W31mlmiwB 

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE � Public Health Service I Number 45 = February 7, 1979 

Use of Family Planning Services by Currently Married 

Women 1544 Years of Age: United States, 1973 and 1976’ 

About 13,300,000 currently married women 

received professional family planning services 

during the 3 years before the 1976 National Survey of Family Growth, an increase of about 1 

mfllion, or 8 percent, above the number who 

made a family planning visit in the 3 years 

before a similar survey conducted in 1973. 

Among fecund, or nonsterile, couples about 

57.9 percent made a family planning visit in the 

3-year period prior to the 1976 survey as compared with 51.2 percent in the 3-year period 

prior to 1973. -

� Among wives who reported making a family

planning &it in the 3 \’ears before ~he 1976 

survey, a large majority (W percent) reported 

their most recent visit was with their own physician, while a minority (16 percent) indicated 

the last visit was with an organized medical 

service. These figures are not significantly different from the comparable figures for 1973. 

The statistics on use of family planning services are from the NTational Survey of Family 

Growth, Cycles I and II, conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics. Data were 

collected through personal interviews with a 

multistage, probability sample of women in the 

household population of the conterminous 

United States. Women 15-44 years of age, inclusive, who were currently mam-ied or previously married or who were never married but 

had offspring presently living in the household 

were eligible for inclusion in the sample. 

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

1This report was prepared by Gerry E. Hendershot, 

Ph.D., Division of Vital Statistics. 

use of contraception and the planning status of 

each pregnancy, on the respondent’s intentions 

regarding number and spacing of future births, 

on maternal and family planning services, and on 

a broad range of socioeconomic characteristics. 

For Cycle I, 3,856 black women and 5,941 

~t,omen of races other thm black \vere interviewed between June 1973 and February 1974. 

For Cycle II, 3,009 black women and 5,602 

women of other races were interviewed between 

January and September of 1976. The numbers 

of black women and ~vornen of other races interviewed in Cycle H were revised for this report 

and differ slightly from the numbers reported in 

.-ldz’ante Data Numbers 36 and 40. The revisions 

do not affect any other statistics reported here 

or previously mentioned. Because the estimates 

of statistics in this report are based on a sample, 

they are subject to sampling \~ariability. A 

further discussion of sampling variability and of 

the design of the survey and definitions of terms 

can be found in the Technical Notes. 

Detailed findings on use of family planning 

services from Cycle I of the National Survey of 

Family Growth are reported in an earlier report.2 

This report presents preliminary findings 

from Cycle II, with comparisons to findings 

from Cycle I; it will be followed by a detailed 

report of findings from CycIe II in Series 23 of 

Vital and Health Statistics. 

2National Center for Health Statistics: Utilization of 

family plznning services by currently married women 

15-44 years of age, United States, 1973, by F. Notzon. 

Vital and Health Statistic;. Series 23-No. 1. DHEW Pub. 

No. (PHS) 78-1977. Public Health Service. Washington. 

U.S. Government Printing Office, Nov. 1977. 

9 
,. ,’:. . 

,, 

2 dmcdata 

Statistics used include only women who 

were fecund 3 years before the interview date. 

Consultations about problems of infertility are 

not included in the definition of family planning 

services for purposes of this report. A woman 

was considered to be sterile if she reported it 

was impossible for her and her husband to conceive as a result of an operation, accident, or 

illness which occurred more than 3 years before 

the interview-before January 1970 for Cycle I, 

or before January 1973 for Cycle II. All other 

women were considered to be fecund, abIe to 

conceive, at the beginning of the period for 

which their use of family planning services was 

reported. 

Table 1 shows the number of currently married, fecund women 15-44 years of age classified 

by race or ethnicity, poverty level income, and 

age and the percents in each group who reported a family planning visit in the 3 years 

before the survey in 1976 or 1973, by type of 

place of the last visit. 

Table 2 includes only wives who reported a 

visit in the 3 years before each survey and shows 

their numbers by race or ethnicity, poverty level 

income, and age and the percent distribution of 

each group by type of place of last family pkmning visit. 

The percent of fecund wives reporting a 

family planning visit increased between 1973 

and 1976 among white women but did not 

change significantly in the other racial or ethnic 

groups considered, In both years, white wives 

were more likely than black wives or wives of 

Hispanic ongin to report a visit, although the 

differences between white and Hispanic women 

are not statistically significant. In 1976 the percents were 59.2 for white women, 51.4 for women of Hispanic origin, and 46.2 for black women. 

