Contraceptive Use

United States, 1982

Based on data collected in 1982, statistics

are presented on contraceptive use at first

sexual intercourse, first method ever used,

all methods ever used, and current

contraceptive status and method. The

statistics are shown for women 15–44

years of age, according to race, age, marital

status, and selected socioeconomic

characteristics.

Data From the National Survey of

Family Growth

Series 23, No. 12

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 86-1988

U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services

Public Health Service

National Center for Health Statistics

Hyattsville, Maryland

September 1986
Copyright information

All material appearing in this report is In the public domain and may

be reproduced or copied without permlsslon; citation as to source,

however, ia appreciated.

Suggested citation

National Center for Health Statistics, W. D. Mosher and C. A. Bachrach:

Contraceptwe use, United States, 1980. Vital and Health Statistics.

Series 23, No. 12. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 86–1 988. Publtc Health Service.

Washington. U.S. Government Prmt!ng Off Ice, Sept. 1986.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in- Publication Data

Mosher, Will!am D.

Contraceptwe use, Untted States, 1982

(Series 23, Data from the national survey of family

growth ; no. 12) (DHHS publication ; no. (PHS) 86–1988)

Written by Willtam D. Mosher and Chrlstlne A.

Bachrach.

“Revised 1 1/18/85. ”

Blbltography: p.

1. Birth control— Un\ted States—Statistics.

2. Contraception—United States—Statistics.

1. Bachrach, Christine. Il. Nat!onal Center for Health

Statwttcs (U. S.) Ill. Title. IV. Series: Vital

and health statistics. Serlea 23, Data from the

Nat!onal Survey of Family Growth ; no. 12,

V. Series: DHHS publication : no. (PHS) 86–1 988.

[DNLM: 1. Contraception—United States—statistics.

2, Contraceptive Agents, Female—United States—

statistics. 3. Contraceptive Devices, Female—

United States—statlsttcs. W2 A N148VW no. 12]

HQ766.5. U5M668 1986 304.6’ 6(0973 86–8463

ISBN 0–8406–0338–X

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Otilce, Washington, D,C, 20402
National Center for Health Statistics

Manning Feinleib, M. D., Dr. P. H., Director

Robert A. Israel, Deputy Director

Jacob J. Feldman, Ph. D., Associate Director for Analysis

and Epidemiology

Game J. Losee, Associate Director for Data Processing

and Services

Alvan O. Zarate, Ph.D., Assistant Director for International

Statistics

Peter L. Hurley, Acting Associate Director for Interview

and Examination Statistics

Stephen E. Nieberding, Associate Director for Management

Gail F. Fisher, Ph. D., Associate Directorfor Program

Planning, Evaluation and Coordination

Monroe G. Sirken, Ph. D., Associate Director for

Research and Methodology

Peter L. Hurley, Associate Directorfor Vital and Health

Care Statistics

Alice Haywood, Information O@cer

Vital and Health Care Statistics Program

Peter L. Hurley, Associate Director

Gloria Kapantais, Assistant to the Directorfor Data

Policy, Planning, and Analysis

Division of Vital Statistics

John E. Patterson, Director

James A. Weed, Ph. D., Deputy Director

William F. Pratt, Ph.D., Chief Family Growth Survey Branch

Joseph D. Farrell, ChieX Computer Applications Stag

Mabel G. Smith, ChieJ Statistical Resources Branch
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Summary ofprincipal findings.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Source and limitations ofthedata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Use ofcontraception atfirst intercourse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Methods used atfirst intercourse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Firstmethod overused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Methods everused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Use oftheoral contraceptive pill.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Current contraceptive status andmethod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Listofdetailedtables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Appendixes

I. Technical notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

11. Definitions ofterms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

III. Selected sections ofthe questionnaire ofthe National Survey ofFamilyGrowth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

List of text figures

1. Percentofwomen15-44yearsofagewhoused acontraceptivemethodatfirstsexual intercourse UnitedStates, 1982...

2. Percent ofcontraceptingwomen 15–44 years ofageusing specitiedmethods at first intercourse, firstmethodused, and

currentmethod forcurrently married contracepto~ United States, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Percentofwomen 15–44yearsofage using contraception at first intercourse who usedthe pill,byag eatinterview and

race United States, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Percentofwomen 15-44yemsofageusing contraceptionatfust~tercoumewhousedthepill, byageatfirstintercot.uwx

United States, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Percentofwomen 15–44yearsofagewho hadeverhadintercoursewhohadeverused selectedmethods,byrace United

States, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. Percentofwomen 15-44yeamofage whohadeverhadintercoursewho had everusedselectedmetlmds,by education

United States, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. Numberofwomen 15-44yearsofage usingspecifiedmethods ofcontraception atthedate ofinterview United States,

1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. Percent ofwomen 15–44years ofage who were currently using contraceptio~ by whether sterilization ornonsurgical

andmarital status: United States, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9. Percent ofcontraceptors 15-44years ofageusingmale and female sterilization andthepil~ by marital status United

States, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10. Percentofcurrentlymamiedcontraceptors 15–44years ofageusingspecified methods ofcontraception, byage United

States, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11. Percentofcurrentlymarriedcontraceptors 15-44 years ofageusingselectedmetho& United States, 1965, 1973, and

1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12. Percent ofcurrently married nonsurgical contraceptors 15-44 years ofage currently using the pill, byrace, Hispanic

origirq andregiom United States, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

6

7

7

9

10

11

13

14

16

16

19

...

!11
List of text tables

A.

B.

c.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

Percent of women 15–44 years of age who had ever had intercourse who used a method of contraception at first intercourse and percent of contraceptors who used the pill, by whether first intercourse was premarital and year of first intercourse: United States, 1982..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean number of contraceptive methods ever used by selected characteristics for women 15–44 years of age who have

ever hadintercourse: United States, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of never married women 15–44 years of age who were exposed to the risk of an unintended pregnancy, percent

using a method of contraception, and percent distribution by method used, according to race and age United States, 1982 . . .

Percent of women 15–44 years of age using contraception and percent distribution by current method of contraception,

according tomarital status: United States, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent distribution of currently married women 15–44 years of age using contraception by method of contraception,

according toage, intent, and race: United States, 1965–82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent distribution of currently married women 15–44 years of age by contraceptive status, according to race, Hispanic

origin, andparity: United States, 1976 and 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent distribution of currently married women 15–44 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization by

current method, according to selected characteristics: United States, 1976 and 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of widowed, divorced, and separated women 15–44 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status

andmethod, according torace United States, 1973, 1976, and 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

8

12

13

15

17

18

20

Symbols

. . . Data not available

. . . Category not applicable

Quantity zero

0.0 Quantity more than zero but less than

0.05

z Quantity more than zero but less than

500 where numbers are rounded to

thousands

*

Figure does not meet standard of

reliability or precision (30-percent or

more relative standard error)

iv
Contraceptive Use

by William D. Mosher, Ph. D., and Christine A. Bachrach,

Ph. D.. Division of Vital Statistics

Introduction

The National Survey of Family Growth, a periodic survey

conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, is designed to produce national estimates of statistics on fertility,

family planning, and aspects of maternal and child health that

are closely related to childbearing. Thii report describes trends

in current contraceptive use among married and formerly married women. In addition, the 1982 National Survey of Family

Growth was the first to include never married women, and this

makes it possible to present new data on use at first sexual

intercourse, the fwst contraceptive method ever used, and all

methods ever used, for the 54 million women 15–44 years of

age in the United States in 1982.

The final data shown here supersede the preliminary data

for 1982 published in the Advance Data series,l and greatly

expand the scope of two other analyses of contraceptive use

from the 1982 survey?’3 This analysis maybe viewed as the

most comprehensive study of contraceptive use by the U.S.

population ever published, tecause previous analyses have

been based on nonrepresentative samples, or limited to ever

married women,+’ to just one or two measures of contraceptive use,6’8 or to much narrower age groups.gJO National

estimates of contraceptive use for all women of reproductive

age are presented here in chronological order, beginning with

use at first intercourse, and including the first method ever

used, all methods ever used, and the current method.
Summary of principal findings

Less than half (45 percent) of women 15–44 years of age

used a contraceptive method at their first sexual intercourse.

As shown in figure 1, black women were less likely than white

women to use contraception at first intercourse, and Hispanic

women were even less likely to do so. Larger proportions of

more educated and higher income women used a method at

their first intercourse, compared with less educated and lower

income women.

Contraceptive choice varies substantially from one stage

of the life cycle to another (figure 2). Among women using a

method at first intercourse, the most popular methods were the

condom, pill, and withdrawal, in that order. However, if the

first method ever used is examined, regardless of when it was

used, the pill was the leading method, followed by the condom

and by withdrawal. Among women who were currently married and using contraception to delay their next birth, in 1982,

the pill was still by far the leading method (45 percent, figure

2), followed by the condom (18 percent) and diaphragm (15

percent). Among married couples who had finished their families—those who intended no more children-female sterilization was by far the leading method in 1982 (used by 38 percent), followed by male sterilization (23 percent), the condom

(12 percent), and the pill (9 percent).

At each of these life cycle stages, there are major differences by characteristics of the woman. For example, among

white women who used contraception at first intercourse, the

percent who used the pill was highest (34 percent) among those

25–34 years of age at interview, but 24 and 23 percent, respectively, among those 15–24 and 35–44 years of age (figure

3). This reflects the fact that use of the pill at first intercourse

has declined since the early 1970’s. Among black women, the

percent using the pill at fust intercourse rose sharply from the

older to the younger age groups, suggesting an uninterrupted

trend toward more use of the pill. Women who delayed their

first intercourse until age 18 or later were much more likely to

use the pill at first intercourse than those who had first intercourse at age 17 or under (figure 4).

About 95 percent of women 15–44 years of age who had

ever had intercourse had used at least one contraceptive method

at some time. About 3 out of 4 (76 percent, or 35.7 million)

had ever used the pill, 1 out of 2 (52 percent) had used the

condom, and 1 out of 4 (25 percent) had used foam and withdrawal. The data clearly show that white women had used

more methods than black women. About equal proportions of

black and white women have ever used the pill, but white

women were more likely than black women to have ever used

the diaphragm, condom, foam, periodic abstinence, withdrawal,

and male sterilization (figure 5). The only methods that black

women were more likely to have ever used were douching and

female sterilization. Similarly, women in the highest education

group had used more methods than those with less educatio~

the former were more likely to have ever used the diaphragm,

condom, and periodic abstinence than those with less than a

high school education (figure 6).

About 35.7 million women 15–44 years of age had ever

used the pill, including 8.4 million who were currently using it

and 27.2 million who used it in the past. About one in three of

these former users, or about 9.7 million women, had been told

to stop using the pill by a doctor.

When contraceptive use was measured at the ckte of interview in 1982, about 55 percent of all women 15–44 years of

age (29.5 million) were using contraception, including 12 percent

(6.5 million) female sterilization, 6 percent male sterilization

(3.2 million), 16 percent the pill (8.4 miUon), and 21 percent

(1 1.4 million) other nonsurgical methods (figure 7). Sterilization

was the leading method in 1982 if male and female sterilization

are counted as a single method (figure 7). However, .ifmale and

female sterilization are considered to be separate methods, the

pill was the leading method among all women aged 15–44

years in 1982.

Because of differences in the percents who are currently

exposed to the risk of an unintended pregnancy, the percent

who were currently using a method varied from 35 percent

among never married women to 68 percent among currently

married women (figure 8). Among currently married and formerly married contraceptors, female sterilization alone was the

leading method in 1982; the pill was the leading method among

never married women (figure 9). About half of never married

contraceptors (53 percent) were using the pill in 1982; the diaphragm and condom followed at some distance. Sterilization

was a minor method among never married women.

Among currently married couples, female sterilization, the

pill, and male sterilization, in that order, were the leading

methods (figure 9). For couples with wives 15–29 years of age,

the leading method was the pill; for couples 30–44 years of

age, the leading method was female sterilization, followed by

male sterilization (figure 10).

Contraceptive use among currently married couples changed

dramatically from 1965 to 1982. The most important trends

included the following:

. The percent using the pill increased markedly until 1973,

when it was the leading method, used by 36 percent of

married contraceptors (figure 11). This percent fell to 33

2
in 1976 and plummeted to 20 percent in 1982 when the

pill was no longer the leading method among married

couples.

. Female sterilization nearly doubled between 1965 and

1973, from 7 to 12 percent, and more than doubled to 26

percent in 1982, when it was the leading method among

married couples.

. Use of male contraceptive sterilization increased from 5 to

11 percent of contraceptors between 1965 and 1973; it

was used by 15 percent in 1982.

Method preference among contraceptors may also be studied

only for those using temporary methods, that is, methods other

than sterilization. Among married couples, the pill was still the

leading nonsurgical method among white, black, Hispanic, and

non-Hispanic women, and in three of the four major regions. A

striking exception, however, was in the Northeast, where the

condom was the leading method, and the pill was used by only

15 percent of married contraceptors (figure 12).

This report describes trends and differences in contraceptive use by social and economic characteristics of the women,

such as their age, race, education, family income, religion, and

whether they intend to have more children. Race and education

rue two of the most important characteristics; they affect all

aspects of contraceptive practice.

Race

Compared with white women, black women were (a) less

liiely to use a contraceptive method at their first sexual intercourse, (b) more likely to use the pill and less likely to use

withdrawal as their first method, (c) slightly less likely than

white women to have ever used a method, (d) less likely to have

ever used the barrier methods (condom, foam, diaphragm), (e)

less likely to use male sterilization as a method, (f) more likely

than white women to be currently using the pill, and (g) more

likely to be current nonusers of contraception.

Education

Women having 13 years or more of education, compared

with those having less than a high school education, were (a)

about twice as likely to use a method at fwst intercourse, and

(h) much more likely to have ever used the diaphragm, condom, foam, and periodc abstinence. Among currently married

contraceptors, the better educated were less likely to be currently using the pill or female sterilization, and more likely to

be using the diaphragm.

3
Source and limitations of

the data

Cycle III of the National Survey of Family Growth was

based on personal interviews with a multistage area probability

sample of 7,969 women 15–44 years of age in the noninstitutionalized population of the conterminous United States. For

the first time, women were eligible for interview regardless of

their marital status.

Between August of 1982 and February of 1983, 4,577

white, 3,201 black, rmd 191 women of other races were interviewed. Women 15– 19 years of age and black women were

sampled at higher rates than other women, to increase the reliability of statistics for these groups. The interview focused on

the respondents’ marital and pregnancy histories, their use of

contraception, whether each pregnancy was planned at the

time of conception, their use of family planning and infertility

services, their physical ability to bear children, and a wide

range of social and economic characteristics. Interviews were

conducted by trained female interviewers and lasted an average

of 1 hour.

Characteristics such as age, race, Hispanic origin, parity,

6ducation, ‘geographic region, labor force status, and religion

are rep6rkid for the women interviewed. For convenience, terms

such as “black couples” or “couples 30–44 years of age” refer

to couples with black wives or wives 30–44 years of age, regardless of the characteristics of the husbands in those wuples.

The statistics are estimates for the national population

from which the sample was drawn. Because the estimates are

based on a sample, they are subject to sampling variability.

Also, nonsampling errors may have been introduced during

data collection, processing, and analysis, although quality control measures were used at each stage to minimize error. Further discussion of the survey design, definitions (ofterms, and

sampling variability can be found in the appendixes of thk report and in a detailed report on the design of the 1982 survey.l 1

The term “similar” means that any observed difference

between two estimates being compared is not statistically significant terms such as “greater,” “less,” “larger,” and “smaller”

indicate that the observed differences are statistically significant at the 5-percent conildence level using a two-tailed t-test

with 39 degrees of freedom. Statements about WTerences that

are qualified in some way (for example, “the data suggest” or

“some evidence”) indicate that the difference is significant at

the 10-percent level but not at the 5-percent IeveL

Following this summary and background are sections discussing detailed findings in chronological order: Contraceptive

use at first sexual intercourse, fwst contraceptive method ever

used (regardless of when it was used), all methods ever used,

current contraceptive status and method (including trends

among married women), and the source of the current method.

Appendixes I–III contain technical notes, definitions of terms,

and some of the survey questions on contraception.

4
Findings

There are many ways to measure contraceptive use, and

each measure gives different insights. For that reason, several

measures of contraceptive use are discussed in this report. The

percent who have ever used certain methods is a cumulative

measure of contraceptive practice in a population and shows

the lifetime variety of contraceptive practice, but it has no

specific or common time reference. “Use at first intercourse”

measures the extent to which women try to reduce the risk of

pregnancy at the beginning of their sexual experience. “First

method ever used” describes how women begin their contraceptive practice. Current contraceptive use gives the most current view of contraceptive practice, and may be looked at in

several different ways, depending on whether contraceptive

sterilization is considered a method of contraception and on

whether one is interested in use as a percent of all women, of

those at risk of an unplanned pregnancy, or just of those using

contraception.

Use of contraception at first intercourse

For the fmt time in the National Survey of Family Growth

(NSFG), women who reported ever having used more than one

contraceptive method were asked which method they used first,

and when they first used it. Table 1 presents data on the percent of women who used a method at their first sexual intercourse. Data like these are important because most women

have intercourse before marriage,12 exposing themselves to the

risk of unplanned premarital pregnancy if they delay contraceptive use. Contraceptive use may be a major factor tiecting

group differences in premarital pregnancy and births to unmarried women. The data in tables 1 and 2 show use at first

intercourse in relation to a number of characteristics associated

with contraceptive use.

Only 45 percent of women 15-44 years of age in 1982

had used a contraceptive method at their first sexual intercourse.

Use was more likely among white non-Hispanic, better educated, higher income, and older women. The proportion who

used a method at first intercourse was 47 percent among white

women, 34 percent among black women, and only 25 percent

among Hispanic women (figure 1). The proportion using a

method at first intercourse was twice as high for women with

13 years or more of education (54 percent) as it was for women

with less than 12 years of education (26 percent). Women with

current family incomes of less than 150 percent of Pcwem

level were much less likely to use a method at fust intercourse

(34 percent) than those with family incomes of three times the

poverty level or more (51 percent). Women living with both

parents at age 14 years were more likely to use a method at

first intercourse (47 percent) than those living with one or

neither parent (38 percent). Finally, women delaying their first

intercourse until age 18 years or later were more likely to use a

method (48 percent) than those who began having intercourse

at age 17 years or under (41 percent).

Although many of the differences were not statistically

signflcant, the proportion of women using a method at first

intercourse was generally higher for women 15– 19 years of

age at interview than for those 35–44. Overall, 48 percent of

teenagers and 40 percent of women 35–44 years of age used a

method at fmt intercourse; this suggests that use at first intercourse has increased in the last decade or two, and the data in

table A confirm that speculation.

The apparent increase in contraceptive use at first intercourse was found among white women (t?om 42 percent at age

35–44 years to 52 percent at age 15–19 years), but not among

black and Hispanic women. The differences by marital status

at interview partJy reflect this trend Use was higher among

never married women, who were younger and, therefore, had

their first intercourse more recently than formerly married

47

White Black Hispanic

Figure 1. Percent of women 15-44 years of age who used a

contraceptive method at first sexual intercourse United States, 1982

5
Table A. Parcant of women 15-44 years of aga who hed aver had

intercourse who used a method of contraception at first intercourse

and percent of contracaptors who used tha pill, by whather first

intercourse was premarital and year of first intercourse

Unitad States, 1982

Contraceptors

Contraceptors who used the pill

Year of first intercourse Totall Premarital Totall Premarital

Percent

All years . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.5 45.0 28.2 22.8

1980–82 . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.9 55.5 21.2 19.7

7975-79 . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.8 47.6 32.1 24.6

1970–74 . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.1 46.3 37.6 31.5

1965–69 . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.6 40.9 32.2 21.8

Before 1965 . . . . . . . . . 36.2 36.4 10.9 9.5

1Includesfirst intercourse after marriage, not shown separately.

women. The increase in use at first intercourse was especially

large among Catholic women, from 34 percent among women

35–44 years of age to 49 percent among women 15–19 years

of age; so that there was no overall difference between Protestant and Catholic women aged 15–44 years.

Methods used at first intercourse

Themethods used at first sexual intercourse give a clearer

indication of the degree to which women who use a method are

protected tiom unplanned pregnancy at their first intercoume.z.lq

Overall and in most subgroups the leading method at first intercourse was the condom, which was used by :39 percent,

followed by the pill and withdrawal (figure 2). No other method

was used by more than 6 percent of contraceptors.

The proportion of white women and women of all races

who used the pill at first intercourse was higher among those

aged 25–34 years at interview than in the other age groups

(figure 3), because many of these women had their first intercourse in the early 1970’s, when pill use at first intercourse was

highest (table A). However, the proportion of bliack contraceptors using the pill at fust intercourse rose sharply, from 10

percent at age 35–44 years to 38 percent at age 15–24 years

(figure 3). The percent of women who used withdrawal at first

intercourse was higher among younger women than among

older women (27 percent among teenagers and 13 percent

among women 35–44 years of age), suggesting that use of withdrawal at first intercourse has been increasing (this is confirmed

by fi.mther analysis, not shown). Differences by age in use of

methods other than the condom, pill, and withdrawal were generally small and not statistically significant.

Table 1 shows that white women were more likely than

black women to have used a method at first intercourse. Among

women who used a method, however, black women were more

likely to have used the condom (47 percent) than wlhite women

(37 percent) and less likely to have used withdrawal (8 percent

compared with 20 percent). The percents of white and black

contracepting women using the pill were similar.

