Trends in Contraceptive Practice: 

United States, 1965-76 

Statistics based on data collected in 1965, 

1973, and 1976 are presented on the use of 

contraception by currently married women 

15-44 years of age. Data are shown for women 

who used contraception by the methods of 

contraception used according to race, age, 

education, religion, and other socioeconomic 

characteristics. 

Data From the National Survey of 

Family Growth, Series 23, No. 10 

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 82-1986 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services 

Public Health Service 

Office of Health Research, Statistics, and 

Technology 

National Center for Health Statistics 

Hyattsville, Md. 

February 1982 
Librasy of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Mosher, William D.

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

(Vital and health statistics. Series 23, Data from the national survey of family growth ; no. 10) (DHHS publication ; no. (PHS) 82-1986}

Includes bibliographical references.

* Supt. of DOCS. 110. : HE 20.6209:23/10

,. 1. Birth control–United States–Statistics. 2. Contraception–

United States–Statistics. 1. Westoff, Charles F. II. Title. I I 1. Series.

IV. Series: DHHS publication ; no. (PHS) 82-1966. [DN LM: 1. Contreception-Trends. 2. Family planning–Trends–United States.

W2A N148vw no. 10]

HQ766.5.U5M69 613.9’4’0973 81-607748

ISBN 0a406~243-X AACR2
National Center for Health Statistics

DOROTHY P. RICE, Director

ROBERT A. ISRAEL, Deputy Director

JACOB J. FELDMAN, Ph.D., Associate Director for Analysis

and Epidemiology

GAIL F. FISHER, Ph.D., Associate Director for the

Cooperative Health Statistics System

GARRIE J. LOSEE, Associate Director for Data Processing

and Services

ALVAN O. ZARATE, Ph.D., Assistant Director for

International Statistics

E. EARL BRYANT, Associate Director for Interview and

Examination Statistics

ROBERT C. HUBER, Associate Dkector for Management

MONROE G. SIRKEN, Ph.D., Associate Director for Research

and Methodology

PETER L. HURLEY, Associate Director for Vital and Health

CareStatistics

ALICE HAYWOOD, Information Officer

Divisionof VitaIStatistics

JOHN E. PATTERSON, Director

ALICE M. HETZEL, Deputy Director

WILLIAM F. PRATT, Ph.D., Chie~ Family Growth Survey

Branch

MABEL G. SMITH, Chie$ Statistical Resources Branch

JOSEPH D. FARRELL, ChieL Computer Applications Staff
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

Summary of principal findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Contraceptive status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Contraceptors ’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Sources ofdataand methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Comparisonswith otherdata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Use ornonuse ofcontraception (contraceptive status) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Contraceptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Pregnant, postpartum, seekingpregnancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Noncontraceptively sterile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Other nonusers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Differentials in contraceptive status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Trends in useofcontraceptive methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II

Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II

Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Married teenagers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Years since first marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Parity and intentto havemorechildren. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Listofdetailed tabies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Appendixes

Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

1. Technical notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Il. Definitions ofterms intheNational Survey of Family Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

lll..Selected sections ofthe currently married women questionnaire of the National Survey of Family Grovvth . . . . . . . . . 46

List of text figures

1. Percent of currently married women 15-44 years of age using contraception, by race: United States, 1965, 1973, and

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2. Percent of currently married white women 15-44 years of age using contraception, by religion: United States, 1965,

1973, and 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

...

Ill
3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Percent of currently married contraceptors 15-29 years of age using the oral contraceptive pill, by race: United States,

1965, 1973, and 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Percent of currently married contraceptors with wife 30-44years ofageusing male sterilization, by race: United States,

1965,1973,and 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Percent of currently married white contraceptors 15-44 years of age using the rhythm method, by religion: United

States, 1965, 1973,and 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Percent of currently married white contraceptors 15-44 years of ageusing the oral contraceptive pill, by religion: United

States, 1965,1973,and 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Percent of currently married contraceptors 15-44 years of age using female sterilization, by education: United Slates,

1965and 1976 . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

List of text tables

A. Percent distribution of currently married women 15-44 years of age by contraceptive status and method, according to

age: United States, 1965,1973, and 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

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 roundedto

thousands

*

Figure does not meet standards of

reliability or precision

# Figure suppressed to comply with

confidentiality requirements
Trends in Contraceptive

Practice

by William D, Mosher, Ph.D., Division of Vital Statistics,

National Center for Health Statistics, and Charles F. Westoff,

Ph.D., Office of Population Research, Princeton University

Introduction

The National Survey of Family Growth, a periodic survey conducted by the National Center for

Health Statistics, provides information on fertility,

family planning, and aspects of maternal and child

health that are closely related to childbearing. The

National Survey of Family Growth is based on personal interviews with a multistage area probability

sample of women 15-44 years of age in the household population of the conterminous United States.