In all three racial or ethnic groups, wives 

with a visit were more likely to have had the last 

visit with their own physician than with an 

organized medical service in both 1976 and 

1973. In both years, however, organized medical 

services had a larger share of last visits among 

black wives (37.0 percent of last visits in 1976) 

and wives of Hispanic origin (32.7 percent in 

1976) than among white wives (14.1 percent in 

1976). 

The share of last visits to organized medical 

services did not change significantly in any of 

the three racial or ethnic groups. However, the * 

decline among bIack wives from 42.2 percent in 

1973 to 37.0 percent in 1976 approaches statistical significance, and is consistent with trends 

in methods of contraception—increasing percents of black women are using traditional 

methods such as the condom and the diaphragm, 

which are less likely than other methods to be 

obtained from organized medical services. (For 

further discussion of these trends, see Advance 

Data No. 36, “Contraceptive Utilization in the 

United States, 1973 and 1976.”) 

The percent reporting a family pIanning visit 

increased between 1973 and 1976 among 

women whose family income was 150 percent or 

more of the poverty level and among women 

whose family income was below that level. In 

neither 1973 nor 1976 was there a significant 

difference between the two income groups in 

the percent reporting a visit. 

There was a difference between the income 

groups, however, in the place of Iast family pkmning visit (figure 1): among the poorer women, 

about one-third (33.5 percent in 1976) of 

women with a visit had the last visit with an 

Figure 1. PERCENT OF CURRENTLY MARRIED FECUND WOMEN 

1S-44 YEARS OF AGE WITH A FAMILY PL4NNING VISIT IN 

THE LAST 3 YEARS WHOSE IAST VISIT WAS WITH AN 

ORGANIZED MEDICAL SERVICE, BY POVERTY LEVEL lNCOME UNITED STATES, 1973 AND 1976 

1--11’7’ 

40 m “73 

r 

All,$ey~me Lessthan 150 150 percent .x 

percent of more of poverty 

poverty level level income 

income 

POVERTY LEVEL INCOME 
----

-------------------

------------ -------------------

-------------------

----

-------------------

-----------------

-------------------

-------------------

------------------- -----------------

-------------------

-------------------

----

-------------------

-----------------

-------------------

-------------------

-------------------

-----------------

-------------------

-------------------

-------------------

----------------- -------------------

-------------------

� 

aciiamxkita 3 

*	 Table 1. Number of currently married fecund women 15-44 years of age and percent with a family planning visit in the last 3 years, by place of most recent family planning visit, race or ethnic ity, p~verty level income, and 

age: United States, 1973 and 1976


Race or ethnicity,


poverty level


incc!me, and age


RACE OR ETHNICITY
 AND AGE


~ 

Number of
 women in


thousands


All ages 15-44 years 22,923


15-24 years 5,978


15-19 years .!---- 1,042
 25-34 years 10,869


35-44 years 6,076


we 

All ages 15-44 years 20,553


15-24 years 5,379


15-19 years 918


25-34 years 9,778


35-44 years 5,396


B-


All ages 15-44 years---- 1,896


15-24 years 500


15-19 years


25-34 years 8%


35-44 years 550


Hispanic ori.ginl


All ages 15-44 years 1,519


15-24 years 465


15-19 years


25-34 years 6?;


35-44 years 375


POVERTY LEVEL


INCOME ANO AGE


149 percent of poverty


income and below


All ages 15-44 years---- 3,001


15-24 years 1,075


15-19 years 299
 25-34 years 1,::;


35-44 years


150 petcent of poverty


income and above


All ages 15-44 years---- 17,513


15-24 years 4,345


15-19 years 595


25-34 years 8,501


35-44 years 4,667


1976


With family planning


visit in last 3 years


Number of
 women in


thousands


rotal own Organized


physic ian s::::;


Percent


57.9 48.7 9.2 23,863 

75.6 58.0 17.6 ;,:;; 76.5 48.8 27.7 61.4 54.1 10:797 

34.0 29.6 i:; 7,113 

59.2 50.8 8.3 21,711 

77.2 61.1 16.0 5,361 

77.5 50.7 26.8 915 

62.8 56.2 6.6 9,873 

34.7 30.8 3.9 6,478 

46.2 29.1 17.1 1,868 

60.1 31.5 28.6 546 

70.7 45.5 >’:25.2 48. ? 

