average (20 

percent). 

Educational attainment by ethnicity shows great 

disparity from the national average. Women of 

Hispanic origin who had less than 12 years of schooling made 57 percent of visits, as compared with 40 

percent for the Nation, a difference of 17 percent. 

Also, Hispanic women who had additional years of 

education beyond high school made significantly 

fewer visits to family planning clinics (12 percent) 

than all women made (20 percent). 

Income 

1-

Table 2 shows that 14 percent of visits to famil> I 

planning clinics in 1979 were made by women living 

in families receiving public assistance income. The 

proportion was significantly higher for women aged 

30 years and over (16 percent) than for teenagers 

(13 percent). In addition, as is shown in table 3, a 

greater proportion of visits by black women were 

characterized by the family’s receipt of public assistance income (27 percent) than visits by white women 

were (9 percent), ‘However, visits made by women of 

Hispanic origin receiving public assistance income (14 

percent) were on a par with visits made by women 

who were not of Hispanic origin (14 percent). 

Pregnancy history 

In 1979, 43 percent of visits to family planning 

clinics were made by women who had never been 

pregnant. As expected, the proportion decreased 

dramatically with age, from 67 percent for teenagers 

to 10 percent for women aged 30 years and over 

(table 4). In significantly more visits by white 

women (47 percent) than by black women (35 

percent) and in more visits by women who were 

not Hispanic (47 percent) than by Hispanic wome 

(18 percent), the patient reported she had never bee 

pregnant (table 5). The same patterns were found fo.T 

live births. The proportion of visits made by women 

with no live births decreased with age, from 79 percent for teenagers to 13 percent for women aged 30 
dmcdata3 

Table 2. Number of female family planning visits by age, and percent distributions by selected characteristics, according to aga: United States, 1979 

,, Age 

All Selected characteristic r ages Under 20-24 25-29 30 years 

20 yeers years years and over 

Number in thousends 

Allvisits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,609 2,865 3,242 1,529 973 

Percent distribution 

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

Race 

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.4 71.6 71.7 67.9 66.3 

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...11.. ;:::::::: 27.7 27.1 26.5 29.5 30.8 

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 1.3 1.8 2.7 

Ethnicity 

Hispanicorigin ordescent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 6.9 10.7 15.8 22.0 

Notof Hispanic originordescent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.4 93.1 89.3 84.2 78.0 

Education 

Lessthan j2years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39:7 62.2 25.1 27.5 41.7 

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.9 31.1 45.1 44.7 41.0 

13years ormora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :::::::::: 20.4 6.7 29,8 27.7 17.3 

Public assistance income 

Receivespublic assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 13.0 14.1 14.8 15.5 

Doesnot receivepublic assistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.0 87.0 85.9 85.2 84.5 

NOTE: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Table 3, Number of female family planning visits by race and ethnicity, and percent distributions by education and public assistance income, 

r according to race and ethnicity: United States, 1979 

Educationandpublic assistenceincome Total’ White 

All visits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,608 6,057 

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

Education 

Lessthan 12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.7 39.6 

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.8 38.4 

13yearsormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.4 22.0 

Public assistance income 

Receivespublicassistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 9.0 

Doesnot receivapublicassistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.0 91.0 

1 lnclud~s all other races not shown sewadVNOTE: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Race Ethnicity 

Not of Hispanic Black Hispanic origin 

or descen t origin 

or descen t 

Number in thousands 

2,387 1,001 7,607 

Percent distribution 

100.0 100.0 100.0 

40.4 56.8 37.5 

43.7 31.6 41.0 

15.9 11.7 21.5 

26.9 13.6 14.1 

73.1 86.4 85.9 

f-’ 

2.9 
4 achancedata 

Table 4. Number of female family planning visits by age, and percent distributions by pregnancies, live births, and contraceptive methods, 

according to age: United States, 1979 

Age 

All Pregnancies, live births, and contraceptive method 

ages Under 20-24 25-29 30 years 

20 years years years and over 

Number in thousands 

All visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,609 2,865 3,242 1,529 973 

