PROPERTY OF mE “ “}, < 

PUBLICATIONS NWCH ~ ZI&LJ4,.::. % 

FROM VITAL & HEALTH STATISTICS OF THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE � Public Health Service I N.mber40 . Sapmnber 22,1978 

Contraceptive Utilization Among Widowed, Divorced, and 

Separated Women in the United States: 1973 and 19761 

@ 

INTRODUCTION 

The data presented in this report are the 

latest nationwide statistics on contraceptive utilization from the 1976 and .1973 National Surveys of Family Growth conducted by the 

National Center for Health Statistics. The data 

were collected by means of personaI interviews 

with a multistage probability sample of women 

5-44 years of age in the noninstitutionalized 

opulation of the conterrninous United States. 

Women were eligible for inclusion in the sample 

if they were currrentIy or previously married or 

were never married but had offspring presently 

living in the household. 

The interview focused on the respondents’ 

marital and pregnancy histories, their use of contraception and the planning status of each pregnancy, their intentions regarding number and 

spacing of future births, their use of maternal 

care and family planning services, and on a 

broad range of social and economic characteristics. Between June 1973 and February 

1974, 3,856 bIack women and 5,941 women of 

others races were interviewed for CycIe I. 

Between January and September of 1976,2,946 

black women and 5,665 women of other races 

were interviewed for CycIe II. Further discussion 

of the survey design, definition of terms, and 

sampling variability are in the Technical Notes. 

Among the estimated 3.6 million widowed, 

divorced, and separated, or postmarried, women 

of childbearing age (15-44 years) in the United 

States in 1976, about 1.2 million, or one-third, 

� 1This report was prepared by Kathleen Ford, Ph. D., 

Division of Vital Statistics. 

were sterile and another 1.6 milIion, or nearly 

one-half, were using some method of cont raception other than surgical sterilization. 

These figures reflect substantial changes in a 

period of 3 years; in 1973 just over one-fifth of 

currently postmarried women in the childbearing ages were sterile and only 30 percent 

reported using some method of contraception. 

The increase in the proportion reporting use of 

contraception other than surgical sterilization 

quite likely reflects greater candor in responding 

to these surveys as much as any actuaI increase 

in contraceptive practice. These data are comparable with those recently published for currently married women in the United States.z 

CONTRACEPTIVE STATUS OF WIDOWED, 

DIVORCED, AND SEPARATED WOMEN 

The frequency of steriIity has increased substantially more among widowed, divorced, and 

separated women between 1973 and 1976 (11.4 

percentage points) than among currentIy married women (6.4 percentage points), resuIting in 

a greater ProPortion ste~e among the Postmarried (32.8 percent) than among the currentIy 

married (30.2 percent) in 1976.2 These observations are true for both surgical and nonsurgical 

sterility, though the latter comparison is not statistically significant. While there were more 

surgicaI sterilizations for contraceptive than for 

noncontraceptive reasons among both currently 

2NationaI Center for Health Statistics: “Contraceptive Utilization in the United States: 1973 and 

1976,” ADVANCE DATA, No. 36, kWISt 18, 1976. 
I 

2


married and postmarried women, the pOstmarried women reported a higher proportion of 

noncontraceptive sterilizations and a lower proportion of contraceptive ones. 

The very large decline in the porpotion of 

noncontraceptors among postmarked women 

between 1973 and 1976 is anomalous (table 1). 

There was no statistically si~ificant change in 

the proportions who were pregnant, post 

partum, or trying to become pregnant, and> aS 

expected, these porportions were markedly 

Table 1. Number of widowad, divorced, and separated women aged 

race: United States, 

Contraceptive status 

All wornen ....................................... .......................................... 

lower among postmarried women than among 

currently married women. The proportions of 

“other nonusers’’—noncontraceptors for reasons . 

unrelated to pregnancy-are much larger among 

postmarried women than among currently mar- “’ 

tied women but account for virtually all of the 

decline in noncontraceptors among the post- ~ 

married between 1973 and 1976 (25.6 percentage points). While a major part of this , 

decline can be attributed to the increase in ster- ; 

ilizations noted above, more than half of it is , 

15-44 and percent d istribution by contraceptive status, according to \ 

1973 and 1976 

~ 

Number in thousands2 

3,601 I 3,601 II 2,516 I 2,546 \ 1,031 I 1,028 

Percent distribution 

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

0 

Sterile women 

All sterile women ............................................................................. 32.8 21.4 32.3 20.3 1 33.7