50

40

30

20

10

0

El :.:.:.

...... Condom . . .

❑

+:+ :$$$ Pill

IZZl Withdrawal

45

IRiDiaphragm

El

Female

sterilization

Male

sterilization

First First method Currently

intercourse

Currently

married, intends married, intends

more children no more chilclren

Figure 2. Parcant of contracepting women 15-44 years of age using specified methods at first intercourse, first method used, and current

method for currently married contraceptors: United States, 1982

6
III-.,. ...... ...... 15-24 years

El 25-34 years

N 35-44 years

38

White women Black women

Figure 3. Percent of women 15-44 years of age using contraception

et%rst intercourse who used the pill, “byage at-interview and race

United States. 1982

Women who delayed their first intercourse until age 18

years or later were much more likely to use the pill (34 percent)

than those who had first intercourse at 17 years of age or under

(20 percent, figure 4), and much less likely to use the condom

and withdrawal. Thus, women who began intercourse later

were more likely to use a method, and also more likely to use

one of the more effective methods.

40 r 34

17 yesrs 18 years

and under or over

Age at first intercourse

Fimrra 4. Percent of women 15-44 years of age using contraception

at first intercourse who used the pill, ‘by age at-first intercourse

United States, 1982

First method ever used

While more than half of rdl women did not use a contraceptive method at first intercourse, nearly all (95 percent) had

used a method at some time. A tabulation not shown here reveals that about 23 percent of women did not use a method

until at least one year after their first intercourse; this proportion was 21 percent among white and 33 percent among black

women. This section examines the methcds American women

use once they begin using contraception.

In contrast to first intercourse (table 2), where the leading

method was the condom, the leading first method of contraception was the pill (42 percent, tables 3 and 4) followed by the

condom (30 percent) and withdrawal (11 percent). The proportion using the pill as the first method was higher among

women aged 25–34 years at interview thrm among those 40–

44 and 15– 19 years of age. This probably reflects the overall

trend in pill use shown in table A and described in a later

section of this report Pill use increased during the 1960’s and

early 1970’s, and then declined. Women aged 25–34 years in

1982 were more likely than younger or older women to have

begun using contraceptives in the early 1970’s, when the pill

was most popular.

Black women were substantially more likely to use the pill

as their first method (50 percent) than white women (40 percent). These differences by race were especially large in the

ages under 30 years of age. Black women were less likely to

have used withdrawal (5 percent) than white women (12 percent). These race differences were also especially large in the

age groups under 30 years of age. The other differences between white and black women in their first methods ever used

were small and generally not significant.

Overall and at age 15–24 years, women currently married

at the date of interview were more likely than never married

women to use the pill as their fmt method, and less likely to

use withdrawaL These differences probably reflect the older

age of married than never married women and thus the years in

which they first used a method.

Table 4 shows data on fmt method ever used by selected

socioeconomic characteristics. Hispanic women were more

likely to use the IUD as their first method (7 percent) than nonHispanic women (1 percent), and less likely to use the condom.

Hispanic women appeared to be more likely to use the pill as

their first method (48 percent) than non-Hispanic women (41

percent), although this difference was not statistically significant.

Women living in the Northeast were more likely to use the

condom and less likely to use the pill as their first method than

women living in the West. Differences in methods used at first

intercourse by education, income, and whether living with both

parents at age 14 years were small and generally not statistically significant. The data suggest that Protestant women

were more likely than Catholic women to use the pill as their

first method (43 compared with 39 percent). Catholic women

were more likely than Protestant women to use periodic abstinence as their fwst method (8 percent compared with 4 percent). Women who had their first intercourse at age 17 years or

less were more likely than those who had fmt intercoume later

to use the condom or withdrawal as their first method.

7
Methods ever used

Tables 5 and 6 contain data on the percent of women who

hadever used each type ofcontraceptive method. These data

show the full cumulative experience of contraceptive use in

various subgroups of the population, which may not be reflected

in current use. Data on ever use of methods may also be helpful

to estimate the size of the population that has ever been exposed to the health risks and benefits of certain contraceptives

such as the pill and IUD.14-] 7

About 95 percent of women 15-44 years of age who had

ever had intercourse had ever used some method of contraception. The same proportion (95 percent) had ever used a nonsurgical method-a method other than sterilization. This shows

a much higher level of use than is suggested by measures of

current contraceptive status, because most women who are

currently pregnant, seeking pregnancy, or surgically sterile

have used some form of contraception in the past. About 85

percent of teenagers, and more than 90 percent in each age

group at 20 years of age and over had ever used a method.

Women who had ever had sexual intercourse had used an

average of 2.8 contraceptive methods (table B). White women

used more methods than black women (2.9 versus 2.4), and

non-Hispanic women had used more than Hispanic women

(2.8 versus 2.4). Women in the highest education group had

used more (3.2) than women in the lowest education group

(2.2). Protestant women had used more methods than Catholic

women (2.9 versus 2.6), and women with more income used

more (2.9) than those with lower income (2.5 ). These differences are reflected in the data in tables 5 and 6.

About 76 percent of women who had ever had intercourse,

or 66 percent of all women (35.6 million), had ever used the

pill; 52 percent (or 24.2 million) had ever used the condom;

and 25 percent each had used foam or withdrawal. The other

methods had been used by less than 20 percent of women

(table 5). As was found for first method ever used and use at

first intercourse, the proportion who had ever used the pill was

higher at ages 25–34 years than at 15– 19 or 40–44 years of

age. Ever use of the IUD follows a similar pattern. The percents who had used the condom and diaphragm were highest

among women aged 25-29 and 40–44 years. These patterns

reflect changes over time in the popularity of different methods,

as well as the accumulated experience of women with different

methods as they grow older.

White women were only slightly more likely to have ever

used a method (95 percent ) than black women (92 percent).

However, white women were much more likely than black

women to have used male sterilization (12 and 1 percent, respectively), and more likely to have used the diaphragm, condom, foam, periodic abstinence, and withdrawal (figure 5).

Black women, on the other hand, were more likely than white

women to have ever used the IUD, douche, and female sterilization. The percents who had ever used the pill were similar for

white and black women (figure 5).

The percent who had ever used each method varied by

social and economic characteristics (table 6). Hispanic women

were less likely to have ever used any method (88 percent)

than non-Hispanic women (95 percent), and less likely to have

used the diaphragm, condom, periodic abstinence, and withTable B. Maan number of contraceptive mathods ever used by

selected characteristics for women 15-44 yeara of age who have

ever had intercourse United States, 1982

Mean number

of contraceptive

Characteristic methods used

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

Race

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hispanic origin

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Marital status

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Currently married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Formerly married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

Less than 12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 years. ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Religion

Protestant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Poverty level income

149percent or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

150percent or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age

15–19 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20-24 yaars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30–34yesrs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35–39yesrs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.8

2.9

2.4

2.4

2.8

2,2

3.0

3.1

2.2

2.7

3.2

2.9

2.6

2.5

2.9

1.7

2.3

3.0

3.2

3.1

3.2

1 Includes white, black, and other races; Protestant, Catholic, other religions,

and no religion.

NOTE Weighted numbers may be obta{ned from tables 5 and 6.

drawal. Hispanic women also appeared to be less likely to have

ever used the pill, male sterilization, and foam, but these differences were not statistically significant. Hispanic women

were substantially more likely, however, to have ever used the

IUD than non-Hispanic women (29 percent compared with 18

percent).

Variations by region in the proportions ever having used

specific methods were generally not large or significant. However, the percent who ever used the pill was lower in the

Northeast than in the other three regions; and the percent who

ever used periodic abstinence was lower in the south than in

the other three regions.

Education was associated with use at first intercourse

(table 1), but not with first method ever used (table 4). Education was, however, strongly associated with the percent who

have ever used specific methods (figure 6). The percent who

ever used the diaphragm increased from 7 percent in the lowest

education group to 28 percent in the highest. The proportion

who ever used the condom increased from 44 percent of those

with less than 12 years of education to 58 percent for those

8
c

.=

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

77 76

El

...

<~~ White

El

~. Black

. .

54

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

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

. . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

............... “.”.”.”.”.”.”. :?.::::::::::::::::::::::::

:?:::::::::::::::::::::::::

............... :.:.:.:.>:.:.

.>:.:.:.:.:.:. .:.:.:.:.:.:.:

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

............... ..%%%%..% ............... ....%..%%”.

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

............... ..v.%~..... ..............

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

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

20

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

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

........

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

.......

........

.............. w.....”.”.- ..............

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

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

................%%%..%..%

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

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

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

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

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

Pill Condom Diaphragm Periodic

abstinence

Fiaure 5. Percent of women 15-44 veers of ege who had ever had intercourse who had ever used selected methods, by race Unitad States,

Women who had their fmt intercourse at age 18 years or

1682

with 13 years or more. The percent who ever used periodic

abstinence increased with education from 8 to 25 percent.

Furthermore, the proportion who ever used the pill, male sterilization, and withdrawal was lower for those with less than 12

years of school than for those in the other education groups.

These findings did not appear to be the result of age When

women 15– 19 or 15–24 years of age (who may not have completed their education) were removed, the differences persisted

(tabulations not shown).

Comparing women in the lowest income group (149 percent of poverty or below) with those in the highest (300 percent

or higher), women with higher family incomes were more likely

than women with low incomes to have ever used male sterilization, the pill, the diaphragm, condom, and periodic abstinence.

Many of these differences parallel those by race and education.

Earlier studies found that the percent of married women

who had ever used specific methods differed sharply by religious afHliation,7 and that was true for al women in 1982

(table 6). Protestant women were more likely to have ever used

the pill than Catholic women (81 percent compared with 68

percent), and less likely to have ever used periodic abstinence

(16 percent compared with 23 percent). Prot.+mt women were

also more likely to have used female or male sterilization than

Catholic women.

later were more likely to have ever used male sterilization, the

diaphragm, periodic abstinence, and less likely to have used

the pill or withdrawal than women who began having intercourse before age 18 years. Differences in the percents ever

having used specific methods by whether the respondent lived

with both parents at age 14 years were generally small and not

significant.

Use of the oral contraceptive pill

The pill was the leading nonsurgical method in the United

States in 1982, and had been since at least 1965.6 Two-thirds

of all women 15-44 years of age in the United States, about

35.7 million women, had ever used oral contraceptives-more

than any other method. This means that more women had been

exposed to the health risks and benefits of this method than any

other.14Jc Table 7 shows the percent of all women who had

ever used and were currently using the pill, along with the percent of former users who were told to stop using the pill by a

doctor.

As has been seen, the percent of women who have ever

used the pill peaks at ages 25-34 years, and is lower at ages

15–1 9 and 40–44 years (table 7). Ever use is higher among

ever married than never married women, higher among Prot9
80 78 79

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Pill Diaphragm Condom Periodic

abstinence

Contraceptive method

Figure 6. Percent of women 15-44 years of age who had ever had intercourse who had ever used selected methods, bv education:

Ui%ed States, 1982

estant than Catholic women, and lower among those living in

the Northeast than those living elsewhere. Although 66 percent

have ever used the pill, only 16 percent are currently using it.

Therefore, less than one in four ever users are still using the

pill. The percent currently using the pill was lower among

white than black women, and declined after age 20–24 years.

About one in three former users were told to stop using the

pill by a doctor. This proportion increased with age, and, therefore, was higher for ever married than for never married women.

This percent was also higher among black than white women.

Current contraceptive status and method

While ever use of contraception, as presented in tables 5

and 6, provides a gross measure of the population’s effort to

control fertility, current use or current contraceptive status,

shown in tables 8– 15, gives a more up-to-date view of the

population’s exposure to the risk of pregnancy at a given time

(the month of interview) and the efforts it is making to reduce

those risks by using contraception. Current contraceptive status

has been the most common measure of contraceptive practice

in previous research.1’3’6’18J9

Current contraceptive status classifies women into those

who are using and not using contraception. For those who are

not using, the reasons for nonuse include sterility, pregnancy,

txying to become pregnant, and other nonuse. Among other

nonusers, the reasons for not using contraception may include

(a) for never married women, the woman has never had intercourse (b) the woman has had intercourse, but not in the last 3

monti, (c) the woman has had intercourse in the last 3 months,

but is not currently having intercourse, is indifferent to the possibility of pregnancy, has a fecundity impairment and the chance

of pregnancy is low, or has religious or personal objections to

using contraception. Women who are using a method are classified by the method currently used, those using more than one

method are classified as using the more effective method. For a

more detailed discussion, see appendix II.

About 27 percent of all women 15–44 years of age were

not exposed to the risk of pregnancy because of sterility in

1982, including 26 percent who were surgically sterile or

married to sterile husbands (table 8). Of these 26 percent, 18

percent were contraceptively sterile and 8 percent surgically

sterile for noncontraceptive reasons. An additional 5 percent

were currently pregnant or post partum, and 4 percent were

seeking pregnancy. Another 27 percent were not using contraception for other reasons, including 14 percent who had never

had intercourse, 6 percent who had not had intercourse in the

last 3 months, and 7 percent who had had intercourse but were

not using a method.

An additional 37 percent were using methods other than

sterilizatio~ adding these to the 18 percent contraceptively

sterile, about 55 percent were using some form of contracep10
tion. The leading methods in 1982 were sterilization and the

pill (table 8): 6.4 million women were using female sterilization 3.2 million, male sterilization; 8.4 million women were

currently using the pill; 2.2 million, the IUD; and about 9.3

million were using other methods (figure 7).

The proportions of women who ever used a given method

of contraception are necessarily equal to, or greater than, the

proportion who currently used that method, with one exception—female sterilization. Aside from a very small number of

surgical reversals, all women who have ever used female sterilization are also currently using it. However, women who ever

used female sterilization for family planning as shown in tables

5 and 6 substantially exceed the number classified as currently

using contraceptive female sterilization. This difference results

from a different basis of classtication. Ever users were those

who identified female sterilization as a methdd they had used,

from a card listing methods of “birth control or family planning.” Current users were only those who answered affirmatively to the explicit, quali@ing question, “Was one reason for

the operation because you had all the children you wanted?”

The effect of this difference was discussed in a recent paper,zo

and a fku-ther analysis is planned.

Black women of all marital statuses (table 8) were more

likely than white women to have female contraceptive sterilization operations, to be using the pill, and to be having intercourse in the last 3 months and not using a method. White

women, on the other hand, were much more likely than black

women to be relying on male sterilization and more likely to

have never had intercourse or to be using the diaphragm or the

condom. When these comparisons are limited to currently

married and formerly married women, they persist, but are not

always statistically significant.

Hispanic women (or their current husbands) were less

likely to be surgically sterile (18 percent) than non-Hispanic

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

9.7

8.4

3.6

3

2

1

0

Sterilization Pill Condom Diaphragm IUD Periodic

abstmencez

Contraceptive method

7includes both male and female sterilization.

‘Includes temperature rhythm, natural family planning, and calendar rhythm methods.

Figure 7. Number of women 15-44 years of age using specified methods of contraception at the date of intewiew: United States, 1982

11
women (26 percent) or their husbands. The difference in female sterilization between Hispanic and other women was

small and not statistically significant, but the difference in male

sterilization (2 versus 6 percent) was larger and was statistically

significant. Hispanic and non-Hispanic women were about

equally likely to use the pill, but Hispanic women were much

more likely than others to be using the IUD (10 percent compared with 4 percent) and less likely to be using the diaphragm

or condom than other women.

Contraceptive use among never

married women

Table 9 presents data on the current contraceptive status

of the 19 million never married women 15–44 years of age in

the United States in 1982. This is the first cycle of the survey

that obtained data from all never married women, so no data

are available for previous years. Of these 19 million women,

almost half (46 percent) were teenagers. About 38 percent of

all never married women 15–44 years of age had never had

intercourse, and an addh.ional 11 percent had not had intercourse in the 3 months before interview. Thus about half were

not having intercourse in the 3 months before interview. Few

were sterile (3 percent), pregnant or post partum (3 percent), or

seeking pregnancy ( 1 percent).

About one in three never married women (6.4 million)

were using nonsurgical methods of contraception. More than

half of these (3.6 million) were using the pil~ the next leading

method among never married women was the diaphragm, used

by 0.9 million never married women.

Differences in contraceptive status by age among never

married women were very large and tended to reflect the proportions in each age group who had never had intercourse, or

had not had intercourse in the 3 months before the interview.

For example, the proportion who never had intercourse was 70

percent for women 15-17 years of age and 23 percent for those

20–44 years of age. Reflecting these differences, never married

teenagers were less likely than older never marriedl women to

be using a method of contraception, or to be using the pill,

IUD, or diaphragm in particular.

Table C is limited to women at risk of unintended pregnancy. This allows a comparison of contraceptive use without

the disturbing effects of the sharply different percents who had

never had intercourse. Among women at risk, 78 percent were

using a method. The difference by age found among all never

married women (table 9) was also found when limited to those

at risk: Teenage women at risk were still less likely to use a

method (69 percent) than women 20–44 years of age at risk

(82 percent).

Method choices of contracepting never married women

also differed by age when limited to those at risk (table C). The

pattern differs somewhat from that in table 9, in that contraceptors aged 15– 19 years were more likely than older contraceptors to use the pill. However, using either measure (tables C

and 9), older contraceptors were more likely to use the diaphragm, IUD, or sterilization.

Among never married women, black women were much

more likely to be currently at risk of pregnancy than white

women (table 9). Black women were much more likely than

white women to have ever had intercourse (80 and 58 percent,

respectively) and more likely to have had intercourse in the 3

months before the interview (73 and 46 percent, respectively).

However, black never married women were also more likely to

Table C. Number of never married women 15-44 years of age who were exposed to the risk of an unintended pregnancy, percent using a

mathod of contraception, and percent distribution by method used, according to race and age United States, 1982

Contraceptive method

Women All Other

Race and age exposed~ Contraceptora methods Sterilization Pilf IUD Diaphragm Condom methods3

All racesz

15-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15-19 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

White

15-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15-19 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20-44 years, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black

15-44 yeara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15-19 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number in

thousands

8,664

2,853

1,070

5,810

6,322

2,173

793

4,150

2,099

617

252

1,482

Percent

77.6

68.6

61.2

82.1

79.3

70.1

61.8

84.1

73.2

64.3

59.0

76.9

Percent distribution

100.0 5.0 53.2 5.5 13.5 11.7 11.1

100.0 “0.4 62.3 “0.9 *6.4 22.2 *7.8

100.0 64.1 *1.2 *3.6 24.7 “6.4

100.0 6.9 49.5 7.3 16.4 7.4 12.5

100.0 83.0 51.7 *4.3 16.8 12.8 11.3

100.0 “0.6 59.7 *0.1 *7.7 24.5 *7.5

100.0 63.0 “0.3 “4.4 *28.2 *4.1

100.0 *4.1 48.2 *6.2 20.8 7.7 13.0

100.0 12.1 58.8 8.0 *2.6 8.0 10.5

100.0 71.0 *4.2 “2.0 *1 3.0 *9.9

100.0 65.1 *4.5 *1.5 *14.5 *14.3

100.0 16.3 54.5 9.4 *2.9 6.2 10.8

1Includes women using contraception and those not using contraceptmn who had sexual intercourse in the last 3 months and were not pregnant, post partum, seeking

pregnancy, or noncontraceptively sterile.

21ncludes white, black, and other races.

31ncludes foam, periodic abstinence, withdrawal, douche, suppositories, and other methods.

12
be surgically sterile (8 percent), whether for contraceptive or

noncontraceptive reasons, than white never mawied women ( 1

percent ). The use of nonsurgical contraception was also greater

among black than among white women (38 and 33 percent,

respectively). The comparatively greater use of contraception,

troth surgical and nonsurgical, among never married black

women reflects their greater exposure to the risk of pregnancy.

When the comparison is restricted only to those having intercourse in the 3 months before the interview, black women were

Table D. Percent of women 15-44 years of age using contraception

and parcent distribution by current method of contraception,

according to marital status United States, 1982

Widowed,

Current Never Currently divorced, or

contraceptive method Total married married separated

Percent of women

Contraceptors . . . . . . . 54.5 35.1 68.0 53.5

Contraceptors . . . . . . .

Female sterilization. . .

Male sterilization. . . .

Pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . .

Condom . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other methodsl . . . . . .

100.0

21.9

10.8

28.6

7.3

8.3

12.2

10.9

Percent distribution

100.0 100.0 100.0

3.3 25.6 37.0

*1.8 15.4 “3.5

53.2 19.8 29.5

5.5 7.1 12.0

13.5 6.7 *6.9

11.7 14.4 *1.6

11.1 11.1 9.6

1Includes foam, periodic abstinence, withdrawal, douche, and other methods.

actually Ies i likely to be using contraception (73 percent) than

white women (79 percent), although this difference was not

statistically significant. Among never married contraceptors,

the percents using a surgical or nonsurgical method are similar

by race. Among never married contraceptors, white women

were much more likely than black women to use the diaphragm

(17 compared with 3 percent]. Other differences by race in the

percents using individual methods were not statistically significant, but overall, black women were more likely to use one

of the more effective methods (pill, IUD, or sterilization): 79

percent compared with 58 percent.

Contraceptive use among ever married women

Compared with that of never married women, the contraceptive status and method choices of currently and formerly

married women differed sharply (tables 8, 9, and D, and figure

8). About 35 percent of never married, 54 percent of previously

married, and 68 percent of cumently married women were currently using a method (table D). These differences reflect large

differences by marital status in the proportion of women who

were at risk of pregnancy: 45 percent of never married, 64

percent of previously married, and 73 percent of currently

married women (calculated from tables 8 and 9 ).