3f3.~ 33.3 

20.3 

15.0 

10.1 

7;: 

539 

51.4 34.6 16.8 1>504


57.C 32.7 24.3 412


~’:42
 .0 f:9.4 ~:32.5


59.1 41.2 17.9 5:!


30.7 25.4 $:5.2 529


57.7 38.4 19.3 3,693 

76.2 44.7 31.5 1>198 

69.8 24.9 44.9 285 

53.5 40.4 13.1 1,510 

35.8 24.3 *11 .5 986 

59.8 52.3 7.5 20,170 

78.0 63.8 14.2 4,755 

82.2 61.9 20.2 743 

63.9 57.5 6.4 9,287 

35.3 32.0 3.3 6,128 

1973


With family planning 

visit in last 3 years 

II I 

Total own Organized 

physician s:::::;


Percent


51.2 42.2 9.0 

75.5 58.5 17.0 

69.6 50.5 l;.j 

54.5 47.0 

25.8 21.5 4;3 

51.9 43.8 8.1 

76.9 61.1 15.8 

71.8 54.1 17.7 

55.4 48.6 6.8 

25.9 22.4 3.5 

44.1 25.5 18.6 

61.9 33.4 28.4 

47.4 $:16.1 31.4 

46.5 30.7 15.8 

22.6 9.9 12.7 

48.1 30.9 17.2 

66.6 48.4 18.2 

49.1 :’:30.9 $:18.2 

54.1 33.6 20.5 

27.3 14.3 13.0 

52.6 35.0 17.6 

72.8 46.0 26.8 

66.2 41.8 24.3 

52.3 38.0 14.3 

28.7 17.1 11.6 

50.9 43.6 7.3 

76.2 61.7 14.5 

71.0 53.9 17.1 

54.9 48.4 6.5 

25.3 22.2 3.1 

lIncludes all women reporting any Hispanic origin, regardless of race or other ethnic origins reported.


>

--

-----------------

---------------

-----------------

-----------------

--

-----------------

---------------

-----------------

-----------------

--

----------------- ---------------

-----------------

-----------------

--

----------------

--------------

----------------

----------------

-----------------

---------------

-----------------

-----------------

----------------- --------------- -----------------

-----------------

4 acklncedata 

Table 2. Number of currently married fecund women 15-44 years of age with a family planning visit in the last 3 *


years and percent distribution by place of most recent family planning visit, according to race or ethnj.city,
 pOVC!rty lt3Vel income, and age: United States, 1973 and lg76


1976 1973


Race or ethnicity, Place of visit Place of visit


poverty level Number of Number of


income, and age women with women with II I
 visit in visit in thousands thousands own Organized Total
 physician s~~~’~~


II I 

RACE OF ETHNICITY


AND AGE
 Percent distribution Percent distribution


T-


All ages 15-44years 13,262 100.0 84.1 15.9 12,216 100.0 82.5 17.5 

15-24years 4,520 100.0 76.8 23.2 4,493 100.0 77.5 22.5 

15-19years 797 100.0 63.8 36.1 716 100.0 72,6 27.4 

25-34years 6,674 100.0 88.1 11.9 5,889 100.0 86.1 13.9 

35-44years 2,069 100.0 86.9 13.1 1,833 100.0 83.3 16.7 

mwh 

All ages 15-44years 12,164 100.0 85.9 14.1 11,268 100.0 84.5 15.5 —— 15-24years 4,152 100.0 79.2 2Q.8 4,122 100.0 79.4 20.6 15-19years 711 100.0 65.4 34.6 657 100.0 75.4 24.6 

25-34 years 6,139 100.0 89.4 10.6 5,469 100.0 87.6 12.4 35-44 years 1,873 100.0 88.7 11.3 1,676 100.0 86.7 13.3 