Nonsurgical .. ...... .. ... ..... ... .. ..... .. .. .. ... .. . .. . .. . ... ... . .... . .. .... ... .. .... .. .. .... ... .... .. . .....1 2.7 *0.5 2.3 *0.3 3.2 +0.9 

Surgical .... . ... ..... ... .. .... ..... . ..... ... ... ... .. . .. .. .. .... .. .. .... . ... ... ... .. ..... . . .... . ... .. .... . .... . 30.1 20.9 29.9 19.9 30.4 23.5 

Noncontracept ive ... .. . . ..... .. ... .... .. .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. .. .... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. . ... . ... ... .. 13.7 8.4 14.0 8.6 13.6 8.2 

Contraceptive . .. .... .. .... ... ... .. .... .... . ... .. . ... . ... .. .... . ..... . .. ... ... .. ... .. .. .... . ... .... .. 16.4 12.3 15.9 11.1 16.8 15.3 

Fecund wornan 

Noncontraceptorx 

Pregnant, post partrrm, seeking prqnancy .. . .... .. . ..... .. .. .... . .. ..... .. . .... . ... .. 20 2.9 1.6 2.3 3.1 4.5 

Other nonusers ... .. ..... .. .. ..... .. . ..... .. .. .. .. . ... ... . .... .. .... .. . .. .. .... .. .... .. .. ... ... ..... 19.7 45.3 17.7 47.4 23.7 39.2 

Contraceptors: 

All methods ..... . .... . .. .. .. ... ..... . .. ... . . .... . ... .. .... . ..... .. ... .. ... .... .. .. .... .. . .... . . 45.4 30.4 48.4 30.1 39.5 31.9 

Oral contraceptive pill ... ..... .. .. ... ... ... ... . .. ... . .. .... . ... ... . ... .. .. . .. ... .. . ... .... . .. .... .. .. 28.0 18.1 30,8 18.6 21.3 17.2 

Intrauterine device (IUD) .. . .... ... .. . .... .. .. ... . .. .. ... . .... ... .. .... .. . .. .. . .. . .... .. .. .... . ... . 9.1 7.2 9.4 7.0 8.8 7.9 

Diaphragm .. . .. .. .... .... ... ..... ... .. ... ... .. .... ... . .. . .. .... ... ... . ... . ...... .. ..... .. . .... .. . .. .. .. . ... 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.5 *1.3 *0.6 

Condom . .... . .... ...... ... ....... . ... ...... . .. .... ... ... . . ..... .. . ..... .. . ...... .. .. ... . .. ..... . .. ..... . . ... 1.8 *0.9 1.9 1.1 *1.6 *o .5 

Foam .. ....... .. .. ..... .. ... .... ... .. .. .... .. .. .. .. . .... .. . .. ... .... .... . .. . .... .... .... . .. .... . .. . ..... . .. ... 1.4 ‘0.7 1.2 *0.4 �1 .9 *1.6 

Rhythm .. .... . ...... .. .... .. .. ... .. ..... .. ... .... . ... .. .. . ... . ... ... ... . .. .... .. .. ..t . . .. .... . .... .. .. .. .... 1.2 *o .4 1.5 *0.4 ++0.7 ++0.4 

Withdrawal . .. .... .. .... .... ..... . ..... . ... ..... .. . ... . . .... .. .. ... ... .. .. ... ... .... . . .. ... . .... .. .. ... ... . *0.3 *0.3 “0.4 *1.O �0.O 

Douche .. .. ... .... .... .. ...... . .. . ..... .... ....... . .. ... .. .... ... .... . .. ..... . .... .. .. . . ... .. . .. .... .. .... ... 1.0 *0.3 1.0 *1.2 *1.1 

~her .... ... ... ... ... .... .... ... .. ...... . ... ...... . .. .... . .... . .... . ... .. ... .. . . ... .... .. .... . .. .... . ... ... ..- 1.4 1.2 1.3 *0.7 *1.5 2. 

lIncl~des white. black. and other races.


2~ the 1973 fi~e~, &imate5 of the number of women in thousands include cases for which contraceptive StdUS was I’IOt ascertain
 * 

but was imputed. Only those cases m which contraceptive status was ascertained are included in the 1976 figures. See Technical Notes. 
dmcedaa3 

reflected in the increase in number of women 

using methods other than sterilization. 

The proportion of contraceptors among the 

post married rose 15.0 percentage points from 

1973 to 1976, reaching 45.4 percent–only 3.2 

percent below the proportion of contraceptors 

among currentIy married women in that year. 