As is seen in table 9, the main reasons for nonexposure

among never married women were never having had intercourse

and not having intercourse in the 3 months before the interview. The main reasons for nonexposure among currently

married women (table 8) were noncontraceptive sterility, being

c

,=

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

54

All

women

68

Never Currently

married married

Marital status

❑

✌✎✎..✎✎✌✎ .... Nonsurgical methods

•l! Contraceptive sterilization

53

. . .. ... .

. ... . .. ..

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

.. .. ... .

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

.... .. . ..

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

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

. ... ... . ,., .. . . .

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

.. . .. .. ..

. ... .. . .

. . .. .. ..

. .... . . ..

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

. . ... .. .

. .... .. . .

. .. . ....

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

. .... . .. .

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

. .. . ....

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

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

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

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

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

.. ... .. . .

.. . . ....

. ... . .. .

.. . . ...

. . .... . ...

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

..............$.

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

:.:.. . . . . . . . . .

.... 22 .:.5 . . . . . . . .

Formerly

married

Figure 8. Percent of women 15-44 years of age who wara currently using contraception by whether sterilization or nonsurgical and marital

status: United States, 1982

13
pregnant or post partum, and seeking pregnancy. Among previously married women the main reasons for nonexposure were

noncontraceptive sterility and not having had intercourse in the

3 months before the interview.

When the comparison is limited to those at risk of unintended pregnancy. 78 percent of never married, 87 percent of

previously married, and 93 percent of currently married women

were using a method during the month of interview (table C,

and calculated from tables 8 and 9).

The percents of unmarried women (never or previously

married) who were currently using contraception are lower

partly because they were less likely to be having intercourse in

the last 3 months. However, many unmarried women have intercourse sporadically, so that if the comparison is further restricted to those having intercourse in the month of interview,

then the proportions using a method increase to 87 percent of

never married, 89 percent of previously married, and 94 percent of currently married women. In other words, when only

those currently at risk are examined, the differences by marital

status in the percent using a method narrow considerably, but

do not disappear entirely.

To show method preference among women using contraception (including contraceptive sterilization) apart from the

propensity to use contraception at all, table D contains the

percent distribution of women using contraception by method

used. These percents are not affected by the differences in the

proportion not using any method.

Over half of all never married contraceptors (53 percent)

were currently using the pill in 1982, compared with 30 percent of formerly married and 20 percent of currently married

women (table D and figure 9). The pill, diaphragm, and condom accounted for about four out of five of all never married

contraceptors. In sharp contrast, sterilization was the leading

method among currently and formerly married women, accounting for about two out of five contraceptors in each group.

Among currently married and formerly married women, female

sterilization alone was the leading method (figure 9). The pill

was the second leading method in both groups. Factors explaining the differences in contraceptive choice by marital status

may include age, parity, intent to have—or not have-future

children, number of partners, and frequency of intercourse.

Trends and differentials among married

couples, 1965–82

Contraceptive method choice among married couples using

contraception changed dramatically between 1965 and 1982,

although the changes in the percents using some method (contraceptive status) were relatively small, and many were not

significant. The profound changes in method choice cm be examined using data tlom all three cycles of the NSFG and the

1965 National Fertility Survey. The data for 1982 in tables 10

and 11, and in table E for 1965, 1973, 1976, and 1982 are

comparable to data in a previous NSFG report.b In 1982, as in

earlier years, both contraceptive status and method choice differed from one population subgroup to another. The contraceptive status of married couples is shown only for 1982 (table

10) because the changes in these categories were very small,

and generally not statistically significant.

DIYerentials in contraceptive status— Because younger

couples were less likely to have had all the children they in60 r

❑

✎:~~ Female sterilization

50

40

30

20

10

0

Never Currently Formerly

married married married

Marital status

Figure 9. Percent of contraceptors 15-44 years of age using male and female sterilization and the pill, by marital status: United States, 1982

14
Table E. Percent distribution of currently married women 15-44 years of age using contraception by method of contraception, according to

age, intent, end race United States, 1965-82

Method of contraception

Female Male Other

Age, intent, and rata Total sterilization sterilization Pill IUD Diaphragm Condom mathods

AGE

15-44 years

1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15–29 years

1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...”

30-44 years

1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTENT TO HAVE (MORE) CHILDREN

Intends no more children

1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intends more children

1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RACE

White

1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black

1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

25.6

14.1

12.3

7.2

11.0

6.3

5.9

3.2

35.0

20.8

17.7

9.8

38.2

21.9

18.7

10.2

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

24.7

13.9

11.6

6.5

34.4

18.7

22.7

15.3

15.4

13.3

11.2

5.2

6.4

5.5

5.3

2.9

21.2

20.0

16.1

6.6

23.0

20.7

16.9

7.3

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

16.2

14.2

11.9

5.5

3.6

“3.0

*1.7

“0.6

Percent distribution

19.8 7.1

33.2 9.3

36.1 9.6

23.9 *1.2

40.5 7.2

51.0 10.5

53.6 12.0

41.3 1.8

6.4 7.0

18.0 8.4

21.4 7.6

12.7 0.8

9.2 6.0

22.0 8.4

25.3 7.9

19.5 1.2

44.6 6.8

55.8 10.0

61.1 10.1

38.1 *1.4

19.5 7.0

32.9 9.2

35.6 9.4

24.0 *1.1

25.5 9.6

38.0 10.6

43.8 12.7

21.6 2.8

6.7

4.2

3.4

9.9

9.0

3.9

2.5

6.2

5.2

4.6

4.2

12.2

3.1

3.3

3.5

11.3

15.4

6.4

3.7

5.8

6.8

4.4

3.6

10.4

5.4

“3.0

“2.0

5.0

14.4

10.8

13.5

22.0

14.2

9.6

10.0

19.3

14.6

11.7

16.4

23.8

12.3

10.6

13.8

22.4

18.4

10.8

12.6

19.1

14.8

10.9

14.1

22.4

7.1

7.9

5.3

17.4

11.1

15.1

13.9

30.6

11.8

13.2

10.7

25.3

10.6

16.5

16.6

34.1

8.2

13.1

13.9

28.1

14.9

17.0

12.5

35.6

11.0

14.5

13.8

30.1

14.4

18.8

5.3

37.3

tended, couples aged 15–29 years in 1982 were more likely to

be pregnant, postpartum, or seeking pregnancy and less likely

to be noncontraceptively sterile than those aged 30–44 years.

The percent using contraception was not significantly different

in the two age groups. Black wives were less likely in 1982 to

be using contraception and more likely to be “other nonusers”

than were white wives; these facts are consistent with tindings

in previous surveys since 1965.6

The data suggest that couples who intended no more children in 1982 were more likely to use contraception than those

who intended more (70 compared with 63 percent). Because

they were still having their families, couples who intended

more were more likely to be pregnant, post partum, or seeking

pregnancy than those who intended no more children and (by

definition) none were noncontraceptively sterile.

Analogous differences are observed among couples as the

years since first marriage increase As couples are married

longer, as their age increases, and as they have the children

they intend, the proportion pregnant, post partum, or seeking

pregnancy decreases, and the proportion noncontraceptively

sterile increases.

Trends in method choice—By 1982, female sterilization

was the leading method overall and for couples with wives aged

30-44 years; but the pill was still the leading method among

younger couples (figure 10). This pattern, however, had changed

dramatically since 1965. The percent of married contraceptors

15
using female sterilization more than tr-ipied between 1965 and

1982, from 7 percent in 1965 to 12 percent in 1973 and 26

percent in 1982 (table E and figure 11). Much of the increase

in female sterilization occurred between 1976 and 1982 (from

14 to 26 percent). Male sterilization also increased during the

years 1965–82, but very little of this rise occurred between

1976 and 1982 (13 to 15 percent). The proportion using the

pill increased by half from 1965 to 1973, from 24 to 36 percent,

but plummeted to 20 percent by 1982, below its 1965 level

•l:~:~:~ 15–29 years

. . . .

B!l30-44 yeara

41

n

. . . . .

. . . . . .

. .

... ,.

. .

35 ...........

...........

Female Maia Pill

sterilization sterilization

Contraceptive method

Figure 10. Percent of currently married contraceptors 15-44 years

of age using specified methods of contraception, by age:

United Statea, 1982

(figure 11). By 1982, female sterilization had become the leadiog method of contraception among married couples, used by

26 percent. It waa followed by the pill (20 percent), male sterilization (15 percent), and the condom (14 percent).

Zntent—The pill was the leading method among couples

intending more children in all four survey years, but the proportion dropped by one-fourth-horn61 percent in 1973 to 45

percent in 1982. In these same years, however, the proportion

of contraceptors intending more births who were using the diaphragm increased from 4 percent in 1973 to 15 percent in 1982.

In 1965, the diaphragm typically was used to terminate childbearing; in 1982 it was usually used to delay future births.

Between 1973 and 1982, the proportion of contraceptors intending more births who were using the condom increased from

13 to 18 percent.

Among couples who intended no more children, the leading

methods by 1982 were female sterilization, used by 38 percent,

and male sterilization, used by 23 percent. The percent using

female sterilization nearly doubled since 1976, from 22 to 38

percent, while there was no significant increase in male sterilization since 1976. Overall, 61 percent of couples intending

no more births in 1982 were using sterilization, compared with

only 18 percent in 1965.

Age—Among wives aged 15-29 years, the leading method

in all four survey years was the pill, but over 50 percent were

using it in 1973 and 1976, compared with about 41 percent in

1965 and 1982. While the proportion of wives aged 15-29

years using the pill dropped in this group from 1976 to 1982,

the proportion using the condom, diaphragm, and female sterilization increased.

Among couples aged 30–44 years, the percent using female sterilization increased more than threefold, from 10 to 35

percent, between 1965 and 1982. Much of this increase occurred since 1976. Although male sterilization SISOtripled (from

7 to 21 percent) between 1965 and 1982, little if any of this

increase occurred between 1976 and 1982. The proportion of

wives aged 30–44 years using the pill dropped by about twothirds, from 18 to 6 percent, from 1976 to 1982. Although the

c1:.:.:.

...... 1965 ,.,.,.

40

30

20

10

0

Female sterilization Male sterilization Pill

Figure 11. Percent of currently married contracoptors 15-M years of aga wing selected methods: United States, 1965, 1973, and 1982

16
.

percent using the diaphragm increased among younger women,

there was no significant change between 1976 and 1982 among

older couples. These differences by age reflect the fact that

couples with wives over 30 years are less likely to intend to

have more children, and, therefore, are more likely to choose

permanent, or surgical, methods of contraception.

Race, intent, and duration of marriage-The contracep

tive practice of white couples and black couples differed sharply

in each survey year. The percent using female sterilization was

higher for black couples in each survey year, and the proportion using male sterilization was lower. Among white couples.

both male and female sterilization increased considerably between 1965 and 1982, but among black couples the increase in

male sterilization was very small ( I to 4 percent). The 19-

percentage-point rise in female sterilization among black couples, from 15 to 34 percent, was as large as the 18-percentage-point rise among white couples (from 7 to 25 percent).

By 1982, about 1 in 10 sterilizations to black couples were to

males, compared with about 4 in 10 among white couples. The

proportion of contraceptors using the pill has been higher for

black than white couples since 1973, and the percent using the

condom was lower for black than white couples in each survey

year.

Because couples over 30 years of age are more likely to

intend no more children, couples aged 30–44 years were more

likely than couples aged 15-29 years to use female and male

sterilization and less likely to use the pill in all four survey

yearr$ (table 11). The same is true when wives married 15

years or more are compared with those married less than 5

years before the interview. Wives intending to have more births

were much more likely to be using the diaphragm in 1982 (15

percent) than wives who did not intend to have more births (3

percent). Similarly, 13 percent of women married less than 5

years were using the diaphragm, compared with only 3 percent

of those married 15 years or more. Differentials in other barrier methods by intent were less dramatic.

Education—The percent using female sterilization appears

to be higher for women with less than 12 years of school (34

percent) than for women with 13 years or more (22 percent).

The percent using male sterilization appears to be lower for

those with less education (10 percent) than for those with 13

years or more (15 percent). The proportion using the pill was

lower for those in the highest education group than for those in

the other two groups. In 1982, use of the diaphragm was largely

confined to women with some college education The percent

using the diaphragm was 12 percent in that group, but 2–3

percent in the other two groups.

Religious afiIiation-The percent using female sterilization and the pill appeared to be higher among Protestant than

Catholic couples, although neither difference was statistically

signiilcant. The percent using the condom appeared to be higher

among Catholic couples, and the proportion using periodic abstinence was significantly higher for Catholic than for Protestant couples.

Use of nonsurgical methods: 1976 and 1982

Women using methods other than sterilization are those

most in need of continuing family planning services, those most

likely to change methods, and those most at continued risk of

contraceptive failure. For these and other reasons, it is often

useful to examine trends and differences in contraceptive practice separately among those using sterilization and those using

temporary, or nonsurgical, methods (tables 12.13, F, and G).

The percent using nonsurgical methods of contraception

decreased 9 percentage points. from 49 percent in 1976 to 40

percent in 1982 (table F). Contraceptive sterilization (either

male or female) increased by 9 percentage points between

1976 and 1982, from 19 to 28 percent. Therefore, the percent

not using contraception was unchanged. at 32 percent in both

years. Thus, the proportion of married couples using contraception was about the same in 1976 and 1982, but the proportion using contraceptive sterilization was much higher in 1982.

Table F. Percent distribution of currently married women 1544 years of age by contraceptive status, according to race, Hispanic origin.

and oarilw United Statea. 1976 and 1982

Contraceptive/y Nonsurgical All

sterile contra ceptors noncontracep tors

Race, Hispanic origin, and parity Total 1982 1976 1982 1976 1982 1976

Percent distribution

All women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 27.8 18.6 40.1 49.2 32.0 32.3

Race

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 28.2 19.3 40.7 49.5 31.2 31.2

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 23.1 12.7 37.7 45.9 39.2 41.4

Hispanic ~rigm

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 20.8 707 43.3 48.8 35.9 40.5

Non- Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 23.5 19.1 39.s 49.1 31.7 31.8

Parity

O-1 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 8.1 2.7 49.7 56.1 42.9 41.2

24 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 40.9 27.1 34.4 47.2 24.7 25.7

5 births or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 33.5 40.3 35.2 27.9 31.3 31.8

Source of 1976 data National Center for I+adth Stattst,cs, W. D. Masher Contraceptive utihzatmm: Umted States, 1S76. Vital and Hea/th Statistics. Series 23, No. 7.

DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 81-1983. Public I%alth WWICQ. WashingNmt. U.S. Government Printing Gffme, Mar. 1981.

17
The increase in contraceptive sterilization occurred among

both white and black couples, among both Hispanic and nonHispanic couples, and was greatest among couples with 2-4

children. Within the race, origin, and parity groups in table F,

there were no statistically significant changes in the percent of

couples who were not using contraception.

DIYereittiak in contraceptive slatus— In 1982. as in previous years, the contraceptive status of married couples varied

markedly with age’ 9 (table 12). The percent contraceptively

sterile increased with age, from zero among married teenagers

to 46 percent among couples with wives ages 40–44 years.

The percent using nonsurgical methods decreased sharply after

ages 20–24 years, from 59 percent to only 22 percent at ages

40–44 years. The proportion noncontraceptively sterile increased with age, and the percent pregnant, post partum, or

seeking pregnancy decreased with age. The proportion who

were not using contraception for other reasons (“other nonusers”) did not change significantly with age.

Black wives were more likely to be other nonusers than

white wives (10 versus 5 percent) and more likely to be nonusers of contraception in general (39 versus 31 percent). None

of the differences between Hispanic and other wives was statistically significant, but they were consistent with findings nom

previous surveys.19 Hispanic couples appeared to be less likely

to use contraceptive sterilization and more likely to be pregnant, post partum, or seeking pregnancy than other women.

Although none of the differences by religious afllliation was

statistically significant, they also were consistent with previous

findings.19 It appeared that Catholic couples were less likely

than Protestant couples to be contraceptively sterile.

The differences by parity, however, were large and significant, because they indicate couples who are at different

stages of family growth. Wives with 2–4 births (most of whom

had had all the births they intended to have) were five times

more likely to be contraceptively sterile, less likely to be using

nonsurgical methods of contraception, and only one-fourth as

likely to be pregnant, post partum, or seeking pregnancy than

wives with zero or one birth.

Nonsurgical method choice—As noted above, couples

using temporary contraception are often in need of continuing

family planning services, may be at risk of contraceptive failure, and may change methods. It is, therefore, useful to view

contraceptive patterns among those who are using methods

other than sterilization (table G). The proportion of mamied

nonsurgical contraceptors using the pill dropped by 12 percentage points, from 46 percent in 1976 to 34 percent in 1982. The

proportion using the diaphragm increased, from 6 to 11 percent, and those using the condom increased from 15 to 24

percent in those years.

The decrease in the percent using the pill was 13 percentage points for white couples and only 8 percentage points for

black couples. There was no significant increase in thle percent

of black couples using the condom between 1976 and 1982,

but an increase of 10 percentage points occurred among white

couples. The decrease in the use of the pill and the increases in

the use of the condom and diaphragm did not occur among

Hispanics; there were no significant changes in method preference in this group.

Some of the trends and differences in method preference

by region were dramatic. For example, the proportion of nonTable G. Parcent distribution of currently married women 15-44 yaars of age using contraceptives other than sterilization by current mathod,

according to selected characteristics: United States, 1976 and 1982

Contraceptive method

Pill Diaphragm Condom Al! other

Characteristic Total 1982 1976 1982 1976 1982 1976 1982 1976

All women’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hispanic origin

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non- Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

Less than 12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

33.5 45.8

32.9 45.7

41.1 48.5

42.7 41.9

32.6 45.9

“14.6 32.3

37.2 50.5

44.2 50.9

31.9 45.4

38.5 50.0

42.2 47.1

24.0 41.7

Percent distribution

11.3 5.9 24.4

11.5 6.1 25.0

8.6 3.8 11.4

*4.8 *4.9 “13.8

11.9 5.9 25.4

20.3 9.9 32.8

*8.6 5.9 23.2

86.0 2.8 21.5

*1 3.5 6.6 21.4

*3.4 *3.1 22.4

*5.8 4.2 20.6

18.8 9.5 28.6

14.8 30.8

15.1 30.6

10.0 38.9

12.4 38.7

15.0 30,1

19.2 32.3

13.7 31.0

14.8 28.3

10.9 33.2

12.1 35.7

16.0 31.4

16.0 50.2

33.5

33.1

37.7

40.8

33.2

38.6

29.9

31.5

37.1

34.8

33.7

32.8

1Includes white, black, and other races.

18
surgical contraceptors using the pill dropped 17 percentage

points in the Northeast, from 32 percent in 1976 to 15 percent

in 1982. As a result, the percent using the pill in the Northeast

was only half as high as in the West and one-third as high as in

the South, where the figure was 44 percent (figure 12). The pill

was not the leading nonsurgical method in the Northeast-in

fact, both the condom (used by 33 percent) and the diaphragm

(20 percent) were used by more couples in the Northeast than

the pill. In each of the other regions, the pill was used by far

more couples than any other nonsurgical method. The decrease

in the use of the pill was largest among wives with 13 years or

more of education (18 percentage points). The increase in use

of the diaphragm was also largest in this group.

D@eren/ia/s in method choice—In 1982 (table 13) the

proportion of nonsurgical contraceptors using the pill decreased

sharply with age, from 72 percent of married’ teenagers to 4

percent of wives ages 40–44 years. Black wives ‘were apparently

more likely to be using the pill than white wives (41 compared

with 33 percent, figure 12), although the difference was not

statistically significant. Black wives were substantially less

likely to be using the condom (11 percent) than white wives

(25 percent).

None of the differences in method preference between

Hispanic and non-Hispanic married nonsurgical contraceptors

was significant, but some were consistent with other findings in

this report and with previous surveys: For example, Hispanic

women were apparently more likely to use the pill and the IUD,

and less likely to use the diaphragm and condom. than other

women. ]g The proportion using the pill was much lower, and

the percent using the diaphragm was higher. in the Northeast

than in any of the other regions. The percent using the pill was

clearly higher among Protestant (40 percent) than Catholic

couples (26 percent); and the data suggest that the percent

using periodic abstinence was higher among Catholic ( 13 percent) than among Protestant couples (6 percent).

Contraceptive use among formerly

married women

Data have been collected in all three cycles of the NSFG—

in 1973. 1976. and 1982—on the contraceptive practice of

widowed, divorced, and separated (or formerly married) women (tables H, 14. and 15). This is an important group, because

their numbers increased by 86 percent between 1973 and 1982,

from 3.6 million to 6.7 million, compared with an increase of

only 6 percent for currently married women. The contraceptive

status and method choice of these women was classified according to the same rules as for married women.

The percent contraceptively sterile increased just as sharply

between 1976 and 1982 among formerly married women—

from 14 to 22 percent. an increase of about half—as it did

among currently married women (tables F and H). At the same

time, the proportion using nonsurgical methods decreased, from

40 to 32 percent, and the proportion who were other noliusers

decreased from 31 to 26 percent. The pili accounted for about

half of all nonsurgical contraceptive use among formerly married women. Changes in other methods tended to be very small,

except for an increase in the percent using the diaphragm, from

1 to 4 percent of all formerly married women and from 3 to 12

percefit of nonsurgical contraceptors.