Approximately 9,800 women were interviewed in

1973 and approximately 8,600 in 1976. The 1965

National Fertility Study, a predecessor of the National Survey of Family Growth, was conducted by

the office of Population Research of Princeton Universit y and was similar in design and coverage.

This report presents statistics from these surveys

on the contraceptive practice of currently married

women 15-44 years of age in the United States in

1965, 1973, and 1976 according to various socioeconomic characteristics. The changes in contraceptive

practices described in this report were so large and so

important in explaining trends in the birth rate that

they have been labeled elsewhere as a “contraceptive

revolution” and as the “modernization” of contraceptive practice.1’s
Summary of principal findings

This report is based on interviews with three nationally representative samples of currently married

women 1544 years of age: the 1965 National Fertility Study and the 1973 and 1976 National Surveys

of Family Growth. Findings are presented in two sections: (1) use of contraception (contraceptive status),

and (2) couples using contraception (contraceptors)

according to the method used.

Contraceptive status

Changes in contraceptive status during 1965-76

were small compared with the changes in methods

used among contraceptors. The percent of couples

using contraception at the date of interview increased

from 63 percent in 1965 to 68 percent in 1976. Increases occurred for most groups of women shown in

this report, although the changes in some groups were

not statistically significant.

In all three survey years, black wives were less

likely than white wives to have been using contraception (figure 1). In 1965, 56 percent of black wives

and 64 percent of white wives were using contraception. In 1976, these figures were 59 and 69 percent.

In 1965, white Catholic couples were less likely

to be using contraception than white Protestant couples (57 percent compared with 67 percent, figure 2).

By 1976, however, this difference virtually had disappeared and was not statistically significant (68 percent compared with 69 percent).

Contraceptors

During 1965-73 an increasing proportion of couples using contraception adopted methods that did

not exist or rarely were used before 1960: the oral

contraceptive pill, the intrauterine device, and male

or female contraceptive sterilization.

From 1973 to 1976, however, this trend did not

continue. The percent of contraceptors using the pill

decreased slightly, and the percent using the IUD remained about the same. Contraceptive sterilization

increased substantially among white Protestant couples, while use of methods other than the pill, IUD,

and sterilization increased among black couples.

In 1965, the pill and condom each were used by

approximately one in four couples using contraception. The pill was the leading method among wives

15-29 years of age in 1965 (41 percent); while the

condom was the leading method among contmceptors

30-44 years of age in 1965 (24 percent). By 1973 and

1976, however, the pill was used by more than half of

contraceptors 15-29 years of age, and sterilization became the leading method among contraceptors 30-44

years of age. The proportion of contraceptors 30-44

years of age using the condom declined to 12 percent

by 1976.

The increase in the percent of contraceptors using

the pill from 1965 to 1973 and the decrease from

1973 to 1976 were especially marked among younger

black wives (15-29 years of age; figure 3). The percent of the younger black contraceptors using the pill

doubled, from 31 percent in 1965 to 64 percent in

1973, which some observers have suggested may be

attributed to the impact of organized family planning

programs. The data suggest, however, that the percent

of younger black contraceptors using the pill decreased to 56 percent in 1976.

By 1973, the pill dominated contraceptive practice among married women 15-29 years of age (especially among married teenagers), women married

fewer than 5 years, and women who intended to have

more births.

Use of the pill increased from 1965 to 1973 but

decreased from 1973 to 1976. In contrast, contraceptive sterilization continued to increase rapidly

through 1976, making it the leading method of contraception among couples 3044 years of age, couples

married 15 years or more, and couples who did not

intend to have more children.

Among white contraceptors, sterilization was

about evenly divided between male and female operations. But among black contraceptors, male sterilization was relatively rare. In all three survey years, white

2
contraceptors were much more likely than black contraceptors to use male sterilization. By 1976,21 percent of white contraceptors and 5 percent of black

contraceptors 30-44 years of age were using male

sterilization (figure 4). The figures were similar by

intent to have more children for couples 15-44 years

of age–22 percent of white contraceptors and only 5

percent of black contraceptors who intended no more

births were using male sterilization in 1976. This difference in male sterilization was the primary reason

for race differences in methods used in 1976, because

no significant differences were found by race in 1976

among couples who did intend to have more children.