Percent distribution 

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

Number of pregnancies 

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.3 67.1 42.1 22.7 10.0 

One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...’..... . . . . . . . 26.2 25.8 31.2 24.8 12.8 

Two ormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.5 7.1 26.7 52.5 77.1 

Number of live births 

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.7 78.8 54.7 30.8 13.1 

One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4 17.8 27.2 25.3 15.2 

Two ormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.9 3.5 18.1 43.9 71.7 

Contraceptive method 

Pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.5 76.8 69.5 60.5 44.5 

Intrauterinedavice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 3.3 7.4 12.1 18.3 

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 3.3 6.9 8.1 7.6 

Foam,jelly, orcream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 4.3 4.6 5.5 9.0 

Relying onpartner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 3.4 3.5 4.1 6.6 

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 1.3 1.7 3.2 7.4 

None–pregnant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 4.0 3.0 2.9 2.1 

None–other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.6 4,6 

NOTE: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding. 

years and over (table 4). Also, in significantly more 

visits by white women (58 percent) than by black 

women (43 percent) and in more visits by women 

who were not Hispanic (58 percent) than by Hispanic 

women (24 percent) the patient reported having no 

live births. 

As expected, there were significantly more visits 

by women aged 30 years and over whohad twoor 

more pregnancies (77 percent) and two or more 

live births (72 percent) than by women in any other 

age category. There, were also significant differences 

by race and ethnic origin. The data show relatively 

more visits were made by black women whohad two 

or more pregnancies (36 percent) and two or more 

live births (28 percent) than by white women (28 

percent and 22 percent, respectively); and a larger 

proportion of visits were made by Hispanic women 

who had two or more pregnancies (55 percent) and 

two or more live births (48 percent) than bywomen 

who were not Hispanic (27 percent and 21 percent, 

respectively). 

Medical services 

A typical visit toafamily planning clinic usually 

included at least four different medical services. A 

blood pressure test was routinely given in86 percent 

of visits. Other frequently provided services were 

pelvic examinations in 59 percent of visits, breast 

examinations in 48 percent of visits, urinalyses -Din 

48 percent of visits, ‘and Pap smears” in 46 percent 

of visits. Pregnancy testing (in conjunction with 

other medical services) was performed during only 

9 percent of all family planning visits (table 6). 

Contraceptive method 

During 93 percent of family planning visits some 

method of contraception was adopted or the use of 

a contraceptive method was continued. Oral contraception was the overwhehning choice of all women 

regardless of age, race, or ethnic background. The pill 

was adopted or its use was continued in about twothirds of all family planning visits (figure 1). However, pill use did decrease significantly with age from 

77 percent of teenage visits to 45 percent of visits 

by women aged 30 years and over. Although no 

differences were found by race, pill use was significantly lower for visits by Hispanic women (61 percent) than by women who were not Hispanic (68 

percent). 

The next most popular methods of contraception were the intrauterine device (8 percent) and 

the diaphragm (6 peycent). In general, the proportion of visits in which an intrauterine device, d“ 

phragm, or other methods were chosen increase~e 

from the youngest to the oldest age categories. 

Higher proportions of visits by black women (9 
171SJ 

@wmdata5 

Table 5. Number of female family planning visits by race and ethnicity, and percent distributions by pregnancies, live births, and 

contraceptive methods, according to race and ethnicity: United States, 1979 

Race Ethnicity 

Not of Pregnancies, live births, and contracepti~e method 

Total’ White Black ““-panic Hispanic or“igin 

.. A,,- . origin or dt.ti=,,. or descent 

Number in thousands 

Ali visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,.., . . . . . . . . . 8,608 6,057 2,387 1,001 7,607 

Percent distribution 

Total . . . . . . . . . . ..m.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of pregnancies 

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.3 46.6 35.0 17.9 46.7 

One, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.2 25.3 28.8 26.7 26.1 

Twoormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.5 28.1 36.2 55.4 27.2 

Number of live births 

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.7 57.9 43.1 23.8 57.7 

One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4 20.5 28.5 27.9 21.6 

Two ormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.9 22.0 28.4 48.3 20.7 

Contraceptive method 

Pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.5 67.3 68.8 60.6 68.4 

Intrauterinedevice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 7.5 9.1 14.1 7.3 

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 6.8 4.1 3.4 6.3 

Foam,jeily,orcream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 4.6 6.7 6.6 5.0 

Relyingon partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 4.3 2.8 7.1 3.5 

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.3 2.5 

None–pregnant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 3.5 2.4 2.8 3.3 

one—other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.7 

1,nclude~ ~11other racas not shown separately. 