In 1982, there were few significant differences in contraceptive status between subgroups of formerly married women,

primarily because of the relatively small sample size in Cycle

III. However, many of the findings parallel those from earlier

surveys and for currently married women.lg Women who were

older or had more children were more likely to be using contraceptive sterilization and less likely to be using nonsurgical

c

,=

50 r

40

30

20

10

0

White Black Hispanic Non- North- North South West

Hwpanrc east Central

Race Hispanic ongln Region

Figure 12. Percent of currently married nonsurgical contraceptors 15-4.4 years of age currently using the pill, by race, Hispanic origin, and

region: United States, 1982

19
Table H. Number of widowed, divorced, and separated women 15–44 years of age and parcent distribution by contraceptive status and

method, according to race: United States, 1973, 1976, and 1982

All races 1 Whfte Black

Contraceptive status and method 1982 1976 1973 1982 1976 1973 1982 1976 1973

All women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,, ...,,..

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. .,,.

All sterile women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Surgically sterile,.........,,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contracaptwely Steele. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Noncontraceptively sterile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nonsurgica[ly Steele. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pregnant, post partum, or seeking pregnancy . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other nonuser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

All methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Condom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Foam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rhythm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Withdrawal, douche, and other methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6,704

100,0

38.0

36.1

21,6

14.5

1.9

4.6

25.8

31.8

15.8

6.4

3.7

0.8

1.1

1.4

2.7

4,359

100.0

27.7

25.5

13.7

11.7

2.2

1.7

30.6

40.0

24.3

8.0

1.2

1.6

1.2

1.0

2.6

3,601

100.0

21.4

20.9

12.3

8.4

“0.5

2.9

45,3

30.4

18,1

7.2

1.3

“0.9

‘0.7

“0.4

1.8

Number in thousands

5,224 3,134 2,546

Percent distribution

100.0 100.0 100.0

36.8 26.6 20.3

35.0 24.8 19.9

20,2 13.1 11.1

14.8 11.7 8.6

1.8 1.8 “0.3

3.8 1.3 2.3

25.3 30.7 47.4

34.1 41.4 30.1

17.1 26.1 18.6

6.6 7.9 7.0

4.4 1.2 1,5

0.8 1.8 1.1

1.1 1.0 “0.4

1.2 1.2 “0.4

2.7 2.3 1.1

1,310

100.0

41.5

39.2

27.9

11.3

2.4

7.2

25.4

25.9

11.4

6.3

1.4

0.9

0.9

2.1

2.8

1,145

100.0

30.5

27.7

75.2

12.5

2,9

2.9

28.5

38.1

20.4

8.9

1.2

1.5

2.0

0.6

q, d .7

1,028

100.0

24.4

23.5

15.3

8.2

*0.9

4.5

39.2

31.9

17.2

7.9

“0.6

“0.5

*1.6

*0.4

3.6

1Includes white, black, and other races.

methods than those who were younger or had fewer than two

children (tables 14, 15, and H).

None of the differences by race was statistically significant,

but it appeared that black women were more likely to be contraceptively sterile; less likely to be nonsurgical contraceptors;

and more likely to be pregnant, post partum, or seeking pregnancy. These findings are all consistent with previous research. 1g

The differences by religious filliation were not significant

but are consistent with findings for currently mamied women:

Formerly married Catholic women are less likely to use contraceptive sterilization or nonsurgical contraception, and more

likely to be other nonusers, than Protestant women.c.l 9

When method preference among formerly married women

using nonsurgical methods is examined (calculated from table

H), a decrease is seen between 1976 and 1982 in the percent

currently using the pill, from 61 to 50 percent. This decrease

also occurred among white and black women separately.

Among white nonsurgical contraceptors, the proportion using

the diaphragm increased from 3 percent in 1976 to 13 percent

in 1982; among black women, there was much less change.

Method choices of formerly manied contiaceptors differed

significantly only by age and parity. Formerly married contraceptors aged 15-29 years were more likely to use the pill, and

iess likely to use the IUD than those aged 30–44 years. Those

with fewer than two children were more likely to use the pill

and less likely to use the IUD than formerly married women

with two or more children (table 15).

Source of the current method

Methods that can only be obtained with a prescription

must come originally from either a private medical service

(private doctor, private group practice, or health maintenance

organization) or a doctor at a clinic. About 27 percent of women using the pill fwst obtained the prescription from a clinic,

which means that about 73 percent first obtained the prescription

from a private doctor (table 16). Overall, the percent who obtained the pill, IUD, and diaphragm from a clinic dicl not differ

significantly. However, there were wide variations by marital

status, race, and age, because large percents of poor, black,

and teenage women obtain contraceptive methods from clinics

rather than private doctors.z,z’ ’24

Black women were about twice as likely to obtain the pill

or IUD ffom a clinic as white women. About 46 percent of

black and 23 percent of white women first obtained their prescription for the pill from a clinic. About 47 percent of black

and 26 percent of white women first obtained their IUD at a

clinic.

By marital status, never married women were about twice

as likely to obtain these methods at a clinic as were currently

married women (40 compared with 18 percent). Never married

women were about twice as likely to obtain the pill from a

clinic (36 compared with 18 percent), about three times as

likely to obtain their current IUD from a clinic (59 percent

compared with 21 percent), and about three times as likely to

obtain their diaphragm horn a clinic (47 percent compared

with 14) as were currently married women. Women 15– 19

years of age were more likely to obtain each of these methods

from clinics than older women.

These findings are consistent with other data from the

NSFG on sources of family planning services,2,21 which show

that young, never married, and black women are mm-e likely to

visit clinics for their family planning services than are older,

ever married, and white women. In turn, this fact may account

in part for their substantial acceptance of these methods, as

shown in the earlier sections of this report.

20 .
References

1National Center for Health Statistics, C. A. Bachrach and W. D.

Moshe~ Contraceptive practice in the United States, 1982. Advance

Data From VitaI and Health Statistics. No. 102. DHHS Pub. No.

(PHS) 85-1250. Public Health Service. Hyattsville, Md., Dec. 4,

I 984.

ZW. pratt, W. Mosher, C. Bachrach, and M. Horn Understanding

U.S. fertility: Findings from the National Survey of Family Growth,

Cycle 111.Pop. Bull 39(5 ), Dec. 1984. Washington. The Population

Reference Bureau.

3c. Bachrach: Contraceptive practice among American women,

1973-1982. Fanri[r Planning Perspectives 16(6):253-257, Nov./

hC. 1984.

Ac. Westofl ~d N. Rvde~ The Contraceptive Rewlufion. princeton,

N.J. Princeton Unive&ity Press, 1977.

sN. Ryder and C. WestofE Reproduction in the United States, 1965.

Princeton, N.J. Princeton University Press, 1965.

6National Center for Health Statistics, W. D. Mosher and C. F.

WestofT Trends in contraceptive practice, United States, 1965-76.

Vital and Hea/th Slafistics. Series 23, No. 10. DHHS Pub. No.

(PHS) 82-2986. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. GovernmentPrinting OffIce, Dec. 1982.

7w, D. Mosher and C. Goldscheider Contraceptive patterns of religious and racial groupx Convergence and distinctiveness, 1955-

1976. Sfud. Family Plan. 15(3): 101-111, May/June 1984.

‘J. D. Forrest and S. K. Henshaw: What U.S. women think and do

about contraception. Familv Planning Perspectives 15(4): 157– 166,

hI[y/@+ 1983.

~K, Tanfer ~d hf. Horn: Contraceptive use, pregnancy and fefiilitY

patterns among single women in their 20’s. Fami(r Plannin,g Perspecttw 17(1 ):10- 18, Jan./Feb. 1985.

l“M. Zelnik and J. Kantnec Sexual activity. contraceptive use and

pregnancy among metropolitan area teenagers: 1971 – 1979. Family

Plunning Perspectives 12(5):230-237, Sept./Ott. 1980.

]]Nationa] center for Health Statistics, C. A. Bachrach. M. C. Hem>

and W. D. Moshec National Survey of Family Growth. Cycle 111

sample design, weighting, and variancti estimation. Vital and Heafth

Sk[isfics, Series 2. No. 98. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 85-1372. Public

Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Oflice, Sept.

1985.

1‘National Center for Health Statistics, C. A. Bachrach and M. C.

Horn: Marriage and first intercourse, marital dwsolution, and remarriage, United States, 1982. ,.idvance Data From Vital and Health

Statistics. No. 107. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 85-1250. Public Health

Service. Hyattsville, Md., Apr. 12, 1985.

13~ Grady M Hirsch N. Keen. and B. vaUghi3n: cOrItmrXPdve

. . .

failure and continuation among married women in th~ United States,

1970-75, Sfud. Family Plan. 14(1 ):9-19. Jan. 1983.

14A KOIS w. ~neh~ p. piotrow, et al.: Oral contraceptives in the .,

1980’s. Population Reports. Series A, No. 6. Baltimore, The Johns

Hopkins University, May–June 1982.

ISL. fish ~d G. Fox II-ID’s: An appropriate contraceptive for many

women. Population Repons. Series B, No. 4. Baltimore. The Johns

Hopkins University, July 1982.

115A.W=tilngton, S. Gove, J. Schachter, and R. Sweeti Oral COWIceptives, chlamydia trachomatis infection, and pelvic inflammatory

disease A word of caution about protection. J.4MA 253( 15):2246-

2250, Apr. 19, 1985.

17R Hatcher, G. stew~ F. Stewart, et d.: contraceptive Technoiog.v

i982–1983, I Ith rev. ed. New York. Irvington, 1982.

18National Center for Health Statistics, K. Ford: Contraceptive utilization, United States. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 23, No. 2.

DHE W Pub. No. (PHS) 79-1978. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing OffIce, Sept. 1979.

lgNational Center for Health Statistics, W. D. Moshec Contraceptive

utilization: United States, 1976. }.ita/ and Health Statistics. Series

23, No. 7. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 81-1983. Public Health Service.

Washington. U.S. Government Printing Oftice, Mar. 1981.

ZOW.prat~ The Motivation for SurgicaI Sterilization. Paper presented

at the Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association,

1984.

2]National Center for Health Statistics, M. Horn and W. Moshec

Use of services for family planning and infertility, United States,

1982. Advance Data From VitaI and Health Statistics. No. 103.

DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 85-1250. Public Health Service. Hyattsville.

Md., Dec. 1984.

22M. Zelnik, M. A. Koenig, and Y. J. Kim: Sources of prescription

contraceptives and subsequent pregnancy among young women.

Family Pianning Perspectives 16(1 ):6-13, Jan./Feb. 1984.

23M. Charnie, S. Eisman, J. D. Forrest, et rd.: Factors affecting adolescents’ use of faniily planning clinics. Fami@ Planning Perspectives

14(3):127-139, May/June 1982.

24M. T. C)rr and J. D. Forrest: The availability of reproductive health

services from U.S. private physicians. Fami& Planning Perspectives

17(2):63-69, Mar./Apr. 1985.

2sNational Center for Health Statistics, D. K. French: National Survey

of Family Growth, Cycle I, sample design, estimation procedures, and

variance estimation. Vital and HeaIth Statistics. Series 2, No. 76.

DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 78-1350. Public Health Service. Washington.

U.S. Government Printing Ofiice, Jan. 1976.

zsNational Center for Health Statistics, W. R Grady National .’krveY

of Family Growth, Cycle H: sample design. estimation prwedures,

and variance estimation. K’ita/ and Heaith Statistics. Series 2, No.

87. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 81-1361. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Feb. 1981.

21
List of detailed tables

1. Number of women 15–44 years of age who have ever had

sexual intercourse and percent who used a contraceptive

method at first sexual intercourse, by age and selected characteristics: United States, 1982.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Number of women 15–44 years of age who used a contraceptive method at first sexual intercourse and percent distribution by method used and selected characteristics: United

States, 1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Number of women 15–44 years of age who have ever had

sexual intercourse, percent and number who have ever used

a contraceptive method, and percent distribution by first

method ever used, according to race, marital status, and

age United States, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Number of women 15-44 years of age who have ever used

a contraceptive method and percent distribution by first

method ever used, according to selected characteristics:

United States, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Number of women 15-44 years of age who have ever had

sexual intercourse, percent who have ever used a coutracep

tive method, and percent who have ever used each method,

by race, marital status, and age United States, 1982 . . . . .

6. Number of women 15-44 years of age who have ever had

sexual intercourse and percent who have ever used each

contraceptive method, by selected characteristics: United

States, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. Number of women 15–44 years of age, percent who have

ever used the oral contraceptive pill, percent currently using

it, number of former users, and percent who were told to

stop using the pill by a doctor, by selected characteristics:

United States, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. Number of women 15–44 years of age, and percent distribution by current contraceptive status and method, according to marital status, race, and Hispanic origirx United

States, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9. Number of never married women 15–44 years of a~geand

23 percent distribution by current contraceptive status and

method, according to age and race United States, 1982 . . .

10. Number of currently married women 15-44 years of age

and percent distribution by current contraceptive status,

24 according to selected characteristics: United States, 1982 . . .

11. Number of currently married women 15-44 years of age

using contraceptives and percent distribution by method of

contraception, according to selected characteristics: United

States, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9<,L.J

12. Number of currently married women 15-44 years of age

and percent distribution by current contraceptive status,

accordkg to selected characteristics: United States, 1982 . . .

27 13. Number of currently married women 15-44 years of age

currently using contraceptives other than sterilization and

percent distribution by method of contraception used, aG

cording to selected characteristics: United States, 1982 . . .

28 14. Number of widowed, divorced, and separated women 15–44

years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status,

according to selected characteristics: United States, 1982 . . .

15. Number of widowed, divorced, and separated women 15-44

30 years of age who were using contraceptives other than sterilization and percent distribution by method used, according

to selected characteristics: United States, 1982 . . . . . . . . .

16. Number of women 15-44 years of age using selected

methods of contraception and percent whose first sclurce of

31 the method was a clinic, by method, race, marital status,

andage: United States, 1982.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32

33

34

35

36

37

39

40

41

22
Table 1. Number of women 15-44 years of age who have ever had sexual intercourse and percent who used a contraceptive method at first

sexual intercourse, by age and selected characteristics: United States, 1982

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterminous Untted States. See appendixes for discussion of the sample design, estimates of

sampling variabihty, and definitions of terms]

Ever had intercourse Used contraception at first intercourse

75-24 years 15-24 years

15-44 15-19 25-34 35-44 15-44 ?5-19 25-34 35-44

Characteristic yaars Total years years years years Total years years years

Allwomenl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hispanic origin

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Marital statusz

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Currently married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Widowed, divorced, or separated. . . . . . . . . .

Educationz

Less than 12 yeara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Religionz

Protestant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Poverty level incomez

149percent or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

150percent or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

300percent or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Living arrangements at age 14 years

Living with both parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Livmgwithl or neither parent . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age at first Intercourse

17years and under . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18years andovar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number In thousands Percent

46,684

39,031

6,263

3,713

42,970

11,749

28,231

6,704

9,668

18,557

18,459

27,458

14,395

11,931

34,753

20,386

34,921

11,763

21,695

24,989

13,547

11,992

2,207

1,064

12,483

8,047

4,741

759

4,102

5,376

4,068

7,830

4,386

5,313

8,234

4,365

9,590

3,957

9,172

4,375

4,467

3,512

835

442

4,025

3,785

612

70

2,398

1,539

530

2,615

1,370

2,081

2,386

1,257

2,601

1,866

4,034

433

19,118

16,084

2,446

1,677

17,441

3,122

12,924

3,072

3,043

7,353

8,722

11,009

6,051

4,263

14,855

8,593

14,273

4,844

8,095

11,023

14,019

11,954

1,610

972

13,046

580

10.566

2.873

2,523

5,828

5,668

8,619

3,957

2,355

11,664

7,427

11,058

2,961

4,429

9.590

44.5

46.6

33.6

24.7

46.2

501

44.8

33.2

26.3

44.5

54.0

44.7

42.6

34.1

48.0

51.4

46.6

38.1

40.6

47.8

48.8

52.0

34.5

26.5

50.7

52.8

43.9

37.5

32.1

52.6

60.7

44.8

53.8

39.7

54.7

59.1

52.1

40.8

45.5

55.9

48.2

52.1

36.0

22.9

50.9

50.7

35.6

21.6

35.3

65.2

57.2

47.2

49.1

38.4

56.7

5B.6

51.1

44.1

47,4

54.9

44.5

46.6

33.1

23.4

46.5

44.6

47.2

32.8

21.7

43.6

53.1

47.4

40.3

30.4

48.5

49.6

46.8

37.7

38.6

48.8

40.3

41.5

33.1

24.9

41.5

43.3

42.3

32.5

22.5

38.1

50.5

41.1

33.6

28.4

42.7

49.0

41.6

35.3

34.4

43.1

1Includes wh!te, black, and other race% Protestant, Catholm. other reltigtons, and no rellgmn.

‘Denotes charactermtlcs at date of Interwew, not at first Intercourse.

23
h)

*

Table 2. Number of women 15-44 yaars of age who usad a contraceptive mathod et first sexual intercourse and parcent distribution by rrratllod used and aelacted characteristic:

United States, 1982

[Statwtics are bsssd on a SeIVPIS of the household Po!-wlatlon of the contermlnous United States. See appendixes for dls..ssion of the sample design, estimates of sampling vanablllty, and de f!nnmns of terms]

Contraceptive method

Female Male

All

Periodic

sterili- sterili- DiaCharacteristic

absti- With- Other

Total methods zation zation Pill IUD phragm Condom Foam nence dra wal Douche methods

RACE AND AGE

All races!

15–44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15–24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15-19 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25–34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

White

15–44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15-24 yaars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15-19 yaars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25-34 yaars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35-44 years, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black

15-44 years, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15-24 yaars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15-19 yaara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25-34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AGE AT FIRST INTERCOURSE

17yaars and under . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MARITAL STATUS2

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Currently marriad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Widowed, divorced, or separated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number in

thousands

20,766

6,615

2,152

8,501

5,650

18,172

5,720

1,830

7,494

4,958

2,104

761

301

810

533

8,816

11,950

5,891

12,649

2,226

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

‘0.2

0.0

0.5

‘0.2

“0.6

‘0.1

“0.3

0.0

“0.3

0.0

“0.2

‘0.3

*0.6

*1.4

‘0.1

“0.2

“0.3

“0.7

“1.7

“0.1

“0.2

*ool

“0.4

‘0.8

*O. 1

2B.2

25.1

17,3

34.4

22.3

28.0

23.5

15.4

34.4

23.2

28.9

38.4

29.2

32.4

‘10.2

19.8

34.3

21.8

32.1

22.5

*0.5

“0.2

“0.1

‘1.0

“0.2

“0.6

“0.2

“1.1

“0.2

“0.2

“0.2

‘0.4

‘0.2

“0.4

0.0

‘0.9

“0.3

“0.7

0.0

Percent distribution

1.9

*0.9

“0.2

‘1.0

4.5

2.1

*1.O

“0.3

‘1.0

4.9

*1.1

“0.9

‘0.9

*1.7

“0.7

2.8

“0.4

2,7

*1.7

38.5

39.2

46.6

33.9

44.7

37.4

38.8

45.3

32.7

43.0

46.9

41.1

52.1

43.2

60.8

43,6

34.8

40.9

37.1

40.4

38

●1.6

“0.5

5.2

4.3

3.6

*1.3

“0.5

5.1

*4.1

5.1

‘1.4

“0.7

*7.6

*6.7

2.7

4.6

‘2.0

4.3

5.8

5.3 19.1

6.0 25.1

*4.3 27,2

4.4 18,3

5.9 13.2

5.5 20.6

6.0 27.3

●4.6 29.8

4.6 19.8

6.2 141

●2.9 8.3

*2.1 12.8

*2.3 *1 2.9

*2.6 “7.3

‘4.6 ●3.4

4.1 26.0

6.2 13.9

7.0 25,1

4,7 15.6

4.1 22.7

“1.0

0.5

“0.8

“0.7

*2.1

‘0.7

“0.4

“0.5

“0.4

*1,4

4.0

“1.1

*1.1

*3,5

‘8.9

‘1.7

“0.5

“0.8

“1.1

*1.1

1.2

0.9

●1,8

“1,0

“2.0

*1 1

“O 8

*1,9

“0.9

“2.0

●2.4

*2.1

*1.3

“2.0

*3,3

“1.3

*1.2

“0.9

“1.3

*1.7

‘Includes white, black, and Other races.

‘Denotes marital status at date of interview, not at first intercourse.
Table3, Number ofwomen 15-Myeare ofagewho have ever hadsexual intercourse, parca~and number whohave aver usadacontraceptive mtihod, andpercent diatribtiion@tirst

method evarused, according torace, marital ststua, and age: Urritsd Ststas, 1982

[Statistic$ are based on a sample of the household population of the conterminous United Statea. See appendixes for dmcuasion of the sample design, estimates of sampling variability, and defmitiona of terms]

First contraceptive method

Female Male

All steriliPeriodic

sterili- DiaRace, marital status, andage

absti- With- Other

Total Ever contreceptors methods zation zetion Pill IUD phragm Condom Foam nence drawal Douche methods

RACE AND AGE

All racesl

15-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15-19 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20-24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30-34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35-39 years............,..

40-44 yeara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

White

15-44 years . . .. l . . . . . . . . . .

15-19 yaars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20-24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25-29 yeare. ... .i . . . .. i...

30-34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35-39 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40-44 yeara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black

15-44 years .. a. . . . . . . . . . . .