These figures may reflect an increase in sexual 

activity among the postmarried or, more plausibly, a greater candor in discussing these topics 

anonymously. However, there was also a change 

in interviewer instructions in 1976 which couId 

have influenced these figures. A more detailed 

analysis of contraceptive practices which enr-nines these possibilities will be published in series 

23 of Vital and Health Statistics. 

Among currently married women, the resort 

to surgical sterilization has resulted in a higher 

frequency of sterility among white compared 

with black women. However, for the posI.. 

married, sterility from both surgical and nonsurgical causes is higher among black women, 

0 able 2. Number of widowed, divorced, and separated women aged 

method according to race: 

though the difference diminished greatly 

between 1973 and 1976 because of the Iarger 

increase among white women. 

Looking at contraceptors excksive of those 

with contraceptive sterilizations (table 2), it is 

seen that use of the modem methods (pill and 

IUD) in both 1973 and 1976 was strikingly 

higher among postrnan-ied women (83.4 and 

81.6 percent in the respective years) than among 

currently married women (59.7 and 58.5 percent, respectively). The alight decline observed 

in the use of the oral contraceptive pill between 

1973 and 1976 among currentIy married 

women-particularly among black women-did 

not appear among the post married women of 

either race. The distinct shift back to traditional 

methods observed among currently married 

bIack contraceptors between 1973 and 1976 

(12.9 percentage points) also was not observed 

among postmarried bIack contraceptors (a statistically nonsignificant shift of only 2.4 percent). 

15-44 using contraception and percent distribution by contraceptive 

United States, 1973 and 1976 

Contraceptive method 3ZE?SEE 

Number in thousarrds2 

All contraceptors ........................................................... ....... .... 1,636 1,082 1,217 763 407 328 

Percent distribution 

100.0 100.C 100.0 100.0 al== 

Oral contraceptive pill ............................................................................... 61.6 59.7 63.7 622 54.1 54.1 

Intrauterine device (IUD) ........................................................... ............... 20.0 23.7 19.4 23.3 22.3 24.7 

Diaphmgm ........................................... ............................ .................. ........ 2.7 4.1 25 5.1 3.4 *1.8 

tindom ........................................................................... .......................... 4.0 3.1 4.0 3.8 4.1 �1.4 

Foam ........................... ............... ..................... ..... ..................................... 3.0 2.4 24 +1.3 4.8 5.0 

Rh~hm ................. .. ........................ .... ............ ..... ..................................... 2.7 *1.3 3.1 �1.3 *1.8 *1.4 

Wtihdrawd ................................. ..... ........... ............ ............ ....................... �0.6 �0.9 �1.2 2.5 �0.2 

Douche .................................................................... .................................. 2.2 *1.O 20 3.1 3.4 

&her ........... ......................... ................... ..................... ............. ................ 3.0 3.6 2.8 *1.7 T3.8 7.9

lIncludes white, black, and other races. 

zln the Ig73 figures, estimates of the number of women in thousands include cases for which contraceptive .StatUS was not ascakiimd 

but was imputed. Only those cases in which contraceptive status was ascertained are included in the 1976 fgures.See Technical Notes. 
4 advancedata 

* 

TECHNICAL NOTES 

The Survey Design 

The National Survey of Family Growth 

(NSFG) is designed to provide data on fertility, 

family planning, and related aspects of maternal 

and child health. Fieldwork for Cycle I was 

carried out by the National Opinion Research 

Center between June 1973 and February 1974. 

Fieldwork for Cycle II was carried out by 

Westat, Inc., between January and September of 

1976. 

A multistage probability sample of women 

in the noninstitutionalized population of the 

conterminous United States was used in both 

cycles. Each time, approximately 33,000 households were. screened to identify the sample of 

women who would be eligible for NSFG, i.e., 

women between the ages of 15 to 44 years, inclusive, who were currently married or previously married or who were never married but 

had offspring presently living in the household. 

Ln households with more than one eligible 

woman, a random procedure was used to select 

only one to be interviewed. Since the interviews 

were always conducted with the sample person, 

the term “respondent “ is used as synonymous 

with sample person. For Cycle I, interviews were 

completed with 3,856 black women and 5,941 

women of other races. For Cycle II, interviews 

were completed with 2,946 black women and 

5,665 women of other races. A detailed description of the sample design for Cycle I is 

presented in “National Survey of Family 

Growth, Cycle I: Sample Design, Estimation 

Procedures, and Variance Estimation, ” Series 2, 

Number 76, in the Vital and Health Statistics 

series. A similar report is in prepzu-ation for 

Cycle II. 