NOTE: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Table 6.	 Number and percent of female family planning visits, by percent) and Hispanic women (14 percent) were 

medical services provided: United States, 1979 associated with intrauterine device usage than visits 

bywhite women (8 percent) and by women who 

Madicalservices Numberin Percent were not Hispanic (7 percent) were. More visits by 

white women (7 percent) and women who were not 

All visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,609 100.0 

Hispanic (6 percent) were associated with diaphragm

usage than visits by black women (4 percent)-and by 

Pap smear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,980 46.2 Hispanic women (3 percent) were. 

Pelvic examination . , . . . . . . . . . 5,078 59.0 

Breast examination. . . . . . . . . . . 4,137 48.1 

8100d pressure test . . . . . . . . . . . 7,394 85.9 

Pregnancy test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 745 8.7 

Venereal disease testing . . . . . . . . 3,592 41.7 

Urinalysis ...,.........,.. 4,139 48.1 

Blood best . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,474 40.4 

Sterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *I2 *0. I 

Infertility services. . . . . . . . . . . . *5 *0.1 

Other medical services . . . . . . . . . 4,758 55.3 

thousands 

NOTE: Figures do not add to total since each visit may involve more 

than one medical service. 
Pill 

Intrauterine device 

Diaphragm 

Foam, jelly, or cream 

Relying on partner 

None 

Other 

I 

o 

NOTE: Percents ere baaed on 8,609,000 

. 

I I 1 I I I I 

10 20 30 40 50 60 ii 

Percent 

femele family planning visits. Figures may not add to totel dua to rounding. 

J­


~ 

Figure 1. Percent distribution of female family planning visits at which a contraceptive mathod was adopted or continued by method chosen: 

United States, 1979 

References 

I National Center for Health Statistics: Teenagers who use 

organized family planning services: United States, 1978, by E. 

Eckard. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 13-No. 57. Public 

Health Service, DHHS, Hyattsville, Md. In preparation. 

2Natioml Center for Health Statistics: Visits to family planning service sites: United States, 1978, by B. L. Hudson. 

Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics, No. 72. DHHS 

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

Md. June 29, 1981. 

3National Center for Health Statistics: Patient profile, National Reporting System for Family Planning Services: United 

States, 1978, by J. E. Foster. Advance Data From Vital and 

Health Statistics, No. 73. DHHS Pub. No. ‘(PHS) 81-1250. 

Public Health Service. Hyattsville, Md. June 10, 1981. 

4National Center for Health Statistics: Office visits for family 

planning, National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: United 

Technical notes 

Sample design 

The 1979 National Reporting System for Family 

Planning Services (NRSFPS) estimates are based on a 

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

a probability sample of family planning service sites 

was selected from a stratified sampling frame that 

was developed in 1976 and updated for 1979. 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 

States, 1977, by B. K. Cypress. Advance Data From Vital 

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

1250. Public Health Service. Hyattsville, Md. Apr. 16, 1979. , 

5National Center for Health Statistics: Use of family plannin r services by currently married women 15-44 years of age: 

United States, 1973 and 1976, by G. E. Hendershot. Advance 

Data From Vital and Health Statistics, No. 45. DHEW Pub. 

No. (PHS) 79-1250. Public Health Service. Hyattsville, Md. 

Feb. 7, 1979. . 

6National Center for Health Statistics: Background and 

development of the National Reporting System for Family 

Planning Services, by B. J. Haupt. Vital and Health Statistics. 