15-19 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20-24 yeara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30-34 yaars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35-39 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40-44 yaars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MARITAL STATUS AND AGE

Never married

15-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15-24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15-19 years ... ..i. .i ...,

15-17 years . . . . . . . . . . .

25-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Currently married

15-44 years.........,..,..

15-24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25-34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35-44 veara . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I Includes white, black, andather races.

Number in

thousands Percent

Number in

thousanda Percent distribution

46,664

4,467

9,060

9,929

9,189

7,725

6,293

39,031

3,512

7,480

8,313

7,771

6,535

5,419

6,263

835

1,372

1,316

1,130

879

732

11,749

8,047

3,785

1,495

3,702

28,231

4,741

12,924

10,566

94.8

85.4

93.8

97.6

97.4

96.8

92.4

95.4

87.0

94.1

9B.2

97.5

97.3

92.7

91.6

79.7

92.7

95.3

95.9

92.9

88.7

90.1

88.7

85.2

76.0

93.0

96.7

94.7

98.6

95.4

44,266

3,817

8,516

9,693

8,946

7,479

5,815

37,216

3,055

7,041

8,161

7,575

6,360

5,024

5,739

665

1,271

1,254

1,083

616

649

10,582

7,139

3,225

1,136

3,443

27,309

4,491

12,740

10,078

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100,0

100.0

100,0

100.0

100,0

100.0

100.0

100<0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.8

*0.1

*O,3

‘0.5

*1.9

*2.3

0.7

‘0.2

*0.5

*1.4

*2.2

1,3

*0.5

‘1,0

‘0.9

*2.5

*3,8

“0.2

“0.1

“0.4

“0,8

“0.3

“1.9

*0.4

“0.8

“0.5

*0.1

*0.2

“0.7

“0.6

‘0.5

*1.0

“0.6

“0.1

“0.3

“0.7

“0.7

“0.7

“1.0

“0.9

‘0.1

“0.4

“0.2

“0.8

41.6 1.8

30.9 “0.4

44.1 ‘0.8

51.5 2.5

49.1 2.8

40.0 *1.7

18.8 *1.4

40.2 1.5

26.5 ‘0.2

41.1 “0.7

49.9 *2.5

48.7 ●2.7

40.6 *0.9

18.3 “0.7

49,5 3.0

50.0 *1.4

62.9 ‘1,3

59.8 *2.9

50.2 “3.7

33.4 *3.3

21.9 “6.4

35.5 *1.4

32.5 “0.5

28.9 ‘0.5

27.2 “0.4

41.7 *3.4

43.5 1.7

50.1 ‘0.9

51.2 *2.2

30.9 *1.3

2.3

‘0.9

*1.8

*1.O

*1.5

*1.7

7.9

2.6

‘1.1

“2.0

‘1.1

*1.6

“1.9

8.7

“1.0

*1,1

“0.5

‘1.1

“0.5

*3.5

‘1.7

‘2.0

‘1.0

‘1.1

2.5

“1.0

*1.3

4.9

30.0

39.9

28.7

22.1

27.4

31.3

41.2

30.4

40.6

30.2

21.9

27.0

32.1

40.9

28.1

35.0

19,1

21.9

29.1

31.5

44.8

33.0

35.5

40.9

43.1

27.7

29.5

27.9

24.6

36.4

4.0

*1,2

*2,1

3.4

5.2

5.8

5,1

3.8

‘1.1

*1,8

3.4

5.2

4.9

5.3

5.5

“2.1

‘3.2

*4.2

6.4

15.0

*3.O

2.5

“1.4

*1.1

“2.1

*4.7

3.9

*2.1

4.1

4.4

5.1

*4.3

4.5

3.4

3.6

6.3

9.B

5.4

“5.0

4.5

3.6

3.8

6.5

11.1

2.6

*1.5

*2,2

*2.7

‘2.0

*5.3

*1.6

5.3

5.7

*4.3

“7.0

*4.5

5!3

*2.9

3.5

8.5

11.3

18.8

14.9

13.2

6.4

8.2

6.1

12.4

21.7

16.5

14.6

9.2

9.3

6.2

4.5

7.2

7.2

‘3.6

‘4,3

‘1.7

*2. 1

17.3

19.2

19.9

17.2

13.2

9.3

11.6

10,6

6.8

1.0

“0.9

‘0.5

‘0.7

“0.4

“1.0

“3.0

0.8

*0.6

‘0.4

“0.6

“0.3

*0.7

*2.6

2.1

“2.0

“0.8

*1.7

*1.4

*3.6

*5.2

“0.9

“0.7

*0.9

*1.5

“1.4

“1.1

“0.6

“0.7

*1 8

1.8

1.9

*1.9

1.6

“0.8

*1,4

*3.8

1.7

*2,2

“2.0

*1.7

‘0.9

“1.0

*3.4

2.3

“0.8

*1.6

‘1.7

“1.0

*3.2

‘7.6

*1.5

1,4

*1.7

*1.6

“1.7

1.9

*2.9

*1.3

*2.3
W

m

Table 3. Number of women 15-44 years of ege who heve ever had sexual intercourse, percent and number who have ever used a contraceptive method, snd percent distribution by first

method ever used, according to race, maritel status, and ege: United Statea, 1982—Con.

[Statmt,cs are based on a sample of the household population of the conterm,nous Unrted States. See appendixes for discussion of the sample design, estimates of samplmg vanabllmy, and de finitmns of terms]

First contraceptive method

Female Male Periodic

All

Race, marital status, and age Total

sterili- sterili- DiaEver contraceptorsabsti- With- Other

methods zation zation Pill IUD phragm Condom Foam nerrce drawal Douche methods

MARITAL STATUS AND

AGE—Con.

W!dowed, divorced, Number in Number In

or separated thousands Percent thousands Percent distribution

15–44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,704 95.1 6,375 100.0 *1.8 0.0 43.3 ‘2.7 *2.1 27.5 6.9 3.8 9.7 ‘0.6 “1.7

15–24 yeara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759 92.5 702 100.0 51.9 *1.1 “0.5

25-34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,072 96.8

*25.6 “5.0 “2.2

2,974 100.0

●12.9

“1.0

“0.8

52.2 *3.6 *1.1 24.4

35–44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,873 93.9

“5.0 ●2.4 9.3

2,699

“0.2

100.0 *3.1

“0.8

“o. 1 31.3 *2.1 *3.5 31.4 *9.4 *5.8 *9.3 *1.1 *2.9
Table 4. Number of women 15-44 years of ege who heve ever used a contraceptive mathod and parcent distribution by first method ever used, according to selected characteristics:

United States, 1982

[StatMcs are based on a sample of the household population of the contarm!nous United States. See appendixes for d,scusaion of the sample des[gn. aatlmatea of aampl,ng var,ab,hty. and de f,n,tmns of terms]

First contraceptive method

Female Male

All

Periodic

sterili- sterili- DiaCharacteristic Total

abst\- With- Other

methods zation zation Pill IUD phragm Condom Foam nence dra wal Douche methods

Allwomenl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hispanic origin

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non-H tspanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

Less than 12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years or more, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Religion

Protestant, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Poverty level income

149percent or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

150percent or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

300percent or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Living arrangements at age 14 years

Living with both parents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Living wlthlor neither parent... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age at first Intercourse

17years or under . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18years or over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number in

thousands Percent distribution

44.266

3,266

41,000

9,270

11,473

14,372

9,152

8,488

17,879

17,899

26,286

13,321

10,861

33,405

19,601

33,200

11,066

20,518

23,748

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.8

“1.8

0.7

“1.0

“0.8

“0.8

“0.6

*1.6

“0.9

“0.4

0.9

‘0.5

*1.9

80.5

“0.5

0.8

*0.9

“0.7

“0.9

*0.4

“0.7

“0.4

“0.5

“0.3

‘0.3

“0.8

“0.3

‘0.7

‘0.2

‘0.4

“0.5

“0.1

“0.5

“0.6

“0.5

80.3

“0.1

‘0.7

41.6 1,8

48.3 7.3

41.0 1.3

33.9 2.6

40.2 ‘0.9

45.9 “1.6

44.2 *2.2

43.2 3.6

42.7 *1.3

39.7 1.4

43.3 1.5

38.5 2.2

45.0 3.1

40.4 1.3

40.1 *1.1

41.0 1.7

43.4 ‘2.0

39.3 1.5

43.6 2.0

2.3

*1.1

2.4

3.6

‘2.0

“1.1

3.1

*1.4

1.7

3.3

2.1

2.7

*1.8

2.4

2.9

2.4

“2.0

1.4

3.0

30.0

22.2

30.7

34.9

28.8

30.9

25.4

30,3

29.7

30.2

29.6

29.4

27.3

30.9

30.9

30.3

29.2

33.1

27.4

4.0

‘5.0

3.9

3.1

4.1

3.7

5.1

3.8

3.5

4.5

4.4

3.1

3.5

4.1

3.3

3.8

4.4

3.2

4.6

5.1

“1.3

5.4

6.3

7.1

3.1

4.3

3.1

4.9

6.1

3.9

8.0

3.8

5.5

5.8

5.3

4.2

3.7

6.2

11.3

8.2

11.5

11.8

12.9

9.7

11.1

8.1

11.8

12.2

10.9

12.5

9.8

11.8

12.0

11.5

10.5

14.1

8.8

1.0

*1.6

0.9

‘0.7

“1.0

*1.1

“1.1

“2.0

“0.9

‘0.6

1.2

*0.4

*1.7

‘0.7

*0.8

0.8

“1.6

1.3

‘0.7

1.8

*2.5

1.7

*1.5

*1.8

*1.6

“2.3

*2.6

1.8

1.4

1.8

2.1

“2.0

“1.7

1.8

1.8

‘1.7

1.6

2.0

‘ Includes Protestant, Catholnc. other re[lglons, and no rellgmn
N Table 5. Number of women 15–44 years of age who have ever had sexual intercourse, percent who have ever used a contraceptive method, and percent who have evar used each mathod, m

by race, marital status, and age: United States, 1982

[Slatlstlcs are based cm a sample of the household populatmn of the cmwrmtincms United States. See appendixes for rfrscuss]on of the sample design. estimates of sampl!ng vanabdnv. and defmmons of terms]

Contraceptive methods ever used

Any

Race, marital

Period\c

Any Female Male nonsurgical abst\- W\th- Other

status, and age Total method Sterlllzation sterilization method Pill IUD Diaphragm Condom Foam nence dra wal Douche methods

RACE AND AGE

All racesl

15–44 years . . . . . . .

15–19 years . . . . . . . . .

20–24 years . . . . . . .

25–29 years...

30–34 years.... . .

35–39 years....

40–44 years..........,.,

Whne

15–44 years....

15–19 years.

20–24 years . . . . . . . . . . .

25–29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30-34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35–39 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40–44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black

15–44 years . . . . . . . . . . .

15–19 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20–24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30-34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35–39 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MARITAL STATUS

AND AGE

Never married

15–44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15–24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15-19 years . . . . . . . . . . .

15–17 years . . . . . . . . .

25-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Currently married

15-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15-24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25-34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35–44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number In

thousands

46,684

4,467

9,080

9,929

9,189

7,725

6,293

39,031

3,512

7.480

8,313

7,771

6,535

5,419

6,263

835

1,372

1,316

1,130

879

732

11,749

8,047

3,785

1#495

3,702

28,231

4,741

12,924

10,566

Percent

94.8 17.1

85.4

938

9?.E

97.4

968

92.4

95.4

87.0

94.1

98.2

97.5

97.3

92.7

91.6

79.7

92.7

95.3

959

92.9

88.7

90.1

88.7

85.2

76.0

93.0

96.7

94.7

96.6

95.4

16.2

“0.0

2.9

10.3

21.8

30.1

31.2

15,9

*2.6

8,7

20.8

29.6

32.0

18.1

“0.2

5.2

18.9

27.8

31.9

29.6

2.1

“0.6

“0.0

‘0.1

5.3

20.3

“3.9

17.6

30.9

10.1

“0.7

3.3

5.7

13.5

18.2

18.5

11.5

‘0.9

3.9

6.5

15.2

20.4

20.6

1.2

“0.5

‘1.3

“1.9

*1.9

*1.8

2.5

*1.9

*0.8

*3.8

13.3

*2.2

11.1

20.6

94.6

85.4

93.8

97.6

97.2

96,7

92.4

95.3

87.0

94.1

98.2

97.3

97.2

92.7

91.6

79.7

92.7

95.3

95.6

92.9

88.7

90.1

88.7

85.2

76.0

93.0

96.7

94.7

98.6

95.3

76.3 18.4

54.0 *1.1

73.4 7.2

85.4 21.2

85.6 27.2

79.6 25.6

64.6 20.9

76.7 18.0

53.2 “0.6

72.1 6.3

85.5 21.0

86.5 26.0

80.9 24.8

66.1 20.8

76.3 21.6

58.9 *3.2

81.0 11.2

87.4 26.4

82.8 33.7

76.9 28.9

56.2 25.8

62.8 8.3

57.2 3.9

52.0 *0.8

43.2 ‘0.8

74.8 17.9

80.1 20.5

79.9 *7.2

86.9 24.1

72.0 22.0

*4 8

14.1

21.9

17.2

14.7

25.6

18,7

*5.7

15.6

23.5

18.7

15.5

27.6

10.0

*1.3

6.4

13.3

11.5

13.6

14.0

15.0

9.7

‘4.9

*2.1

26.5

17.7

12.2

16.0

20,0

51.8

51.3

48.9

54.2

52.1

48.9

55.7

53.7

53.6

51.4

56.6

53.7

50.5

56.5

39.7

39.7

34.7

40.4

40.9

40.2

45.7

48.5

49.4

51.7

46.6

46.5

54.3

51.3

56.6

52.8

24.9

10.6

15.8

26.3

31.7

33.7

24.8

25.7

10.5

15.9

27.2

33.0

34.9

25.5

22.1

10.5

164

23.3

29.3

31.1

21.6

14.1

10.2

10.0

*8.9

22.4

28.5

18.2

31.3

29.7

18.3

10.7

73.7

19.3

21.3

20.2

21.8

19.9

11.4

14.8

20.9

23.4

21.5

23.8

9.1

*6.9

6.9

12.3

9.7

11.9

*6.1

14.2

12.4

11.5

*1 0.3

18.1

19.8

13.5

20.7

21.6

24.5

27.4

28.8

27.1

21.6

20.8

20.7

26.2

31.1

31.2

294

23.0

221

20.9

13.7

11.8

14.7

13.9

13.5

10.0

18.4

28.2

29.9

28.6

21.2

24.7

23.3

26.2

24.6

20.4

6.8

‘3.0

4.3

4.8

6.9

69

159

60

“2.0

3.6

3.7

6.2

6.0

15.1

12.3

*6.5

8.7

12.0

13.3

14.0

22.0

4.4

3.0

*3.3

“3.2

7.6

7.4

‘5.4

5.8

10.4

16.7

11.0

15,8

209

17,1

142

17.6

16.6

11.6

16.5

21.6

17.2

13.3

15.3

18.0

“5.0

13.6

17.4

20.7

20.2

35.3

16.2

14.2

10.8

“9.0

20.7

16.3

15.0

18.2

14.6
Widowed, dworced

or separated

15-44 years............ 6,704 95.1 24.0 9.8 94.9 84.0 27.4 182 47.0 28.3 19.0 23.1 8.2 18.9

15-24 years............. 759 92.5 *4.4 *2.9 92.5 90.0 ‘6.0 *1 7.7 42.5 *29.5 *11.3 *25.6 “4.1 *1 0.4

25-34 years......... 3.072 96.8 19.2 *1O.O 95.3 89.1 29.9 16,5 453 26.6 20.8 23.8

35-44 years............ 2,873 93.9

5.8

34.2 *11.4 93.9

22.3

77.1 30.5 20.2 50.0 29.9 19.1 21.7 *11.8 17.5

1Includes white, black, and olhcr races.
Cd

o

Table 6. Number of women 15-44 years of age who have ever had sexual intercourse and percent who have ever used each contraceptive method, by selected characteristics: United

States, 1982

[StatMics are based on a sample of the household pcm.lation of the contermlnous Unned States. See appendixes for discussmn of the sample des!gn, estimates of sampllng varlab!l[ty. and de fln!t!ons of terms]

Contra ceptwe methods ever used

Any

Any

Per[odic

Female Male nonsurgical abst!- W\th- Other

method sterilization sterilization method Pill IUD Diaphragm Condom Foam nence dra wal Douche methods

Percent

Characteristic Total

Number in

thousands

Allwomenl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,684 94.8

Hispanic origin

Hlspanlc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non- Hlspanlc . . . . . . . . .

Region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Central . . . . . . . .

Soutfl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

Less than 12 years . . . . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years or more . . . . . . . . .

Religion

Protestant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Poverty level income

149 percent or less . . . . . . .

150 percent or more . . . . . .

300 percent or more . . . .

Living arrangements

at age 14 yeara

Living with both parents . . .

Living with 1 or neither

parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age at first intercourse

17 years and under. . . . . . . .

18 years And over . . . . . . . . .

16.2 10.1 94.8 76.3 18.4 17,1 51.8 249 183 245 6.8 16.7

3,713

42,970

88.0

95.4

14.2 *4.2 87.5 71.2 29.1 9.3 39.5 21.9 100 16.2 6.6 13.8

16.4 10.6 95.4 76.8 17.5 17.8 52.8 25.1 19.0 25.2 6.8 169

9,873

12,009

15,220

9,581

93.9

95.5

94.4

95.5

15.0

17.9

18.0

12.7

6.8

11.1

7.8

15.9

93.7

95.5

94.3

95.5

64.2 19.2

78.9 14.2

79.7 17.3

80.2 24,5

24,9

17.4

11.8

17.2

52.8 21.4 20.6 24.5 4.9 160

52.9 27.0 220 27.6 66 171

51.3 237 12.8 22.4 7.7 14.2

50.2 27.5 20.0 23.9 7.4 2C 8

9,668

18,557

18,459

87.8

96.3

97.0

17.4

18.2

13.6

4.5

12.2

10.9

87.8

96.3

96.9

67.7 18.7

78.3 15.1

78.9 21.5

6.8

12.2

27.5

43.7 19,8 8.2 17.8 6.9 12.8

50.2 23.2 16.8 25.0 75 16.1

57.6 29.2 25.0 275 6.0 19.3

27,458

14,395

95.7

92.5

52.4 26.5 15.9 24.7 8.5 17.2

49.1 20.9 23.4 24.7 3.9 15.5

18.6

13.0

11.6

7.7

95.7

92.4

80.8 18.8

68.1 15.9

15.0

15.5

11,931

34,753

20,386

91.0

96.1

96.2

16.2

16.3

15.1

5.4

11.7

12.9

90.8

96.1

96.1

71.3 18.1

78.1 18.5

79.0 18.7

10.4

19.4

21.7

45.2 20.1 12.9 198 8.2 17.6

54.1 26.5 20.1 26.1 6.3 16.3

55.1 25.9 20.3 26.0 6.3 15.6

34,921

11,763

95.1

94.1

16.1

16.5

95.0

93.9

76.2 18.5

76.6 18.0

17.7

15.4

52.8 24.4 19.0 25.2 6.1 16.0

48.9 26.2 16.1 22.3 8.8 18.7

10.6

8.6

21,695

24,989

94.6

95.0

15.6 6.5 94.5 78.5 18.1 14.8 52.3 23.3 15.4 28.3 7.9 16.2

16.8 13.2 95.0 74.4 18.6 19.2 51.3 26.2 20.8 21.2 5.9 17.1

1Includes Protestant, Catholic. other rellg ions. and no rellgl on.
Table 7. Number of women 15-44 years of age, percent who have ever used the oral contracept”hrepill, parcent currently using it, number of

formar users, and percent who were told to stop using the pill by a doctor, by selected characteristics: United States, 1982

[Statistics are bssed on a sample of the household population of the conterminous United States. See appendixes for dmcusston of the sample design, esttmates of

samplmg variabilny, and definitions of terms]

Pill Former pill contraceptor

Ever Current Told to stop

Characteristic Total used user Total by doctor

Allwomenl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age

15-19 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20-24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30-34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35-39 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

Race

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hispanic origin

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non-H ispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Marital status

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Currently married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Widowed, divorced, orseparated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

Less than 12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13yeara OrmOre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Religion

Protestant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Poverty level income

149percent or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

150percent ormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

300percent or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number in

thousands Percent

Number in

thousands Percent

54,099

9,521

10,629

10,263

9,381

7,893

6,412

4!5,367

6,985

4,393

49,706

19,164

28,231

6,704

13,465

20,257

20,377

31,298

17,377

13,843

40,256

23,411

11,851

13,981

17,308

10,958

265.9

25.3

62.7

82.6

83.8

77.9

63.4

66.0

68.4

60.2

66.4

38.5

80.1

84.0

48.6

71.7

71.5

70.9

56.4

61.4

67.4

68.8

53.5

67.7

70.1

70.1

15.6

15.4

30.9

22.8

11.0

3.5

“0.7

15.1

19.8

15.2

15.6

18.7

13.4

16.0

11.4

18.6

15.4

16.3

14.5

17.7

14.9

15.1

10.0

16.8

19.0

14.7

27,193

949

3,384

6,136

6,834

5,872

4,019

23,077

3,392

1#977

25,216

3,796

18,836

4,562

5,014

10,761

11.418

17,112

7,272

6,056

21,137

12,572

5,152

7,126

8,844

6,072

35.6

“16.1

27.1

34.2

34.8

39.5

45,3

34.7

41.8

32.8

35.9

23.8

37.0

39.9

35.3

37.6

34.0

36.8

34.5

34.3

36.0

36.4

35.9

34.9

38.2

32.6

‘Includes white, black, and other races Protestant, Catholic, othsr religions, and no religion.