The interview was focused on the respondent’s marital and pregnancy histories, on 

the use of contraception zmd the planning status 

of each pregnancy, on the respondent’s intentions regarding the number and spacing of 

future births, on maternal and family planning 

services, and on a broad range of social and 

economic characteristics. While the interviews 

varied greatly in the time required for their completion, they averaged about 70 minutes for 

Cycle I and about 58 minutes for Cycle II. 

Quality control procedures were applied at 

all stages of the survey. These included a verification of listing completeness with unlisted 

dwelling units being brought into the sample, a 

preliminary field review of completed questionnaires for possible missing data or inaccurate 

administration, a 10-percent sample recheck of 

all households to be screened in the survey, observation of interviews in the field, and an independent recoding of a 5-percent subsample of 

completed interviews. 

Reliability of Estimates 

Since the statistics presented in this report ‘ 

are based on a sample, they may differ somewhat from the figures that would have been 

obtained if a complete census had been taken 

using the same questionnaires, instructions, interviewing personnel, and field procedures. This 

chance difference between sample results and a 

complete count is referred to as sampling error. 

sampling 

data 

In addition, 

processing 

error 

the 

due 

mistakes, 

results 

to respondent 

are 

and 

also 

nonresponse. 

subject 

misreporting, 

to non 

It is 

�

very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain accurate measures of nonsampling errors. These 

types of error were kept to a minimum by the 

quality control procedures and other methods 

incorporated into the survey design and administration. 

Sampling error, or the extent to which 

samples may differ by chance from a complete 

count, is measured by a statistic called the standard error of estimate. Approximate standard 

errors for estimated numbers and percentages 

from Cycle I are shown in tables I and II for the 

total and white populations and in tables III and 

IV for the black population. Provisional estimates for standard errors for Cycle II for total 

and white women can be obtained by multiplying the standard errors for these women from 

Cycle I by a factor of 1.1. Similarly, provisional 

estimates of standard errors for Cycle II for 

black women can be obtained by multiplying 

the standard errors for these women from Cycle 

I by a factor of 1.2. 

The chances are about 68 out of 100 that a 

estimate from the sample would differ from o 

complete census by less than the standard error. 
..........

m adwEe&a5 

Table 1. Approximate standard errors for estimated numbers for Table IV. Approximate standard errors for estimated percentages 

white and total women: 1973 National Slwvey of Family Growth expressed in oercentaae ooints for black women: 1973 

N&ional Survey of ~miiy Growth 

I i 

Relative Size of standard Standard Estimated percentage estimate error error Base of 

percentage 2 or 5 or lOor 20 Or 30 Or 40 Or 

50 98 95 90 80 70 60 

50,000 ................... ............... 30.0 15,000 

100,000 ............ .................... 21.2 21,000 

200,000 ................................ 15.0 ‘ 30,000 5,000 .......... ..... 7.9 12.3 17.0 22.6 25.9 27.7 28.3 

500,000 ................................ 9.5 47.000 10,000 ............. 5.6 8.7 12.0 16.0 18.3 19.6 20.0 

1,000,000 ............................. 6.7 67,000 50,000 ............. 2.5 3.9 5.4 7.1 8.2 8.8 8.9 

2,000,000 .. ........................... 4.8 95,000 100,000 ........... 1.8 2.7 3.8 5.1 5.8 6.2 6.3 

5,000,000 ................... .......... 3.0 151,000 300,000 .......... . 1.0 1.6 2.2 2.9 3.3 3.6 3.6 

10,000,000 .. ......... ...... ....... ... 2.2 216,000 500,000 .... ....... 0.8 1.2 I .7 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.8 

20,000,000 ........................... 1.5 311,000 700,000 ... ........ 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.4 

1,000,000 ........ 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.6 1.8 2J3 2.0 

Table II. Approximate standard errors for estimated percentages 

expressed in percentage points for white and total women: 

1973 National Survey of Family Growth. 

I 

IEstimated percentage centages which have a standard error th tt is 

Base of more ‘than 25 percent of the estimate itself are 

bined to make other types of comparisons of 

100,000 . 

500,000 .......... 

1,000,000 ........ 

3,000,000 ........ 

3.0 

1.3 

0.9 

0.5 

4.6 6.4 8.5 9.7 10.4 

2.1 2.8 3.8 4.3 4.6 

1.5 2.0 2.7 3.1 3.3 

0.8 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.9 

10.6 

4.7 

3.3 

1.9 

greater precision. 