Series l-No. 13. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 78-1313. Public 

Health Service. Washington. U. S. Government Printing 

Office, Apr. 1978. 

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 1979 NRSFPS sample for the 

United States encompassed 376,472 female famil 

planning visits. A report delineating NRSFPS bacl r ground, development, and evolution has been published. b 

‘ 
Estimation 

-~ The statistics provided by NRSFPS for 1979 are 

I


“r 

xived by a complex-estimation procedure. The estimation procedure used to produce essentially unbiased national estimates for NRSFPS has two 

principal components–inflation by the reciprocal of 

the probability of sample selection and imputation 

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 

variabilityy that occurs by 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 present in 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 estimate. The chances are about 0.68 that ‘the interval 

pecified by the estimate plus or minus one standard 

rmoT71itre3timate 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. 

In order to derive standard errors that would be 

applicable to a wide variety of statistics and that 

could be derived at moderate costs, several approximations were required. For the four basic age 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 visits are 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 collection of data for NRSFPS (for example, adherence 

Rounding 

Aggregate estimates of family planning visits in 

the tables are rounded to the nearest thousand. 

Because percents were computed according to unrounded estimates, figures may not add to totals. 

Table 1. Number of female family planning visits and relative 

standard error, by age: United States, 1979 

Relative 

Number in Age standard 

thousands error 

Alleges, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,609 4.2 

Under 20 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,865 5.1 

20-24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,242 4.4 

25-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,529 3.5 

30 years And over . . . . . . . . . . . . 973 3.9 

Table 11. Approximate standard errors of percents of estimated number 

of female family planning visits, by age: United States, 1979 

Estimated percent 

Age Ior 5or 10or 200r 300r so 

99 95 90 80 70 

Standard error in percentage points 

Allages . . . . . . . . . . . . ..O.l 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 

Under 20 years . . . . . . . . . 0,2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 

20-24y ears . . . . . . . . . . . 0,2 ().5 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.1 

25-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.4 

30 years and over . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.5 

Example of use of table: An estimata of 2’0 percent of ail teenage visits 

has a standard error of’ 0.8 percent or a relative standard error of 4.0 

percant (0.8 percent + 20 percent). 

Definitions 

Family plunning service site.–A family planning 

service site is a 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 planning 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 family planning services related to contraception, infertilityy treatment, or sterilization are 

provided. 

Medical family planning services. –Medical family 

planning services include Pap smears, pelvic examinations, breast examinations, blood pressure tests, 

pregnancy tests, tests for venereal disease, sterilization, infertility treatment, urinalyses and blood 

tests (unless included as part of another service), and 

other medical services. 

‘-NO NRSFPS definitions) were identified. While the 

1 tudy results are not applicable to the 1979 NRSFPS 

per se, they indicate the difficulties inherent in the 

data collection effort. 
8


Recent Issues of Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics 

No. 73. Patient Profde, National Reporthg System for Family Health Benefits: United States, 1978 (Issued: June 29,1981 !0 

Planning Services: United States, 1978 (Issued: June 24, 1981) No. 70. Utilization of Short-Stay Hospitals in the Treatment 

No. 72. Visits to Family Planning Service Sites: United States, of Mental Disorders: 1974-1978 (Issued: May 22, 1981) 

1978 (Issued: June 29, 1981) No. 69. Office Visits for Preventive Care, National Ambulatory 

No. 71. Health Care Coverage Under Private Health Insurance, Medical Care Survey: United States, 1977-78 (Issued: April 1, 

Medicare, Medicaid, and Military or Veterans Administration 1981) 

Symbols 

. . . Data not available 

. . . Category not applicable 

Quantity zero 

0.0 Quantity more than O but less than 0.05 

z Quantity more than O but less than 500 

* 

Figure does not meet standards of 

reliability or precision 

US. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 

Public Health Service U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HHS 

Office of Health Research, Statistics, and Technology HHS 396 * 

National Center for Health Statistics U.S.MAIL 

Third Class 3700 East-West Highway fl- Bulk Rate 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 Office of Health Research, Statistics, and Technology 

DHHS Publication No, (PHS) 81-1250