~ 

All ages 15-44years 875 100.0 63.0 37.0 824 100.0 57.8 42.2 

15-19years 25-34years 

35-44years 408 

167 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

64.4 

69.0 

66.8 

*35.6 

31.0 

33.2 

3% 

122 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

*33.9 

66.0 

43.9 

66.1 

34.0 

56.1 

Hispanic originl 

All ages 15-44 years 782 100.0 67.3 32.7 724 100.0 64.2 35.8 

15-24years 265 100.0 57.3 42.7 275 100.0 72.7 27.3 

15-24years 3;; Loo .0 52.4 47.6 338 100.0 54.0 46.0 

15-19years 100.0 *22.5 77.5 100.0 62,9 >~37.1 

25-34years 4% 100.0 69.7 30,3 3:; 100.0 62.1 37.9 

35-44years 115 100.0 82.9 *17. 1 145 100.0 52.3 47.7 

POVERTY LEVEL


INCOME AND AGE


149 percent 0 f poverty


income and be1ow


All ages 15-44years-- 1.731 100.0 66.5 33.5 1.944 100.0 66.5 33.5 -— 

15-24years 100.0 58.7 41.3 872 100.0 63,2 36.8


15-19years 100.0 35.7 64.3 189 100.0 63.2 36,8


25-34years 100.0 75.5 24.5 790 100,0 72.6 27.4


35-44years 100,0 67.9 32.1 283 100.0 59.6 40.4


150 percent of poverty
 uwxnne and above


All ages 15-44years-- 10,469 Loo.0 87.5 12.5 10,272 100.0 85.6 14,4


15-24years 3,::; 100.0 81.8 18.2 3,622 100.0 19.0 

15-19years 100.0 75.4 24.6 527 100.0 24.1 

25-34years 5,435 Loo .0 90.0 lo,a 5,099 100.0 11,8 

35-44years 1,646 LOO.0 90,6 9.4 1,551 100.0 12.4 

lIncludes all women reporting any Hispanic origin, regardless of race or other ethnic origins reported.


0 
akameciata 5 

organized medical service, but among the 

women with higher income, only 1 in 8 (12.5 

percent in 1976) had the last visit with an 

organized medical service. (See the Technical 

Notes for a discussion of limitations to comparing 1973 and 1976 income data.) 

The percents of women reporting a family 

pIanning visit in the last 3 years vary with age, 

women aged 15-24 years being most likeIy to 

report a visit and women aged 35-44 years being 

least Iikely (figure 2). The pattern, which is observed in both survey years and most racial, 

ethnic, and income groups, may reflect a decline 

in women’s need for services as they gain experience and grow older, the differential impact of 

recent growth in service programs for younger 

women just beginning to plan their families, or 

the departure of older women from the fecund 

population needing services by means of sterilizing operations. 

Whatever the explanation for age differences 

in use of family planning services, differences 

were reduced between 1973 and 1976; in that 

period use of services increased in age groups 

25-44 years, but it did not change significantly 

among women aged 15-24 years, narro~ving the 

gap between them (table 1). 

Age differences in the distribution of last 

visits by type of place are less pronounced; in 

Figure 2. PERCENT OF CURRENTLY MARRIED FECUND WOMEN 

1544 YEARS OF AGE WITH A FAMILY PLANNING VISIT IN 

THE LAST 3 YEARS, BY AGE UNITED STATES, 1973 AND 

1976 

All ages 15.44 15.24 25.34 35.44 

AGE IN YEARS 

both age groups 25-34 years and 35-44 years 

about 1 in 8 Iast visits were to an organized 

medical service in 1976, about the same as in 

1973. In the age group 15-24 years, also, the 

percent of the Iast visits which were to organized 

medical services was unchanged between 1973 

and 1976, but at a higher level, more than 1 in 

5. 

Because of recent interest in family planning 

among teenagers, the statistics in tables 1 and 2 

are shown separately for women aged 15-19 

years. However, these data include or-dy women 

who were married at the time of the interview; 

therefore many teenage women who were users, 

or potential users, of family planning services are 

not incIuded. AIso, the numbers of sample 

women in this age group are smalI, so statistics 

estimated from them are less reIiable than other 

statistics in this report. 

An eadier report by Jaffe and Dryfoos indicated that teenagers’ use of family pknning, 

especially from organized medical services, increased in the period 1973 -1975.3 In preparing 

this report, it ~vas mticipated that the trend continued into 1976 and wouId be reflected in comparisons of statistics from Cycles I and H of the 

National Survey of Family Gro\vth. It ~vas found 

that the proportion of teenage wives reporting a 

family planning visit in the 3-year period before 

the interview increased from 69.6 percent to 

76.5 percent bet~veen 1973 and 1976. The trend 

toward greater use of family planning services 

occurred among both black and white teenage 

wives but was stronger among black women, 

among whom the percent reporting a visit increased from 47.4 in 1973 to 70.7 in 1976. 