2Thm percent differs from that m tables 5 and 6 because women who have never had intercourse are excluded from tables 5 and 6, but included in this table.

31
Table 8. Number of women 15-44 years of age, and percant distribution by current contraceptive ststus and method, according to marital

ststus, rsca, and Hispenic origin: Unitad Ststes, 1982

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterm!nous United States. See appendixes for d!scusslon of the sample design, eat,mates of

sampling variablhty, and de flnmons of terms]

Marital status and race

Widowed, divorced,

All marital statuses~ Currently married or saparated Hispanic origin

Contraceptive All All All Nonstatus and method races2 White Black racesz White Black races2 White Black Hispanic Hispanic

All women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Sterile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Surgically sterile. ., . . . . . . .

Contraceptively sterile . . . . .

Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Noncontraceptwely sterile. . .

Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nonsurgically sterile. . . . . . . . .

Pregnant, peat partum . . . . . . . . .

Seaking pregnancy. . . . . . . . . . . .

Other nonuser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Never had intercourse . . . . . . .

No intercourse in Iaat 3

months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intercourse in last 3 months . . .

Nonsurgical ccmtraceptors. . . . . .

Pill

IUD”::::::::::::::::::::::

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Condom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Foam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Periodic abstinence . . . . . . . . .

Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Douche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other methods . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54,099

100.0

27.2

25.7

17.8

11.9

5.9

7.8

7.3

0.5

1.5

5.0

4.2

26.9

13.6

5.9

7.4

36.7

15.6

4.0

4.5

6.7

1.3

2.2

1.1

“0.1

1.3

45,367

100.0

27.7

26.1

18.3

11.6

6.7

7.8

7.3

0.5

1.6

4.8

4.0

26.2

13.9

6.0

6.4

37.2

15.1

3.9

5.0

7.2

1.4

2.2

7.2

0.0

1.2

6,985

100.0

23.7

22.2

14.9

14.2

‘0.7

7.3

7.3

0.0

1.5

5.6

5.4

29.6

10.3

5.8

13.5

35.7

19.8

4.7

1.8

3.2

1.4

1.6

‘0.7

‘0.7

1.7

28,231

100.0

40.9

38.9

27.8

17.4

10.5

11.0

10.1

1.0

2.0

7.2

6.7

5.0

‘0.2

4.8

40.1

13.4

4.8

4.5

9.8

2.0

3.2

1.2

*O. 1

1.0

Number in thousands

25,195 2,130 6.704

Percent distribution

100.0

41.0

38.9

28.2

17.0

11.2

10.7

9.8

1.0

2,1

7.2

6.5

4.5

*O. 1

4.4

40.7

13.4

4.8

4.7

10.2

2.0

3.3

1.2

*0.1

0.9

100.0 100.0

38.0 38.0

36.2 36.1

23.1 21.6

20.9 19.8

2.2 *1.9

13.1 14.5

13.1 14.5

*O. 1

*1.8 1.9

6.1 2.6

8.6 2.1

9.6 25.6

“0.9 15.1

8.7 10.4

37.7 31.8

15.5 15.8

5.9 6.4

3.3 3.7

4.3 “0.8

*2.1 *1.1

2.4 *1.4

*1.2 “0.3

“1.0 *o. 1

*2.1 2.3

5,224

100.0

36.8

35.0

20.2

17.8

*2.4

14.8

14.8

1.8

2.6

1.2

25.3

16.0

9.3

34.1

17.1

6.6

4.4

80.8

*1.1

*1.2

“0.4

“2.3

1,310

100.0

41.5

39.2

27.9

27.9

11.3

11.3

2.4

2.1

5.2

25.4

10.6

14.8

25.9

11.4

6.3

*1.4

‘0.9

“0.9

2.1

*o. 1

“0.4

2.3

4,393

100.0

20.4

18.4

12.3

10.2

“2.0

6.1

5.8

“0.2

*2.1

7.3

6.4

29.2

14.7

6.0

8.5

36.7

15.3

9.7

*2.4

*3.5

*1.1

*2.O

*1.3

“0.0

*1.4

49,706

100.0

27.8

26.3

18.3

12.1

6.3

8.0

7.5

0.5

1.5

4.8

4.0

26.7

13.5

5.9

7.3

36.7

15.6

3.5

4.7

6.9

1.3

2.2

1.1

‘0.1

1.3

1Includes never married and ever married women.

21ncludes whIte, black, and other races.

32
Table 9. Number of never married women 15-44 yeara of age and parcent distribution by current contraceptive status and method, according

to age and race: United Stetea, 1982

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterrninous Untted States. See appendixes for discussion of the sample design, estimates of

sampling variability, and definitions of terms]

15-19 years

15–44 years Total 15-77 years 20-44 years

Contraceptive All All All Al!

stetus and method races~ White Black recesl White Black races% White Black races~ White Black

All women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Sterile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Surgically sterile. . . . . . . . .

Contraceptively

sterilez . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Female . . . . . . . . . . . .

Noncontraceptively

sterile . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Female . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nonsurgically sterile . . . . .

Pregnant, post partum . . . . . .

Seeking pregnancy. . . . . . . . .

Other nonuser . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Never had intercourse . . . .

No intercourse in last

3 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intercourse in last

3 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nonsurgical contraceptors. . .

Pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IUD::: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Condom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Foam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Periodic abstinence . . . . . .

Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Douche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other methods . . . . . . . . . .

19,164

100.0

3.2

2.6

1.8

1.1

“0.8

“0.8

“0.7

2.5

1.2

59.7

38.4

11.2

10.1

33.3

18.7

1.9

4.7

4.1

80.4

“0.9

1.2

*0.1

1.3

14,948

100.0

2.0

1.4

“1.0

“0.3

“0.4

“0.4

‘0.6

1.6

0.7

63.2

42.1

12.3

8.8

32.5

17.3

1.5

5.6

4.3

‘0.3

‘0.8

*1.4

*1.4

3.545

100.0

8.6

7.5

5.2

5.1

2.3

2.3

81.0

6.6

3.6

43.1

20.3

6.9

15.9

38.1

25.5

3.5

*1.1

3.4

*1.1

81.0

“0.6

“0.6

1.2

8,839

100.0

0.5

*0.1

*0.1

0.0

0.0

“0.4

3.1

“0.9

73.5

56.9

6.4

10.1

22.0

13.8

‘0.2

*1.4

4.9

*0.1

“0.5

“0.7

“0.1

“0.3

Number in thousands

7,193 1,377 4,968

Percent distribution

100.0

0.6

*o. 1

*0.1

80.4

2.2

0.8

75.4

59.6

6.8

9.0

21.1

12.6

0.0

*1.6

5.2

“0.5

“0.8

“0.3

100.0

“0.4

*o. 1

80.1

*0.1

“0.3

7.6

1.6

61.6

42.1

*3.5

16.0

28.8

20.5

*1.2

80.6

*3.7

“0.8

“0.7

“0.5

“0.4

“0.5

100.0

“0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

“0.4

*2.9

‘0.7

82.7

69.5

4.9

8.4

13.2

8.5

“0.2

“0.5

*3.3

●0.1

“0.2

“0.5

*0.1

*0.1

3,971

100.0

“0.5

“0.5

1.8

0.7

84.7

72.0

5.0

7.6

12.3

7.8

0.0

“0.5

*3.5

*9.1

“0.4

818

100.0

“0.4

“0.2

“0.2

80.2

“0.2

8.5

0.6

72.3

55.9

*3.7

12.6

18.2

11.8

“0.8

“0.3

*2.6

“0.4

“0.6

80.6

“0.6

“0.4

10,325

100.0

5.6

4.7

3.2

2.1

*1.5

*1.5

“0.9

2.0

*1.5

47.9

22.6

15.2

10.1

43.0

22.9

3.4

7.6

3.4

“0.7

*1.2

1.6

80.1

2.1

7,755

100.0

3.4

2.7

*1.9

“0.5

“0.8

“0.8

“0.7

*1.O

“0.6

51.8

25.9

17.4

8.5

43.2

21.7

2.8

9.4

3.5

“0.5

81.0

*1.9

2.4

2,168

100.0

13.8

12.2

8.6

8.3

3.7

3.7

*1.5

6.0

4.9

31.4

6.5

9.1

15.8

43.9

28.6

4.9

*1.5

3.3

*1.4

‘1.2

*O. 7

“0.7

1.7

1Includes white, black, and other racea.

‘Includes male sterilization, not shown separately,

33
Table 10. Number of currently married women 1!5-44 years of age and parcant distribution by current contraceptive status, according to

selected characteristics: United Statas, 1982

[Statlstlcs are based on a sample of the household population of the conterm!nous Unned States. See appendixes for dw+cusslon of the sample design, estimates of

sampling var!ab!hty, and definitions of terms]

Noncontraceptors

Pregnant,

post partum, NoncontraAll or seeking ceptively Other

Characteristic Tots/ worn en Crmtraceptor.s Total pregnant y sterile~ nonuser

Number in

thousands

28,231

11,183

17,048

24,195

2,130

4,844

12,191

11,196

8,313

18,311

15,190

8,008

6,087

6,437

6,520

9,178

Percent distribution

Allwomen2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 68.0 32.0

Age

15-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race

Whita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

Lass than 12 yeare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intent to have (more) children

Intends more children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intends no more children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Religion (white women only)

Protestant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Years since first marriage

O-4 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5-9 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10-14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13.9 13.1 5.0

100.0 67.2 327

100.0 68.5 31.5

24.0

7.3

4.0

19.1

4.8

5.1

100.0 68.8 31.2

100.0 60.8 39.2

13.8

14.7

12.8

14.9

4.5

9.6

100.0 56.7 43.3

100.0 68.4 31.6

100.0 72.3 27.7

18.9

12.3

13.6

16.4

13.9

10.8’

“7.9

5.4

*3.3

100.0 62.5 37.5

100.0 70.2 29.8

31.8

5.6

5.7

20.2 4.0

100.0 68.0 32.0

100.0 69.2 30.8

13.2

15.1

15.0

10.5

3.8

5.2

100.0 64.1 35.9

100.0 68.0 32.0

100.0 72.0 28.0

100.0 67.7 32.3

27.7

21.6

9.8

“2.4

*2.8

6.5

12.6

24.8

*5.3

‘4.0

*5.6

5.1

1Includes nonsurgically sterile as well as surgically sterile for noncontraceptive reasons. These two categories are shown separately !n tablea 8 and 9.

‘Includes whne, black, and other races; Protestant Catholic, other religmns, and no religion.

34
Table 11. Number of currently married women 15-44 years of ege using contraceptives and percent distribution by method of contraception, according to selected characteristics:

United States, 19S2

[Statistics are based on s sample of the household population of the conterminous United States. See sppend!xes for discussion of the ssmple design, estlmstes of sampling varlabdtty. and defmnions of terms]

Contraceptive method

Female Male Periodic

All sterili- sterili- Dia- absti- With- Other

Characteristic Total women zation zation Pill IUD phragm Condom Foam nence dra wal Doucha methods

Allwomenl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age

15-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30–44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

Less than 12 yeara, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intent to have (more) children

Intends more children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intends no more children, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Religion (white women only)

Protestant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Years since first marriage

O-4 years, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , s,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5-9 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10-14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years ormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number in

thousands Percent distribution

19,1B7

7,517

11,670

17,346

1,294

2,748

8,344

8,095

5,195

12,846

10.330

5,539

3,904

4,374

4,694

6,214

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

25.6

11.0

35.0

24.7

34.4

34.1

26.0

22.3

38.2

26.7

22.1

“3.5

14.3

30.5

43.7

15.4

6.4

21.2

16.2

*3.6

*9.7

17.8

14.8

23.0

18.8

13.1

*2.8

10.5

19.6

23.5

19.8

40.5

6.4

19.5

25.5

21.6

23.7

15.1

44.6

9.2

21.7

17.2

48.0

26.7

11.8

“3.1

7.1

7.2

7.0

7,0

9.6

*9.9

5.7

7.5

*6.8

6.0

5.8

7.3

*4.7

*8.9

9.8

*5.2

6.7

9.0

5.2

6.8

5.4

*1.9

*3.2

11.8

15.4

*3.1

5.0

*7.1

13.5

9.6

*3.8

*2.5

14.4

14.2

14.6

14.8

7.1

*1 2.6

11.6

18.0

18.4

12.3

12.0

19.4

15.9

17.0

13.9

12.0

2.9

‘2.7

*3.O

3.0

*3.4

*3.6

“3.1

*2.4

*3.4

*2.2

*3.2

‘3.0

*2.8

*3.1

*2.9

●2.8

4.7

“4.8

4.7

4.8

*3.9

*2.6

*4.8

5,4

*6.2

3.5

*3.2

8.2

*5.3

*4.8

*5.6

*3.7

*1.7

“2.7

*1.1

“1.8

*2.O

*1.6

“2.1

*1.4

*3.3

*1.O

*1.6

“2.0

*1.6

*3.3

‘0.9

*1.4

“0.2

*O. 1

“0.3

‘0.1

“1.7

‘0.6

“o 1

“0.2

“0.1

“0.3

‘0.2

“0.2

0.0

0.0

“0.5

‘1.5

‘1.4

*1.5

*1.3

*3.5

“1.7

*1.8

*1.1

*1.9

*1.2

*1.9

‘0.7

*1.5

*1.9

“1.1

*1.6

1Includes whne, black, and other races; Protestant, Catholm, other rellglons, snd no reltglon.
Table 12. Number of currently married women 15-4.4 years of age and percent distribution by current contraceptive status, according to

salected characteristics: United States, 1982

[Statistics are baaed on a sample of the household population of the contermlnoua UnNed States, See appendixes for dlscusalon of the sample design, estimates of

sampling var!abtl!ty, and defm!t!ons of terms]

Ccwrr{aceptwe staru.s

Noncontraceptors

Contra ceptors Pregnant,

post partum, NorrcontraAll Non- or seeking ceptively Other

Charactermtm Total worn en Surgical surgical Total pregnancy sterde~ nonuser

Allwomenz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age

15-19 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20-24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30-34 yaars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35-39 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40-44 years.....,,.....,,.. . . . . . . . . . . .

Race

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hispanic origin

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Central......,,.....,,.. . . . . . . . . . .

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Poverty level income

149percent or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Below poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

150parcent or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

200percent or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

300percent or more .,,....,. . . . . . .

Parlt y

O–lblrths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2–4 births ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5births or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Labor force status

In la bor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Notln labor force, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

Less than 12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years or more......,,.,.. . . . . . . . .

Religion

Protestant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number in

thousanrla

28,231

612

4,130

6,332

6,482

5,783

4,783

25,195

2,130

2,296

25,935

5,549

7,632

9,453

5,598

48580

2,278

23,652

20,247

14.739

10,989

16,201

1,041

15,68B

12,543

4,844

12,191

11,196

17,408

B,412

27.8

Percent d!strlbutlon

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

*7.5

15.4

32.3

39.5

45.5

28.2

23.1

20.8

28.5

24.4

29.8

28.5

27.6

25.1

23.1

28.4

28.1

2B.1

8.1

40.9

33.5

29.8

25.4

24.8

30.0

26.8

30.0

24.8

40.1

53.1

59.1

53.5

38.0

27.4

22.3

40.7

37.7

43.3

39.8

45.2

38.1

39.5

38.7

38.5

39.4

40.4

40.6

39.8

49.1

34.4

35.2

40.0

40.2

31.9

38.4

45.5

37.1

44.0

32.0

46.9

33.3

31.1

29.7

33.0

32.2

31.2

39.2

35.9

31.7

30.4

32.1

32.0

33.7

36.4

37.5

31.2

31.4

32.2

42.9

24.7

31.3

30.2

34.3

43.3

31.6

27.7

32.9

31.2

13.9

‘40.4

26.5

20.9

12.9

*5.9

*1.6

13.8

14,7

19.5

13.5

15.2

13.7

12.4

15.7

20.2

20,7

12.7

13.1

12,9

27.2

5.7

“1.5

13.0

15.2

18.9

12.3

13.6

13,3

15.2

13.1

“0.5

*1,9

*5.6

12.6

21.6

24.7

12.B

14.9

‘7.6

13.6

9.4

14.8

13.8

13.2

11.0

*1O.5

13.5

13.3

14.0

10.0

14.5

*23.7

12.9

13.4

16.4

13.9

10.8

15.2

10.6

5.0

*5.9

“5,0

*4.6

“4.2

*5,5

“6.0

4.5

9.6

*8.8

4.7

*5.8

*3.5

5.8

*4.8

*5.2

*6.4

5.0

5.0

5.2

5.6

4.5

“6.0

4.4

5.8

*7.9

5.4

*3.3

4,4

5.4

1Includes nonsurg!cally sterile as well as surgically sterile for noncontraceptwe reasons, These two categories are shown separately In tables 8 and 9.

‘Includes white, black, and other races; Protestant. Cathol!c, othar rel!gions, and no rellglon

36
Table 13. Number of currently married women 15-44 years of age currently using contraceptives other than sterilization and parcent distribution by mathod of contraception

used, according to selected characteristics: United States, 1982

[Statlstlcs are based on a sample c!f the houaahold populatrcm of the contermlnoua Un!ted states. See append!xea for dwcuaa!on of the sample deatgn, eatlmatea of samphng variabddy, and defmitiona of terms]

Contraceptwe method

All Periodic Other

Charactermtic Total methods Pill IUD Diephragm Condom Foam abstinence Withdrawal Douche methods

AI Iwomenl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age

15-19 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20-24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30-34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35-39 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race

Whal e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hispamc origin

Hwpanm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non-H mp~nm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Central. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pcworty hwel income

149percent or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Below poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

150percent or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,

200perc0nt or more . . . . . . . . . . . . .

300percent Or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parity

O-l baths. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2-4 bwths. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5births or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Labor force status

Inlabcw force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Notln labor force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number m

thousands

11,325

325

2,442

3,444

2.462

1,585

1!066

10,251

802

995

10,330

2,508

2,910

3,738

2,169

1,761

898

9.564

8,213

5,864

5,392

5,567

366

6,278

5,048

Percent diatnbution

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1000

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

33.5

71.7

59.4

39.5

22.2

*9.9

*4.3

32.9

41.1

42,7

32.6

‘14.6

37.2

44.2

31.9

46.8

45.1

31.0

32.0

30.9

44.9

24.4

“3.8

35.8

30.6

12.0

*3.8

*4.3

12.2

15,3

*1 7.8

*1 5.0

11,8

15.5

*25.4

10.7

*1 2.9

*1 0.2

11.3

“14.5

“12.1

*1 5.5

12.0

12.0

12.3

8.4

14.4

*27.7

11.7

12.4

11.3

*3.8

“8.0

13.6

*141

*8.9

0.8

11.5

8.6

*4.8

11.9

20.3

*8.6

*6.CI

‘13.5

*5.6

“6.1

12.3

2.3

14.4

13.3

10.0

*1.3

12.6

9.7

24.4

*1 4.0

16.4

18.0

30.2

33.7

39.7

26.0

11.4

‘13.8

25.4

32.8

23.2

21.5

21.4

*I 7.2

“1 9.3

25.8

26.0

27.2

19.3

29.6

*22.2

22.3

27.1

4.9

‘1.0

*2.8

●3.8

*5.4

*9.1

*7.3

5.0

*5.5

*3.9

5.0

*4.9

*4.8

*5.1

*4,9

*1.9

“0.3

5.5

‘5.0

*3.1

*3.3

*59

*13.5

*5.1

*4.8

8.0 ‘3.0

*1,2 “0.5

*5.6 *2.6

‘6.4 *4.1

*8.6 *1.5

*I 2.0 *2.5

*13.5 *5.1

8.2 “3.0

*6.3 *3.2

*7.6 . *1.2

8.0 *3.1

‘8.7 *4.2

‘9.7 *2.9

*5.3 *2.6

*9.5 ‘2.3

*9.6 *1.5

*9.1 *0. I

7.7 *3.2

7.4 *3.O

*6.6 *3.4

*6.2 *2.4

8.6 *3.7

*25.6 “0.3

7.7 *2.7

8.3 *3.3

“0.4

‘0.2

*0.1

“0.1

*1.O

*1.3

“0.2

*2.7

‘0.4

‘0.1

“0.4

‘0.7

“0.1

‘0.7

“0.0

“0.3

“0.3

“0.3

“0.3

“0.4

“0.6

*0.3

“0.4

*2.5

“4.0

“0.7

*2.3

*2.8

“5.0

*2.9

*2,3

*5.6

“0.5

*2.7

*1.6

“3.0

*3.2

“1.9

*4.6

*4.5

*2.2

*2.1

*1.8

“2.0

*2.9

*5.1

*1.9

*3.4

llnclucfes white, black, and other races, plQteStdIIt, Cathol!c, other rellglons, and no rellg!on

G1

4
% Table 13. Number of currently merried women 15-44 yeara of age currently using contraceptives other than etarilization and percent distribution by mathod of contraception

used, according to selected characteristic: United Statas, 1982—Con.