In this report, terms such as “similar” and 

“the sine” me~ that any observed difference 

5,000,000 ........ 

7,000,000 ........ 

10,000,000 ...... 

0.4 

0.3 

0.3 

1 

0.6 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.5 

0.5 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.2 

0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 

I I I I I 

1.5 

1.3 

1.1 

between two estimates being compared is not 

statistically significant. Similarly, terms such as 

“greater,” “Iess,” “larger,” and “sm~er” k. 

estimated. In this report, numbers and per­

-Lpercentage 2 or 5 or 10or 20 or 30 Or 400r so considered “unreliable.” They are marked with 98 95 90 80 70 60 

an asterisk to caution the user but may be comdicate that the observed differences are statisTable III. Approximate standard errors for estimated numbers tically significant. The normal deviate test with a 

for black women: 1973 National Survey for Family Growth .05 Ievel of significance was used to test all comI 

Size of 

estirnate 

Relative 

standard 

error 

I 

Standard 

error 

parisons which are discussed in the text. A statistically significant difference is one Iarge enough 

that in repeated sampIes of the same size and 

type as this one such a Iarge difference would be 

25,000 .. ................................ 25.3 6,000 expected to be found in less than 5 percent of 

50,000 ......... ......................... 17.9 9,000 the samples. Lack of comment in the text 

100,000 .. .............................. 

150,000 ......................... ..... .. 

250,000 ................................ 

12.7 

10.3 

8.0 

13,000 

16,000 

20,000 

between any two statistics does not mean the 

difference was tested and found not to be signif350,000 ................................ 6.8 24,000 icant.


500,000 ................................ 5.7 28,000 Adjustment for nonsampling error due to


750,000 ................................ 4.7 35,000


1,000,000 ............................. 4.0 40,000 nonresponse was made in two ways. Nonre­


spondent cases, as distinct from missing data 

items, were imputed by weighting for nonresponse within each primary sampIing unit, 

The chances are about 95 out of 100 that the stratum, and age-race category. In the 1973 surdifferences between the sample estimate and a vey, codes for missing items were imputed using 

complete count would be Iess than twice the a “hot deck” procedure. In the 1976 survey, 

standard error. The relative standard error is the imputation for missing data items has not been 

ratio of the standard error to the statistic being performed and the figures in the tables are based 

—.—..-

— 

II 7 
6


only on those interviews where enough information was obtained from the respondent to 

determine contraceptive status. AS a result, in 

the 1976 figures, about 1,061,000 women out 

of an estimated 31,847,000 total ever-married 

women are not represented. 

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS 

The following definitions are applicable to all 

women in the survey, regardless of marital 

status. 

Sterile 

Sterde.–A woman (or couple) was classified 

as sterile if she reported that it was impossible 

for her to have a baby. 

Nonsurgz”cal.-A woman (or couple) was 

classified as nonsurgically sterile if she reported 

that it was impossible for her to have a baby for 

any reason other than a sterilizing operation. Reported nonsurgical reasons for sterility included 

menopause and sterility due to accident, illness, 

or congenital causes. 

Surgical.-A women (or couple) was classified as surgically sterile if she or her husband 

were completely sterile due to an operation. 

Since sterilizing operations are very freq uent 1y obtained exclusively or partly as 

methods of contraception, i.e., because of their 

complete effectiveness against conception rather 

than for purely therapeutic reasons, they have 

been further classified as contraceptive and noncontraceptive. In Cycle I, a sterilizing operation 

was contraceptive if the respondent answered 

“yes” to the question “Was the operation done 

at least partly so that you would not have any 

more children?” Since the avoidance of more 

children (conceptions) could itself be for therapeutic reasons, the question was reworded in 

Cycle II to ‘Was one reason for the operation 

because you had all the children you wanted?” 

This change in wording was expected to yield a 

lower percent of operations reported for contraceptive reasons than would have been reported previously. AS a result, the percents of 

coup 1es with contraceptive and noncontraceptive sterilization shown in this report are not 

completely comparable between the two surveys. Also, there is evidence that sterilizing 

operations classified as noncontraceptive may include some that actually were at least partly 

contraceptive in intent. The percent classified as 

contraceptive should therefore be regarded as a 

minimum estimate. Because of these limitations 

on the data, sterilizations for contraceptive reasons are reported with other causes of sterility 

and not, as formerly, with other methods of 

contraception. 