LAe other ~vomen, most teenage wives reported their last family planning visit was with 

their own physician (63.8 percent in 1976); 

however, organized services’ share of last visits 

by teenage wives was substantial and increasing 

–from 27.4 percent in 1973 to 36.2 percent in 

1976. This trend is observed for white teenagers 

and for teenagers with famiIy income below 150 

percent of the poverty IeveI; for other groups of 

teenage wives the differences between 1973 and 

1976 in the share of Iast visits held by organized 

services are not statistically significant. 

3Jaffe, F.S., and Dryfoos, J. G.: FertiIity control services for adolescents, access and utilization. Fare. Plann. 

Perspect. 8(4): 167-175, July -Aug. 1976. 
6 &ncedata 

TECHNICAL NOTES 

The Survey Design 

The National Survey of Family Growth 

(NSFG) was 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 household 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 the NSFG, i.e., 

women aged 15-44 years, inclusive, who were 

either currently married, previously married, or 

never married but had offspring presently living 

in the household. In households with more than 

one eli~ble 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 races other than 

black. For Cycle II, interviews were completed 

with 3,009 black women and 5,602 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, No. 76, in the Vital and 

Health Statistics series. A similar report is in preparation for Cycle II. 

The interview was highly focused on the 

respondent’s marital and pregnancy histories, on 

the use of contraception and 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 socioeconomic 

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 sampIe results and a 

complete count is referred to as sampling error. 

In addition, the results are also subject to nonsampling error due to respondent misreporting, 

data processing mistakes, and nonresponse. 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 o f estimate. Approximate 

standard errors for estimated numbers and percents from Cycle I are shown in tables I and II 

for white women and women of all races combined and in tables III and IV for the black population. Provisional estimates of standard errors 

for Cycle II for white women amd women of all 

races combined can be obtained by multiplying 

the standard errors for these women from Cycle 

I by factors of 1.09 for the latter and 1.06 for 

white women. Similarly, provisional estimates of 

standard errors for Cycle II for black women can 

be obtained by multiplying the standard errors 

for black women from Cycle I by a factor of 

1.14. 
...........

� Table I. Acmroxirnate standard errors for estimated numbers for 

white “women and women of all races combined: 1973 

National Survey of Family Growth 

Relative 

Standard 

Size of estimate standard error error 

50.000 ............................. ........ ......... 

1oo,ooo ............................................ 

200,000 ....................................... ..... 

5oo.ooo .......................... .................. 

1 ,ooo,ooo .................... ..................... 

2,000,000 ......................................... 

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

10,000,000 ....................................... 

20,000,000 ...... ..................... ............ 

The chances are about 6S out 

estimate from the sample would 

complete census by less than the 

30.0 15,000 

21.2 21,000 

15.0 30,000 

9.5 47,000 

6.7 67,000 

4.8 95,000 

3.0 151,000 

2.2 216,000 

1.5 311,000 

of 100 that an 

differ from a 

standard error. 

The chances are about 95 out of 100 that the 

differences between the sample estimate and a 

complete count would be less than twice the 

standard error. The relative standard error is the 

ratio of the standard error to the statistic being 

estimated. In this report, numbers and percents 

~,hich have a standard emor that is more than 

25 percent of the estimate itself are considered 

unreliable. They are marked ~vith an asterisk to 

caution the user but may be combined to make 

other types of comparisons of ,greater precision. 

In this report, terms such as “similar” and 

“the same” mean that any. observed difference 

between t~vo estimates being compared is not 

statistically significant. Similarly, terms such as 

“greater,” “less,” “larger,” and “smaller,” in-

� 

Table 11. Approximate standard errors for estimated percents expressed in percentage points for whita women and women of 

all races combined: 1973 National Survey of Family Growth 

Estimated percent 

Base of percent 2 or 5 or 10or 20 or 30 Or 40 Or so 

98 95 90 80 70 60 

100,000 . 3.0 4.6 6.4 8.5 9.7 10.4 10.6 

500,000 .. .. .. .. . .. . 1.3 2.1 2.8 3.8 4.3 4.6 4.7 

1,000,000 .... ... . . 0.9 1.5 2.0 2.7 3.1 3.3 3.3 

3,000,000 . ..... .. . 0.5 0.8 1.2 ‘1.5 1.8 I .9 1.9 

5,000,000 .. .... .. . 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.4 I .5 I .5 