[Statmt]cs are based on a sample of the household population of the contermonous United States. See appendixes for discussmn of the sample destgn, estimates of sampling varlab!llty. and de f!n!tmns of terms]

Contraceptive method

All

Characteristic

Periodic Other

Total methods Pill IUD Diaphragm Condom Foam abstinence Withdrawal Douche methods

Number in

Education thousands Percent distribution

Less than 12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,544 100.0 38.5 *1 7.5 *3.4 22.4 6.5 *4.7 *2.9 “1.0 *3.1

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,686 100.0 42.2 10.1 *5.8 20.6 *5.6 *8.6 *3.8 “0.2 *3.1

13years or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,094 100.0 24.0 12.0 18.8 28.6 *3.8 8.5 ‘2,2 ‘0.3 “1.8

Relrgion

Protestant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,465 100.0 40.2 11.0 8.9 21.4 *5.6 *5.8 *2.9 ‘0.6 *3.6

Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,701 100.0 26.3 11.1 11.8 29.2 *4.5 12.7 “3.1 *1.3
Table 14. Number of widowed, divorced, and separeted women 15-44 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status, according to

selacted characteristics United States, 19S2

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterminous United States. See appendixes for dlscusaion of the sample design, estimates of

sampling variability, and definitions of terms]

Contraceptive status

Normontraceptors

Contraceptors Pregnant,

NoncontraAll

post parturn,

Non- ceptively or seeking Other

Characteristic Total women Surgical surgical Total sterile pregnancy nonuser

Number in

Percent distribution

6,704

2,095

4,609

5,224

1,310

4.936

1,767

2,762

3,941

1,707

1,732

2,652

2,319

4,005

1,864

1,148

1,667

1,997

1,892

Allwomenl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

21.6

9.3

27.3

20.2

27.9

21.5

22.1

24.0

20.0

●16.4

23.2

22.4

19.6

24.5

*16.1

*9.2

*7.4

24.9

38.3

31.8

53.9

21.8

34.1

25.9

33.9

26.0

22.7

38.2

43.1

22.1

30.5

40.6

28.5

34.9

49.9

42.9

30.8

*1 2.1

46.5

36.8

51.0

45.7

46.3

44.6

51.9

53.3

41.8

40.5

54.8

47.1

39.8

47.0

49.0

40.9

49.7

44.3

49.6

16.3 “4.6 25.6

Age

15-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*5.6

21.2

*8.6

*2.8

22.6

26.9

Race

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*3.8

7.2

16.6

13.7

25.3

25.4

Labor force status

In labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Notin labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15.8

‘1 7.9

“3.3

*8.3

25.5

25.8

Povarty level income

149percent or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

150percent ormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

300percent ormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19.6

14.0

*1 5.6

*3.7

“5.3

*7.1

30.0

22.4

●1 7.9

Education

Less than 12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years ormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21.6

16.4

12.4

*7.2

“4.5

*2.9

25.9

26.2

24.6

Religion

Protestant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20.1

*1 2.2

*4.2

“6.0

22.7

30.7

Parity

Obirths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3births ormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

t Includes white, black, and othar rscea; protestant, Catholic, other religions. and no relieion.

*6.3

*1 2.4

18.2

24.0

*8.6

“7.8

*1.5

*2.8

“26.0

29.4

24.7

22.8

39
Table 15. Number of widowed, divorced, and separated women 15-44 years of age who were using contraceptives other than sterilization and

parcent distribution by method used, according to selected characteristics: United States, 1982

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household populatmn of the conterrm”ous United States. See appendixes for discussion of the sample design, estimates of

sampllng vanab!imy, and definmon of terms]

Contraceptive method

All Other

Characteristic Total methods Pill IUD Diaphragm methodsl

Allwomenz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age

15-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Labor force status

In labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Notre labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Poverty level income

49percent or leas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50percent or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

300percent or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

2years or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3years or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Religion

Protestant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parity

O-l binhs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Number in

thousands Percent distribution

2,132

1,129

1,003

1,780

339

1,674

459

627

1,505

735

1,192

941

1,141

651

1,288

844

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

49.5

66.2

30.8

50.3

44.0

48.9

51.7

52.1

48.5

50.3

56.7

40.5

50.7

54.2

59.5

34.4

20.1 11.7 18.7

11.0 9.8 13.0

30.4 13.8 25.1

19.4 12.9 17.4

24.5 5.3 26.3

17.7 13.5

29.0 5.0

21.9 9.1

19.4

17.6

19.7

20.6

20.9

19.1

11.2

33.7

12.8

11.8

7.0

17.6

9.4

11.8

12.9

9.8

9.9

4.4

6.9

19.4

20.2

16.6

21.3

19.0

14.9

s

16.4

22.1

7Includes condom, foam, penodnc abstinence, withdrawal, douche, and other methods.

‘Includes white, black, and other race% Protestant, Catholic, other religmns, and no relig!on.

40
Tabla 16. Number of women 15-44 yeara of age using selected methods of contraception and percent whose first sourca of the mathod was e

clinic, by method, race, marital status, end age: United Statas, 1982

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterminous United States. See appendixes for discussion of the sample design, estimates of

sampling variability, and definitions of terms]

Contraceptive method

Race, marital status, and aga Total Piff IUD Diaphragm Total Pill IUD Diaphragm

All marital statuses

Allracesl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Never married

Allracesl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

White. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Currently married

Allracesl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Formerly marriedz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age

15-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15–24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15-19 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25-34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number in thousands Percent

13,020

10,896

1,840

4,855

3,654

1.066

6,430

5,771

524

1.734

13.020

5,75B

1,640

5,981

1,281

B,431

6,864

1,382

3,5B1

2,593

902

3,794

3,377

330

1,056

8,431

4,737

1,472

3,369

*325

2,153

1,775

331

*367

“217

123

1,357

1,213

125

’429

2,153

*277

*3O

1,269

607

2,436

2,256

127

908

844

*4O

1,279

1,182

*69

*249

2,436

744

*138

1,343

*349

27.2 26.9

24.3 23.1

44.8 45.8

40.0 36.2

36.7 31.0

52.0 51.1

17.8 18.1

16.7 16.5

31.6 34.3

26.0 “27.4

27.2 26.9

35.7 34.3

43.6 42.0

22.3 18.3

*1 1.6 *9.7

2B.9 26.4

25.5 26.9

47.1 “27.1

59.3 47.3

59.5 48.5

59.9 *48.2

“20.9 *1 3.6

*1 9.6 “14.2

37.1 *B.4

*28.3 *1 5.9

28.9 26.4

51.8 38.B

*62.2 *56.9

31.5 23.6

*1 3.3 ‘10.4

‘Includes white, blsck, and other racss.

2p40t ~h~~n separately by race because Of insufficient sample ‘ize.
Appendixes

Contents

I. Technical notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Statistical design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Measurementprocess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Datareduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Reliability ofestimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

II. Definitions ofterms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Everuse ofcontraception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Current contraceptive status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Demographic terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

III. Selected sections ofthe questionnaire ofthe National Survey ofFamilyGrowth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

List of appendix tables

I. Estimates ofparsmetersAand13 for relative standard errorcurves by age, mm”talstatus, andrace ofwoman . . . . . . . . . 45

II. Approximate relative standard emors and standard errors for estimated number ofwomen ofallraces combined 1982

National Survey ofFamily Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

III. Approximate standard errors for estimated percents expressed in percentage points for women of all races: 1982 National

Survey ofFamily Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

42
Appendix I

Technical notes

Background Statistical design

This report is one of a series based on the National Survey

of Family Growth (NSFG), conducted by the National Center

for Health Statistics (NCHS). The NSFG was designed to

provide data on fertility, family planning, and aspects of maternal and child health that are closely related to childbearing.

The NSFG is a periodic survey based on personal interviews with a nationwide sample of women. The NSFG has

been conducted three times, in 1973, 1976, and 1982. The

present report is based on Cycle III of the NSFG. A detailed

report on Cycle 111is contained in National Survey of Family

Growth, Cycle III sample design, weighting and variance estimation, Series 2, No. 98, of Vital and Health Stahktics. 11A

detailed description of the methods and procedures used in

Cycle I can be found in National Survey of Family Gro@

Cycle 1, sample design, estimation procedures, and variance

estimatio~ Series 2, No. 76, of Vital and Health Statistics. 25

A detailed description of the methods and procedures of Cycle

II can be found in National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle

11 sample design, estimation procedures, and variance estimation, Series 2, No. 87, of Vital and Health Statistics.26 This

appendix presents a summary of the more important technical

aspects of the 1982 NSFG.

Fieldwork for Cycle 111 was performed under a contract

with NCHS by Westa& Inc., between August 1982 and February 1983. For the first time, the sample represented all

women 15–44 years of age, regardless of marital status, including never married women, in the noninstitutionalized population of the conterminous United States. Women living in

group quarters, such as college dormitories, were included in

Cycle III, but not in Cycles I and II. Interviews were conducted

with 7,969 women in Cycle ~, 3,201 were black wome% 4,577

were white women, and 191 were of other races.

Interviews were conducted by trained female interviewers

in respondents’ homes and lasted an average of 1 hour. The

interview focused on a woman’s pregnancy histo~ her use of

contraceptives in each pregnancy intervat her physical ability

to bear childrew her expectations of bearing children in the

future her use of family planning and infertility services her

marital histoy, labor force participation and a wide range of

social, economic, and demographic characteristics.

NOTE: A list of references follows the text.

The NSFG is based on a multistage area probability

sample. Black households and households with resident teenage women were sampled at higher rates than other households

so that reliable estimates of statistics could be presented separately for black and teenage women. In addition, the sample

was designed to provide tabulations for each of the four major

geographic regions of the United States.

The fwst stage of the sample design consisted of drawing a

sample of primary sampling units (PSU’S). A PSU consisted of

a county, a small group of contiguous counties, or a standard

metropolitan statistical area as defined by the U.S. Bureau of

the Census in 1970. The second and third stages of sampling

were used to select seveial segments (clusters of 15 to about 60

dwelling units) within each PSU. A systematic sample of dwelling units was then selected from each segment. Each sample

dwelling unit was visited by an interviewer who listed all household members. The interviewer then consulted a computergenerated sampling table to determine which woman, if any,

should be interviewed.

The statistics in this report are estimates for the national

population and were computed by multiplying each sample case

by the number of women she represented in the population.

The multipliers, or final weights, ranged from under 500 to

over 50,000 and averaged about 7,000. They were derived by

using three basic steps

● Inj7ation by the reciprocal of the probability of selection—

The probability of selection is the product of the probabilities of selection of the PSU, segmen~ householcL and

sample person within the household.

. Nonresponse adjustment—The weighted estimates were

ratio adjusted for nonresponse by a multiplication of hvo

factors. The first factor adjusted for nonresponse to the

screener by imputing the characteristics of women in responding households to women in nonrespondlng house

holds in the same PSU and stratum. The second factor

adjusted for nonresponse to the interview by imputing the

characteristics of responding women to nonrespondlng

women in the same age-race-marital status category and

PSU. Response to the screener was 95. I percent and

response to the interview was 83.5 percent yielding a

combined response rate of approximately 79.4 percent. 11

● Poststrat@cation by mardal status, agg and race-The

estimates were ratio adjusted within each of 24 age-race

marital status categories to independent estimates of the

43
population of women aged 15–44 years. The independent

estimates were derived from the U.S. Bureau of the Census

Current Population Surveys.

The effect of the rati~estimating process was to make the

sample more closely representative of the noninstitutionalized

population of women 15-44 years of age in the conterminous

United States. The final poststratification reduced the sample

variance of the estimates for most statistics.

All figures were individually rounded aggregate figures

(numbers) were rounded to the nearest thousand. Aggregate

numbers and percents may not sum to the total because of the

rounding.

Measurement process

Field operations for Cycle 111were performed by WestaL

Inc., under contract with NCHS; these operations included

pretesting the interview schedule, selecting the sample, interviewing respondents, and performing specified quality control

checks. Interviewers, all of whom were female, were trained for

1 week prior to fieldwork. The first five interview schedules

done by each interviewer were reviewe~ after a high level of

quality was achieved by an interviewer, this review was reduced

to a sample of questionnaires, unless an unacceptable level of

error was found again. A 10-percent sample of respondents

was recontacted by telephone to verify that the interview had

taken place and that certain key items were accurately recorded.

A portion of the interview schedule applicable to this report

is reproduced in appendix III. Two forms of the questionnaire

were used, one for women 15–24 years of age, and one for

women 25–44 years of age. The questionnaire for women 15–

24 years of age included a few additional items referring to

early experiences that women over 25 could not be expected to

remember accurately.

Data reduction

The responses of each woman to the interview questions

were translated into predetermined numerical codes, and these

code numbers were recorded on computer tapes. The first few

questionnaires coded by each coder were checked completely;

after an acceptable level of quality was reached, verification of

coding was performed on a systematic sample of each coder’s

questionnaires. The data were edited by computer to identi@

inconsistencies among responses, and to identi~ code numbers

that were not allowed in the coding scheme; these errors were

corrected.

Missing data on all variables used in this report were imputed to provide consistent national estimates. If the level of

missing data is relatively high (more than 5 percent), this fact is

noted in the section entitled “Definitions of terms. ” Only two

items are so affected: Poverty level income and age (or date) of

first intercourse.

Reliability of estimates

Because 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 error is measured by a statistic called the

standard error of estimate. The chances are about 68 out of

100 that an estimate from the sample will differ from a complete count by less than the standard error. The chances are

about 95 out of 100 that the difference between the sample

estimate and a complete count will be less than twice the

standard error. The relative standard error of an estimate is

obtained by dividing the standard error of the estimate by the

estimate itself, and is expressed as a percent of the estimate.

Numbers and percents that have a relative standard error that

is more than 30 percent are considered unreliable. These figures

are marked with an asterisk to caution the user, but may be

combined to make other types of comparisons of greater reliability.

Estimation of standard errors

Because of the complex multistage design of the NSFG

sample, conventional formulas for calculating sampling errors

are inapplicable. Standard errors were, therefore, estimated

empirically by using a technique known as balancecl half-sample

replication. This technique produces highly reliable, unbiased

estimates of sampling errors. Its application to the NSFG has

been described elsewhere. 11S25,26

Because it would be prohibitively expensive to estimate,

and cumbersome to publish, a standard error for each percent

or other statistic by this technique, standard errors were computed for selected statistics and population subgroups that were

chosen to represent a wide variety of demographic characteristics and a wide variation in the size of the estimates themselves. Curves were then fitted to the relative standard error

estimates (ratio of the standard error to the estimate itselt) for

numbers of women according to the model

RSE(N’) = (A + ;)”2

where N’ is the number of women and A and B are the parameters whose estimates determine the shape” of the curve. Separate curves were fitted for women of all races combined, for

black women, and for women of races other than black, because

different sampling rates were used for black and other women.

Separate curves were fitted for teenagers, for the same reason.

The estimates of A and B are shown in table I.

To calculate the estimated standard error or relative

standard error of an aggregate or percent, the appropriate estimates of A and B are used in the equations

() B 1/2

SEN= A+~ N’

NOTE A list of referencesfollowsthe text.

44
Table 1. Estimatas of parameters A and B for relative standard

error curves by age, marital status, and race of woman

Parametar

Age, marital status, and race A B

15-44 years

All races and white

All marital statuses . . . . . . . . -0.0003935957 21306.413351

Ever married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -0.0010973290 39809.167683

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . -0.0009351043 17608.883330

Black All marital statuse~

ever married: never married . . . -0.0009086323 6346.048380

15-19 years

Allraces and white . . . . . . . . . . -0.001456493 13862.104404

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -0.003322363 4727.056926

( )

B 1OO–P’ 1/2

RSEP= ~. ~

( )

100–P’ 112

SEP= BXP’” ~

whereN’=number ofwomen

P’= percent

X’= number of women in the denominator of the percent

SE = standard error

RSE = relative standard error

Tables II and III show some illustrative standard errors of

aggregates and percents of women of all races from Cycle III of

the NSFG.

Testing differences

Thestandard error ofadifferencebetween twocomparative

statistics, such as the proportion surgically sterile among white

couples compared with black couples, is approximately the

square root of the sum of the squares of the standard errors of

the statistics considered separately or, calculated by the

formula, if

d=P; –P;

Table 11. Approximate ralative standard arrors and standard errors

for astimated numbar of women of all racas combined: 1982 National

Suwey of Family Growth

Relative

Size of estimate standard error Standard error

50,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

5.000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

10.000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65.2

46.1

20.5

14.5

8.2

6.2

5.1

4.2

1.8

33,000

46.000

102,000

144,000

245,000

310,000

359,000

416,000

532,000

Table Ill. Approximate standard errors for estimated percants

exprassed in percentage points for women of all races 1982 National

Survay of Family Growth

Estimated percent

Base of 2or 5or 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 or

percent 98 95 90 80 70 60 50

100,000 . . . . . . 6.5 10.1 13.8 16.5 21.2 22.6 23.1

500,000 . . . . . . 2.9 4.5 6.2 6.3 9.5 10.1 10.3

1,000,000 . . . . 2.0 3.2 4.4 5.8 6.7 7.2 7,3

5,000,000 . . . . 0.9 1.4 2.0 2.6 3.0 3.2 3.3

10,000,000 . . . 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.3

30,000,000 . . . 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3

50,000,000 . . . 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0

EXAMPLE OF USE OF TABLE If 30 percentof women h a specific catagory

were using the pill and the base of that percent was 10,000,000, than tha

30-percent column and the 10,000,000 row indicate that 1 standard error is

2.1 percentage points and 2 standard errors are twice that, or 4.2 parentage

points. Therefore, the chances are 95 out of 100 that tha true percent in the

population was between 25.8 and 34.2 (30.0 percent plus or minus 4.2 percant).

This is called a 95-percant confidence interval. In addit]on, the relative standard

error of that 30-percent estimate ia 2.1 Dercent divided by 30 oarcent, or

7.0 percent

then

PI)2 . (RSEPJ2 + (P;)z “(RSEP2)2

where Pi is the estimated percent for one group, P; is the

estimated percent for the other group, and RSEP1 and-RSEP2

are the relative standard errors of P, and P;, respectively.

This formula will represent the actual standard error quite accurately for the difference between separate and uncorrelated

characteristics although it is only a rough approximation in

most other cases.

A difference among comparable proportions or other statistics from two or more subgroups is statistically significant

when a difference of that size or huger would be expected by

chance in less than 5 percent of repeated samples of the same

size and type, if no true difference existed in the populations

sampled. Such a difference would be statistically significant at

the 0.05 level. By this criterion, if the observed difference or a

larger one could be expected by chance in more than 5 percent

of repeated samples, then one cannot be sufficiently confident

to conclude that a real difference exists between the populations. When an observed difference is large enough to be statistically signiflcan~ the true difference in the population is

estimated to lie between the observed difference plus or minus

2 standard errors of that difference in 95 out of 100 samples.

Although the 5-percent criterion is conventionally applied,

it is in a sense arbitrary depending on the purpose of the particular comparison, a different level of significance may be

more usefhl. For greater cordidence one would test for significance at the 0.01 (l-percent) level, but if one can accept a 10-

percent chance of concluding a difference exists when there

actually is none in the population a test of significance at the

10-percent level would be appropriate.

The term “similar” means that any observed difference

between two estimates being compared is not statistically signillcan% but terms such as “greater,” “less,” “larger,” and

“smalled’ indicate fiat the observed differences are statistically

45
significant at the 0.05 level, by using a tw~tailed t-test with 39

degrees of freedom. Statements about differences that are qualified in some way (for example, by the phrases “the data suggest” or “some evidence”) indicate that the difference is significant at the 0.10 level but not the 0.05 level.

When a substantial difference observed is found not to be

statistically significant, one should not conclude that no difference exists, but simply that such a difference cannot be estab

lished with 95-percent confidence from this sample. This is

especially important in Cycle III because the number of ever

married women in the sample is 4,651 in Cycle III, compared

with 7,970 in Cycle II—a reduction of 42 percent. This means

that the standard errors in Cycle III are larger than in Cycle II,

so it is harder to establish significant differences in Cycle III

than in Cycle II. Lack of comment in the text about any two

statistics does not mean that the difference was tested and

found not to be significant.

The number of replicates in the balanced half-sample

replication design minus one (39 in Cycle III) can reasonably

be used as an estimate of the number of degrees of freedom,

although the exact value of the degrees of freedom is unknown.

Therefore, in this report, differences betsveen sample statistics

are compared by using a tw~tailed t-test with 39 degrees of

freedom.

Example: In 1982, 68.8 percent of 25,195,000 currently

married white women were using some method of contracep

tion, compared with 61.0 percent of the 2,130,000 currently

married black women. To test this racial difference at the 0.05

level of significance, compute

68.8 – 61.0 t=

/(68.8)2 “RSE&8,8) + (61.0)2 oRSE~61,0)

Relative standard errors are computed using the appropriate

values for B from table I:

39,809.1677 100 – 68.8

RSE(68.8) = 68.8 25,195,000

= 0.027

and

6,346.0484 100 – 61.0

‘SE(61.0) = 61.0 “ 2,130,000

= 0.044

thus

68.8 –61.0 t=

/(68.8)2 “ (0.027)2+ (61.0)2. (0.044)2

= 2.39

The tw~tailed 0.95 critical value (1 – a) for a t statistic with

39 degrees of freedom is 2.02. Therefore, the difference is significant at the 5-percent level.

Nonsampling error

Although sampling error affects the reliability of survey

estimates, nonsampling error may introduce bias. The results

of any survey are subject to at least four types of potential

nonsampling error, including interview nonresponsq nonresponse to individual questions or items within the interview,

inconsistency of responses to questions; and errors of recording,

coding, and keying by survey personnel.