Fewnd-Noncontrace@ors 

l+e&nt.-A woman (or couple) was classified as pregnant if she replied affirmatively to 

the question “Are you pregnant now?” or for 

those in doubt, “Do you think you probably are 

pregnant or not?” A woman who reported that 

the onset of her last menstrual period was within 

the 30 days prior to the interview was automatically considered not pregnant. 

Seeking pregnuncy.-A woman (or couple) 

was classified as seeking pregnancy if she re- ~ 

ported she was not using a method at the time 

of intemiew because she wanted to become 

pregnant. 

Post @rrtum.-A woman (or couple) was 

classified as post partum if she reported she was 

not currently using a method, was not seeking a 

pregnancy, and her last pregnancy had terminated within 2 months before the date she 

was interviewed. 

Other nonumrs.–Women (or couples) who 

reported they were currently using no contraceptive method and could not be classified in 

any of the preceding categories of noncontraceptors were classified here. Among these are 

wornen who were indifferent to the chances of 

pregnancy, had a very low risk of pregnancy due 

to some fecundity impairment, or objected to 

contraceptive methods for personal or religious 

reasons. Among the widowed, divorced, and 

separated, infrequent intercourse or complete 

abstinence probably accounts for a significant 

proportion of nonusers. Women who used the 

douche following intercourse, but who did not 

report this as a method of contraception, were 

also classified here although such douching _ 

practice is known to have a very modest contraceptive effect when done very soon after 

intercourse. 
---

Fecund-Contraceptors 

Method users.-A woman (or couple) who 

reported use of a contraceptive method other 

than a surgical sterilization at the date of interview was classified according to the specific 

method used. Methods used by extremely small 

proportions of the population such as jelly, 

cream suppositories, or abstinence, not in combination with arty other methods, were grouped 

in the category “Other.” Where more than one 

method was reported in current use, the method 

generally considered the most effective was used 

for classification purposes. 

Demographic Terms 

Age.–In this report, age is classified by the 

age of the responde~t at her last birthday before 

the date of interview. 

Race. –Classification by race, based on interviewer observation, was reported as black, white, 

—------ or other. Race refers to the race of the woman 

interviewed. 

Man-tal status.–Persons are classified by 

marital stqtus as married, widowed, divorced, 

separated, or never married or as informally 

married, such as living with a partner or common-law spouse. Persons who are temporarily 

separated for reasons other than marital dkcord, 

such as vacation, illness, or Armed Forces, are 

classified as married. Divorced persons are those 

whose most recent marriage has been legally dissolved and who are free to remarry. Women with 

an annulled marriage, while having the legal 

status of never having been married, are classified together with divorced women. The category “separated “ includes those who are legally 

or informally separated from their most recent 

spouse due to marital discord. The “never 

married” include those who have never had a 

formal marriage and do not consider themselves 

in any of the preceding categories. However, in 

the NSFG, only single women with offspring living in the household are included and separately 

classified. 

SYMBOLS 

Data not available——————---

Category not applicable ——..-—- - - . 

Quantity zero _———-——.-

Quantity more than O but less than 0.05——— 0.0 

F@re does not meet standards of 

*

I

I 

reliability or precision-———————————— I

I 
8


Recent Issues of Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics 

No. 39.	 Office Wits to Urologists, National Am- bulatory Medical Case Survey: United States, 

bulatory Me&lcal Care Survey: United States, 1975-76 (Issued: August 29, 1978) 

1975-76 (Issued: September 7, 1978) 

No. 36. Contraceptive Utilization in the United States: 

No. 38.	 Office Visits to Psychiatrists, National Am- 1973 and 1976 (Issued: Augsut 18, 1978) 

bulatory Medical care Survey: United States, 

1975-76 (Issued: August 25, 1978) No. 35. An Overview of Nursing Home Characteristics 

Provisional Data from the 1977 National NursNo. 37. Office Vkits to Dermatologists, National Am- ing Home Survey (Issued: September 6, 1978) 

A complete list of Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics is available from the Scientific and Technical 

Information Branch. 

NCHS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE POSTAGE ANO FEES PAID
 Publ,c 

National 

Health 

Center 

Service 

for Health Statistks U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.E,W. *-
 _


3700 EastWest Hi~way =


Hyattwille, Marylamd 20782 

OFFICIAL SUSINESS


HEW 396 o
 PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 F1 RST CLASS hlAIL


OHEW publication No.


(PK.] 78.1250


TO rcmive this publication rq.larly, mrm.t 

the National center for Hdsh Statistics hy 

uoing 301-4S.6NCHS. I