7,000,000 ... .. .. . . 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.2 I .3 

10,000,000 . .... . . 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 I .1 1 

0 

acklncedata 7 

Table I I 1. Approximate standard errors for estimated numbers 

for black women: 1973 National Survey of Family Growth 

Relative 

Standard Size of estimate standard error error 

25.000 .............................. ............ .... 25.3 6,000 

50.000 ........... ................................ ... 17.9 9,000 

loo.ooo ............................ ................ 12.7 13,000 

1 50,000 ............... ............................. 10.3 16,000 

25 O.OOO................... ........ ................. 8.0 20,000 

350.000 ............................................ 6.8 24,000 

5oo.ooo ........... ................................ . 5.7 28,000 

750.000 ..... .......................... ............. 4.7 35,000 

1 ,ooo,ooo ........................................ . 4.0 40,000 

dicate that the observed differences are statistically significant. The normal deviate test with a 

.05 level of significance was used to test a.11comparisons which are discussed in the text. A statistically significant difference is one large enough 

that in repeated samples of the same size and 

type as this one such a Iarge difference Ivould be 

expected to be found in less than 5 percent of 

the samples. Lack of comment in the text 

between any t~vo statistics does not mean the 

difference ~vas tested and found not to be significant. 

tldjustment for nonsampliryg error due to 

nonresponse ~vas made in t~vo ways. Nonrespondent cases, as distinct from missing data 

items, were i~mputed by \\reighting for nonresponse ~vithin each prima~ sampling unit, 

stratum, and age-race catego~. In the 1973 survey, codes for missing items ~vere imputed for 

Table IV. Approximate standard errors for estimated percents expressed in percentage points for black women: 1973 National 

Survey of Family Growth 

I 

Estimated percent 

Base of percent z or 5or 10or 200r 3001 

98 

5,000, .. ... ... . .... . . . 7.9 12.3 17.0 22.6 25.9 27.7 28.3 

1 0,000 . .... .. .... .. . . 5.6 8.7 12.0 T 6.0, 18.3 19.6 20.0 

50,000 . .... . .. .... . .. 2.5 3.9 5.4 7.1 8.2 8.8 8.9 

100,000 ... . ... ... . .. 1.8 2.7 3.8 5.1 5.8 6.2 6.3 

300,000 ... ... . ... . .. 1.0 1.6 2.2 2.9 3.3 3.6 3.6 

500,000 . ... .. . .... . . 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.8 

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 2.0 2.0 

F95 90 80 70

40 

60

or 50 E
8 acfuancedata 

each woman by assigning the reported value of a 

case randomly selected from among women with 

similar characteristics. In the 1976 survey, for 

this report, cases with missing data are allocated 

among the cells of a table in proportion to the 

distribution of known cases with the same 

characteristics. 

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS 

Family planning visit in the last 3 years.–h 

Cycle II, women were considered to have made a 

family planning visit in the last 3 years if they 

answered affirmatively to the question “During 

the last 3 years, has a doctor or other trained 

person prescribed or taIked with you about a 

method for deIaying or preventing pregnancy?” 

In Cycle I, women were asked the same question 

except that a period of 5 years was specified 

rather than 3 years. Women who answered 

affirmatively to that question were also asked, 

“When was the last time you talked about 

methods of family phmning with a doctor or 

trained person?” Women who answered that 

question with a date less than 3 years before the 

interview were considered to have made a famiIy 

planning visit in the last 3 years. 

Place of last family planning visit. –Women 

with a family planning visit in the last 3 years 

were asked where the last (most recent) visit 

took place. “Own physician” includes visits of 

the respondent with her own physician, whether 

in the physician’s office or in a hospital; it includes group practices and prepaid medical 

organizations. “Organized medical services” includes visits to all other places: general clinics, 

family planning clinics, hospitals, or elsewhere. 

Place of last famiIy planning visit was not ascertained for about 1 percent of women with a 

visit in Cycle I and about 5 percent in Cycle II; 

cases without place information were allocated 

to place categories in proportion to the distribution of similar cases with complete pIace 

information. 

Age.–Age is classified by the age of the respondent at her last birthday before the date of 

interview. 

Race. –Classification by race was based on 

interviewer observation and was reported as 

black, white, or other. Race refers to the race of 

the woman interviewed. 