To minimize nonsampling error, stringent quality control

procedures were introduced at every stage of the survey including a check on completeness of the household listing extensive

training and practice of interviewers; field editing of questionnaires; short verification interviews with a subsample of respondents; verification of coding and editing an independent

recode of a sample of questionnaires by NCHS; keypunch

verificatio~ and an extensive computer “cleaning” to check

for inconsistent responses, missing datzq and invalid codes. A

detailed description of some of these procedures follows; others

were previously discussed.

Interview nonresponse. Interview nonresponse occurs when

no part of an interview is obtained. It can result from failures at

any of three principal steps: (a) failing to list all households in

sample segments, (h) failing to screen all listed households,

and (c) failing to interview an eligible woman in each screened

household. A discussion of these steps follows.

The completeness of listing cannot be tested directly because it requires an independent, accurate enumeration of the

households that should have been listed. In the NSFG, listing

completeness and accuracy were tested by the missed dwelling

unit (DU) procedure at the time of screening If the first structure in a segment was included in the sample, the whole segment was checked to see if any structures had been missed in

the listing process; if the first structure was a multiple-DU

structure, and if the first-listed unit in the building was included

in the sample, the entire structure was checked for missed DU’S.

Of the original sample of 34,641 DU’S screened, 3,614

were found vacant or not DU’S. 1* Of the 31,027 occupied

DU’S, 4.9 percent were not screened successfully. Screening

was completed in 29,511 households; 9,964 of these contained

eligible respondents who were selected for interview. Interviews were not completed with 16.5 percent of these cases

because of(a) refusals by respondents (8.3 percent) and by the

parents of respondents under 18 years of age ( 1.5 percent), (b)

lack of contact after repeated calls (2.8 percent), or (c) other

problems (4.0 percent).

The nonresponse adjustment for interview nonresponse

described earlier imputes the characteristics of responding

women of the same age group, race, marital status, and geographic area to nonresponding women.

Item nonresponse. Item nonresponse may have occurred

when a respondent refused to answer a questiom or did not

know the answer to a question, when the question was erroneously not asked or the answer was not recorded by the interviewer, or when the answer could not be coded. Nonresponse

NOTE: A list of references follows the text.
to individual questions was very low in Cycle III as it was in few items where the proportion of cases imputed was high, this

Cycle II. Some examples of item nonresponse among a total of fact is noted in the appropriate section of the definitions.

7,969 respo~dents are as follows: religion of responden~ 11 As with all survey datz responses to the NSFG are subject

cases; respondent’s occupation, 37 cases. The question with to possible deliberate misreporting by the respondent. Such

the most item nonresponse was family income (from which misreporting cannot be detected directly, but can be detected

poverty level income was derived), with 1,767 cases. Missing indirectly by the extensive computer “cleaning” and editing

data were imputed for all data items in this report. For those procedures used in the NSFG.

47
Appendix II

Definitions of terms

Ever use of contraception

Ever use of contraceptive methods—A woman was classified as ever using a specific contraceptive method (for example,

pill, diaphragm, female sterilization) if she reported using that

method for a month or more, if she reported ever using i~ or if

she reported it as the tllst method she ever used. A woman was

classified as having used condom or male sterilization (methods

used by men) if she ever had sexual intercourse when these

methods were used.

Use atjirst sexual intercourse—A woman was classified

as having used a method at her first sexual intercourse if she

reported that she used a contraceptive method the first time she

had intercourse. This answer was one of six answers the woman

could choose from a card in response to the question, “When

did you (or your partner) use (first method) for the first time?”

For women who reported using a method at their first intercourse, the first method she reported ever using was classified

as the method she used at her first intercourse.

First method ever used—First method ever used was determined by the question, “Thinking back to the very first time

you had intercourse when a method was used, which method

on the card was that?” Respondents were handed a card listing

14 methods of contraception and an open-ended category for

reporting other methods not listed on the card.

Current contraceptive status

Current contraceptive status is presented in a variety of

ways in this report. Detailed tables 8 and 9 show the percent

distribution of all women according to whether they were using

a method of contraception, the methods used by contraceptors,

and reasons for nonuse by noncontraceptors. These tables give

information such as the percents of all women using a particuku

method or not using a method because they are seeking pregnancy, Text table D and detailed tables 10, 12, and 14 also

show current contraceptive status for all women, but in summary form. Text table C shows contraceptive status in yet

another form The percent of women exposed to the risk of

unintended pregnancy who were using a method of contracep

tion. In this table, the measure of contraceptive status is refined

to exclude from consideration women who are not using a

method because they are sterile for reasons other than contraception, pregnant, post partum, seeking pregnancy, or have not

had sexual intercourse in the 3 months before the interview.

Finally, tables C, F, and 13 show the percent distribution

by current method only for contracepting women (including

those using surgical sterilization), while tables E, 11, and 15

show the percent distribution by current method of nonsurgical

contraceptors. These tables give information on the relative

importance of different methods among all methods and nonsurgical methods. They also permit comparisons of contracep

tive method choices among groups differing in the percent using

contraception. In all of these tables the categories of current

contraceptive status are consistently defined in the manner

described below; but they are grouped in different ways to

provide different kinds of information about contraceptive use.

Sterile couples

.Sterile—A currently married woman was classified as

sterde for the purposes of determining current contraceptive

status if she reported that it was impossible for her and her

husband to have a baby. An unmarried woman was classified

as sterile if she reported that it was impossible for her to have a

baby, or if her current method of contraception was male sterilization.

Nonsurgical—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 woman (or couple) was classified as surgically sterile if she or her husband were completely sterile due

to an operation, or if her current method of contraception was

male sterilization.

Because sterilizing operations are very frequently obtained

exclusively or partly as methods of contraception (that is, because of their complete effectiveness against conception rather

than for purely therapeutic reasons), they have been fimther

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?” The

question was reworded in Cycles II and III to “Was one reason

for the operation because you had all the children you wanted?”

The percents of women contraceptively and noncontraceptively sterile are not fully comparable between ‘Cycle I and

Cycles II and III. The rewording of the question cited above

probably reduced the percent of sterilizing operations classified

as contraceptive, because an operation that was done to prevent

a pregnancy that would be dangerous to the woman’s health

usually would have been reported as contraceptive in Cycle I,

but as noncontraceptive in Cycles II and III. Also, in Cycle I,

if a couple had had more than one sterilizing operation—for

48
example, a vasectomy followed a few years later by a hysterectomy—the interviewer coded the earliest operation. In Cycles

II and III, however, the woman’s operation was given priority.

Both of these factors tended to increase the proportion of sterilizing operations classified as noncontraceptive in 1976 and

1982, compared with 1973.

It should be noted that the estimates of male contraceptive

sterilization reflect the numbers of women relying on this

method, and not necessarily the numbers of men who have

been sterilized for contraceptive reasons.

Noncontraceptors

Pregnant—A woman was classified as pregnant if she

replied affirmatively to the question “Are you pregnant now?”

or, for those in doubt “Do you think you are probably pregnant

or not?” However, a woman who reported that the onset of her

last menstrual period was wit.ldn the 30 days prior to the interview was automatically considered not pregnant.

Seeking pregnancy—A woman was classified as seeking

pregnancy if she reported she was not using a method at the

time of interview because she wanted to become pregnant.

Post partum—A woman was classified as postpartum 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 nonusers—Women 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 women who had never had intercourse, had not had intercourse in the last 3 months, 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.

Newer had intercourse—A woman was classified as never

having had intercourse if she was not currently using a method

and she had never had sexual intercourse at any time up to the

time of interview, or if she had had sexual intercourse but not

after her first menstrual period.

No intercourse in last 3 months—A woman was classified

as not having intercourse in the last 3 months if she was not

currently using a method and reported not having sexual intercourse in any of the 3 months before the interview.

Intercourse in last 3 months—A woman was classified as

having intercourse in the last 3 months if she was not currently

using a method and was having sexual intercourse in the month

of the interview or in any of the 3 months preceding the interview.

Contraceptors

Method users—’’Nonsurgical contraceptors” refers to

women currently using a contraceptive method other than a

surgical sterilization at the date of interview. ” Surgical contraceptors” refers to women who have had a surgical sterilization

because they have had all the children they wanted, or whose

husbands or partners have had a surgical sterilization because

they have had all the children they wanted. “Contraceptors”

include both those using sterilization and other methods of

contraception at the date of interview.

A woman who reported use of a contraceptive method 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 any 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. The hierarchy used for this purpose was, from the most effective to the

least effective method: female sterilization, male sterilization,

pill, IUD, diaphragm, condom, foam, periodic abstinence,

withdrawal, douche, and other.

Demographic terms

Age—Age is classified by the age of the respondent at her

last birthday before the date of interview.

Race—Race refers to the race of the woman interviewed

and is reported as black, white, or other. In Cycle III, race was

classified according to the woman’s report of which race best

described her. In Cycles I and II, race was classified by the

observation of the interviewer. Comparisons of the results of

Cycle HI using both definitions indicate that results using either

method of classification are very similar.

Marital status—Persons were classified by marital status

as married, widowed, divorced, separated, or never married. In

Cycles I and H, informally married women—women who

volunteered that they were sharing living quarters with their

sexual partner-were classified as currently married. These

women constituted about 2 percent of currently married respondents in Cycle I and 3 percent in Cycle II. In Cycle III,

such women were classified according to their legal marital

status. Thus, statistics on currently married women for 1982

shown in this report are not strictly comparable to those for

1973 and 1976. However, reclassifying women in the 1973

and 1976 surveys according to the 1982 definition of marital

status makes little difference in the distributions of currently

married women by contraceptive status for these years.

In all cycles, women who were married but separated from

their spouse were classified as separated if the reason for the

separation was marital discord, and as currently married otherwise.

Hispanic origin-A respondent was classified as being of

Hispanic origin if she reported that her only or principal national origin was Puerto Rican, Cuban, Mexican American,

Central or South American or other Spanish. In tables where

data are presented for women by race, women of Hispanic

origin are included in the statistics for white and black women

if they were classified as such by race.

Age at j7rst intercourse—Age at first sexual intercourse

was ascertained by the question, “Thinking back, ajler your

first menstrual period, when did you have sexual intercourse

for the first time— what month and year was that?” Women

who could not recall the exact month (or season) and year were

asked their age at first intercourse and whether it occurred

before or after the birthday for the given age. Age at first intercourse was calculated from the month (or season) and year, if

given, or taken directly from the followup questions for age.

49
Age was classified according to the woman’s age at her last

birthday before her first intercourse.

The data on age (or date) of first intercourse were missing

for 7 percent of cases and inconsistent with other information

for another 4 percent of cases. Some of these cases were adjusted

individually, while others were imputed. All were checked for

consistency with other information.

Living arrangements at age 14—Women were classified

as living with both parents if they answered” yes” to the question, “When you were 14, were you living with both your own

mother and your own father?” If they answered “no,” they

were classified as living with one or neither parent.

Region of residence—Data are classified by region of

residence into the four major Census regions: Northeas~ North

Central, South, and West. Sample size greatly restricts the

possibility of meaningful analyses by social characteristics

among smaller geographic divisions. The states included in

these four major geographic regions are as follows:

Geographic region and

division

Northeast

New England . . . . . . . .

Middle Atlantic . . . . . .

North Central:

East North Central . . . .

West North Central . . .

South:

South Atlantic . . . . . . .

East South Central. . . .

West South Central . . .

West

Mountain . . . . . . . . . . .

Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

States included

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode

Island, Connecticut

New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania

Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michi.

gan, Wisconsin

Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North

Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas

Delaware, Maryland, District of

Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South

Carolina, Georgia, Florida

Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama,

Mississippi

Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma,

Texas

Montana, Idaho, Wyoming,

Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada

Washington, Oregon, California

Education—Education was classified according to the

highest grade or year of regular school or college that was

completed. Determination of the highest year of regular school

or college completed by the respondent was based on responses

to a series of questions concerning(a) the last grade or year of

school attended and (b) whether that grade was completed.

Religion—Women were classified by religion in response

to the question, “Are you Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish,

or something else?” In addition to the three major religious

groupings, two other categories-other and none—were used.

Because the category of Protestant includes numerous individual denominations, these respondents were furthler asked to

identify the denomination to which they belonged. Those who

answered “other” to the original question and named a Protestant denomination were included as Protestant. Although spe-

,~ific denominational names were obtained and recorded, the

numbers of cases for most denominations were too few to

produce reliable estimates; therefore, they were combined in

larger categories.

Parity-Parity refers to the number of live births the respondent has had.

Labor force status—A woman was categorized as being

“in the labor force” if she was working full time, part time; had

a job, but was not at work because of temporary illness, vacation,

or a strike, or if she was unemployed, laid off, or looking for

work or if she was on maternity leave.

Intent to have more children—Fecund women were aske~

“Do you (and your husband) intend to have a(nother) baby?”

If the woman was pregnant at the date of the interview, she was

asked, “Do you (and your husband) intend to have another

baby after this one is born?” Women who answered affu-rnatively were classified as intending to have a child or another

child, women who answered negatively were classified as not

intending to have a child or another child. If the respondent

said (a) she. and her husband disagreed or(b) she did not know

whether she intended to have a baby or another baby, the

woman was classified as having “uncertain intentions”; because

less than 5 percent of women had uncertain intentions or disagreed with their husbands about their intentions, this small

group is not shown separately in this report.

Years since wl~e’sj7rst marriage-This refers to the number of years between the woman’s first marriage and the interview date.

Poverty level income—The poverty index ratio was calculated by dividing the total family income by the weighted

average threshold income of families with the head of household

under 65 years of age, and is expressed as a percent of the

poverty levels shown in U.S. Bureau of the Census Current

Population Reports, Series P–60, No. 140, “Money income

and poverty status of families and persons in the United States

1982,” table A-3. This definition accounts for the sex of the

head of the family 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 a substantial number

of respondenta (22 percent), total family income was not ascertained These missing values were imputed using a known

value of another similar, randomly selected respondent. Because of these high levels of missing data, small differences by

poverty level income should be interpreted with caution.

50
Appendix 11I

Selected sections of the

questionnaire of the National

Survey of Family Growth

c-35. Looking qain ●t thr card and stsrting with

the firsL method used mince your (first

intercourse/18st pregnancy), please tell

me the letter for each method used for me

month or wre, in the order you used them.

PRORE : Mat other methOds? (ENTER K woos

IN ORDER IN THE ANSWER AREA. CIRCLE KW

KTHIX)S ON HE TtKID CALEfOAR. )

n

HAUI

CARD

11

ASK C-36 TMtOUGH C-39 IN SEQUENCE FOR EACH

MITHDD NENTIONEO.

C-36. Since your (first intercourse/lsst prsgna~y),

in what month mcl year did you stsrt to use

(NETE130)?

1st

kthad

1111 20-22

I

—ni’- 5n23-26

2nd

ibthod

[Ill

33-35

3rd Lut

Nethod 141thsd

Un Un 46-48 59-61

—— I —— I

Hi &I+- 49-52 62-65

I

I

BOX 23. IF METHOD IS I -- FEMALE STERILIZATION, GO TO C-43. OTHERWISE, CONTINUE.

I

C-37. Ouring the months when you were using

(MZTHDO), how many times, if MY, did you

skip and not use any method? %uld you asy

you skipped using s method . . .

kbsttirss, . . . . . . . . . . . .

Often,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sometimes,. . . . . . . . . . . . .

kce or twice,. . . . . . . . . . .

Dr, notstdl? . . . . . . . . . .

. . 1

. . 2

. . 3 27

. . 4

. . 5

. . 1

. . 2

. . 340

. . 4

. . 5

. . 1 . . 1

. . 2 . . 2

. . 3 53 .. 366

. . 4 . . 4

. . 5 . . 5

BOX 24. IF LAST ME THOO, CONTINUE WITH C-38. OTHERWISE, GO TO C-39.

C-38. Are you (and your partner) still using 28 41 54 67

(WTNUD)?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (c-42) . . 1 (C-42) . . 1 (c-42) . . 1 (c-42)

No . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (c-39) . . 2 (C-39) . . 2 (c-39) . . 2 (c-39)

c-39. In what month md yesr did you stop usirg —— I —.

I —— I —— I

(WIHOD)?

G G = e

29-32 42-45 55-58 68-77

BOX 25. ● IF ANY OIHER ME IHOOS, GO TO NEXT ME THOO, C-36.

● IF R Is IN A PERIOO OF NON-INTERCOURSE (CHECK c-31 AND c-33), co ro c-42.

● OTHERWISE, CONTINUE. b

51
D-1. Some (couples/wcaren) Fmd it @ ysicall y AmPossible to have (more) children. As fsr as you know, is it

~sslble or impossible for you (and your husband) to conceive a(nother) baby, that Is, to get pregnant

(again)?

Possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (D-15)

Impossible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2 (D-2) 18

Don’t know, not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 (D-15)

D-2 . Have you (or your husband) had an operation, or more than one operation, that makea it impossible for you to

conceive a(nother) baby (together)?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (D-3)

b

19

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (D-12)

D-3. mat kmd of operation, or operations, dld you (or your husband) have that makes it Impossible to have [

a(nother) baby? (CIRCLE CODE(S) ON TOP OF TABLE ON NEXI PAGE. IF CODE 5 CIRCLEO, GO TO BOX 36 BELOW. )

52

*US. GOVERNMENT PRJNTINQOPPICE 198 & 492- 33 j 4001
Vital and Health Statistics

series descriptions

I

I

SERIES 1,

SERIES 2,

I SERIES 3.

1

,,

SERIES 4.

SERIES 5.

SERIES 10

SERIES 11.

SERIES 12

SERIES 13

Programs and Collection Procedures—Reports describing

the general programs of the National Center for Health

Statistics and Its offices and dwlsions and the data collection methods used, They also include definitions and

other material necessary for understanding the data.

Data Evaluation and Methods Raseerch—Studies of new

statistical methodology includlng experimental tests of

new survey methods, studtes of vital statistics collection

methods, new analytical techniques, ob}ectwe evaluations

of reliability of collected data, and contributions to

statlst!cal theory, Studies also include comparison of

U.S. methodology with those of other countries.

Analytical and Epidemiological Studias— Reports presenting analytical or interpretwe stud!es based on vital

and health statistics, carrying the analysis further than

the expository types of reports in the other series.

Documents and Committaa Rapotis-Final reports of

major committees concerned with vital and health statistics and documents such as recommended model vital

registration laws and revised blrlh and death certificates.

Comperativa International Vital and Health Statistics

Reports-Analytical and descriptive reports comparing

U.S. vital and health statistics with those of other countries.

Data From tha National Health Intarview Survay-Statlstics on Illness, accidental injuries, disablltty, use of hospital, medical, dental, and other services, and other

health-related topics, all based on data collected in the

continuing nattonal household lntervtew survey,

Data From tha National Health Examination Survay and

the National Haalth and Nutrition Examination Survey—

Data from direct examination, testing, and measurement

of national samples of the clviltan nonlnstitutlona lized

population provide the basis for (1) estimates of the

medically defined prevalence of specific diseases In the

United States and the distributions of the population

w!th respect to phys{cal, physiological, and psychological characteristics and (2) analysis of relationships

among the various measurements without reference to

an expliclt flnlte universe of persons,

Data From the Institutionalized Population Survays— DIscontlnued in 1975. Repons from these surveys are included In Series 13.

Data on Health Resourcaa Utilization—Statlstlcs on the

utilization of health manpower and factlitles providing

long-term care, ambulato~ care, hospital care, and family

plannlng services.

SERIES 14.

SERIES 15.

SERIES 20.

SE RI ES 21.

SERIES 22.

SERIES 23.

Data on Haalth Rasourcas: Menpowar and Facilitias—

Stattstlcs on the numbers, geographic distribution, and

characteristics of health resources Includlng physicians,

dentwts, nurses, other health occupations, hosp!tals,

nursing homes, and outpatient facilities,

Data From Special Surveys-Statistics on health and

health-related toptcs collected in special surveys that

are not a part of the contlnu!ng data systems of the

Nat+onal Center for Health Statistics.

Data on Mortality-Various statistics on mortallty other

than as Included In regular annual or monthly reports.

Special analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic var!ables; geographic and time series analyses;

and statistics on characteristics of deaths not available

from the vital records based on sample surveys of those

records.

Data on Natality, Marriege, and Divorca—Various stat!stlcs on natalny, marriage, and divorce other than as

included in regular annual or monthly reports. Special

analyses by demographic variables; geographic and time

series analyses; studies of fertlllty; and statistics on

characteristics of births not available from the vttal

records based on sample surveys of those records.

Data From the National Mortality and Natality Survays—

Dlscont!nued In 1975. Reports from these sample surveys

based on vital records are Included In Series 20 and 21,

respectively,

Data From tha National Survey of Family Growth—

Statlstlcs on ferttllty, family formation and dlssolutlon,

family plannlng, and related maternal and infant health

top!cs derived from a perlodlc survey of a nationwide

probabilny sample of women 1 5–44 years of age.

For answers to questions about this reporl or for a Icst of titles of

reports publlshed In these series, contact:

Sclentlfic and Technical Information Branch

Nat!onal Center for Health Statistics

Publlc Health Servtce

Hyattsvtlle, Md. 207B2

301 –436-8500
— -—.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANO

HUMAN SERVICES

Publlc Health Service

National Center for Health Statlstlcs

3700 East-West Htghway

Hyattsvllle, Maryland 20782

I

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

I

I

I

t

THIRD CLASS MAIL

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

I

PHS/NCHS

PERMIT No. G–281 !

L-DHHSPubllcatlon No. (PHS)86–l 988, Series 23, No 12