Hispanic origin.–A respondent was classified 

as being of Hispanic origin if she reported her 

origin or descent as Mexicano, Chicano, Mexican 

American, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or other 

Spanish, regardless of whether she also 

mentioned any other origin. 

In tables where data are presented for 

women according to race and Hispanic origin, 

women of Hispanic origin are included in the 

statistics for white and black women if they 

were identified as such by the interviewer. 

Marital status.–Persons are classified by marital status as married, widowed, divorced, separated, or never married. Married persons include those who report themselves as married or 

as informzdly married (living with a partner or 

common-law spouse and the like). Persons who 

are temporarily separated for reasons other than 

marital discord, such as vacation, illness, or 

Armed Forces, are classified as married. 

Fecundity .–For this report, a woman was 

considered to be sterile if she reported it was 

impossible for her and her husband to conceive 

as a result of an operation, accident, or illness 

which occurred more than 3 years before the 

interview—before January 1970 for Cycle I, or 

before January 1973 for Cycle II. All other 

women were considered to be fecund, abIe to 

conceive, at the beginning of the period for 

which their use of family planning services was 

reported. 

Poverty level.–The poverty index ratio was 

calculated by dividing the total famiIy income 

by the weighted average threshold income of 

nonfarm families with the head under 65 years 

of age based on the poverty levels shown in US. 

Bureau of the Census Current Population 

Reports, Series P-60, No. 106, “Money Income 

in 1975 of Families and Persons in the United 

States, “ table A-3 (for Cycle II), and No. 98, 

“Characteristics of the Low-Income Population, 

1973 ,“ table A-3 (for Cycle I). This definition 

takes into account the sex of the famiIy head 

and the number of persons in the family. Total 

family income includes income from all sources 

for all members of the respondent’s family. For 

sub stantiaI numbers of respondents (7 percent in 

Cycle I and 16 percent in Cycle II), total family 

income was not ascertained. In Cycle 1, vaIues 
advancedata 9 

� were imputed where missing, using a known 

value of another similar, randomly selected respondent; in Cycle II, however, missing values of 

family income were not imputed, and onIy cases 

with known values are included in statistics on 

poverty income level. Because of this difference, 

estimates of aggregate numbers in categories of 

poverty income level cannot be compared 

between the two surveys; percents may be compared, but such comparisons may be affected by 

the differences in imputation procedures in the 

two surveys. 

Household Population.–The household population consists of persons living in households. 

A household is a person or a group of persons, 

provided no more than five are unrelated to the 

head of the household, who occupy a room or 

group of rooms intended as separate living quarters; that is, the occupants do not live and eat 

with any other persons in the structure, and 

there is either (1) direct access from the outside 

of the building or through a common hall or (2) 

compIete kitchen facilities for the exclusive use 

of the occupants of the household. 

RELATED DATA 

Data on family planning services are also collected in two other surveys conducted by the 

National Center for Health Statistics. Data for 

the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey 

come from reports from a sample of office-based 

physicians; data for the National Reporting 

System for FamiIy Planning Services come from 

a sample of medical organizations which provide 

family pkmning services. Whereas these data 

systems use information from the providers of 

family pk.rming services, the NationaI Survey of 

Family Growth uses information from recipients 

of the services. Because of this difference and 

differences in collection procedures and definitions of terms, statistics on family pIanning visits 

from the three data systems may differ. 
---

------------------------------

-------------------------------------

-----------------------

10 admncedata 

SYMBOLS 

Data not available------------------------------------– 

Category not applicable . . . 

Quantity zero -

Quantity more than Obut less than 0.05---- 0.0 

Figure does not meet standards of 

* reliabilityy or precision 
adwincedata 11 

Recent Issues of Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics 

No. 44. Health Care Coverage: United States, 1976 (In No. 41. Office Visits for Respiratory Conditions, Napreparation) tionaf Ambulatory Medical Care Sun~ey: United 

States, 1975-76 (Issued: October 30, 1978) 

No. 43. Use of Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices in 

the United States (Issued December 12, 1978) No. 40. Contraceptive Utilization Among Widowed, 

Divorced, and Separated Women in the United 

No. 42. Office Wits to Cardiovascular Specialists, states: 1973 and 1976 (Issued: September 22, 

National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: United 1978) 

States, 1975-76 (Issued: October 31, 1978) 

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

Information Branch.