Religion continued to be an important characteristic differentiating the contraceptive practice of

white couples; although Catholic and Protestant differences in use of rhythm and the pill decreased, the

difference in sterilization increased. In 1965, rhythm

was the leading method among Catholic contraceptors, but from 1965 to 1973, use of rhythm declined

sharply, from approximately 1 in 3 to less than 1 in

10 contraceptors (figure 5). By 1976, the leading

method among Catholic couples was the pill, and differences between Protestant and Catholic couples in

the percent using the pill had disappeared (figure 6).

On the other hand, in 1965 and 1973, Catholic

contraceptors were less likely to use sterilization than

Protestant couples and, between 1973 and 1976, this

difference increased to 13 percentage points (20

percent of Catholic contraceptors, compared with 33

percent of Protestant contraceptors). The increase in

sterilization among white couples from 1973 through

1976 appears to have occurred primarily among

Protestant couples.

Use of female sterilization increased markedly

from 1965 to 1976 (figure 7). This increase was largest among contraceptors with less than a high school

education (12 percent to 25 percent) and smallest

among contraceptors with more than a high school

education (5 to 9 percent).

The following sections describe the background

and methodology of the three surveys and trends and

differences in the use of contraception (contraceptive

status). The main body of the text describes trends in

use of the pill, IUD, sterilization, and other methods,

according to age, race, number of years since first

marriage, parity (number of children ever born) and

intent to have more children, religion, and education.

Within each section, trends and differentials are described. Appendix I contains technical details about

the surveys; appendix II provides definitions of terms;

and appendix 111is a reprint of selected questions on

contraceptive use from the 1976 National Survey of

Family Growth.

3
Sources of data and

methodology

The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) is

based on personal interviews with a multistage area

probability sample of women 1544 years of age in

the household population of the conterminous

United States. Women were eligible for inclusion in

the sample if they were currently married, previously

married, or never married but had offspring living in

the household. Cycle I of the NSFG was based on interviews with 9,797 women 154.4 years of age, of

whom 7,566 were currently married. The interviews

for Cycle I were conducted between July 1973 and

February 1974. Cycle II of the NSFG was based on

interviews with 8,611 women 15-44 years of age, of

whom 6,482 were currently married. The interviews

were conducted from January to September 1976.

The 1965 National Fertility Study (NFS)4 was

designed to continue a series of surveys of American

women5 ZGthat collected a pregnancy history from

each woman, her past and expected births, past and

current contraceptive practice, and fecundity impairments, by various social and economic characteristics,

including some not available from other sources. The

1965 NFS was conducted by Norman B. Ryder and

Charles F. Westoff of Princeton University under contract with the Center for Population Research of the

National Institute for Child Health and Human Development.

The 1965 NFS was based on personal interviews

with a nationally representative area probability

sample of 5,617 currently married women 15-55

years of age living in the conterminous United States.

Fieldwork for the NFS was conducted in late 1965

and centered on mid-November; 4,810 of the women

interviewed were currently married and 15-44 years

of age.

This report is based on the samples of currently

married women 1544 years of age in the three surveys. All three surveys sampled black women at a

higher rate than other women to provide separate, reliable statistics for this group.

Percents in this report are estimates for the national population that the surveys were designed to

represent. In the NSFG, the “weight” for each respondent is the product of three factors:7 ~8 (1) the

reciprocal of the probabilityy of selection; (2) adjustment for nonresponse to the screener and interview;

and (3) poststratification to independent population

estimates by age and race, based on the Current Population Survey conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the

Census. In the 1965 NFS, black women 15-44 years

of age were given a weight of 0.363, and other

women 15-44 were given a weight of 1.OI.These

weights compensate for the sampling of black wives

at a higher rate than other wives and match the population of currently married women 15-44 from the

Current Population Survey. This procedure corresponds approximately to steps (1) and (3) above but

has some differences. Because no adjustment was

made for nonresponse in the NFS, estimates of aggregate numbers (for example, the number of women

using the pill) from the NFS and NSFG are not

strictly comparable. Because the NFS was not designed to estimate weighted numbers in the same way

as the NSFG, aggregate numbers from the 1965 NFS

are not shown in this report. The weighted percents

in the NFS and the NSFG, however, are sufficiently

comparable to study the principal trends from 1965

to 1976.

Because the estimates in this report are based on

samples of the population rather than on the entire

population in each of the years, they are subject to

sampling variability. Furthermore, because each is a

complex sample rather than a simple random sample,

conventional formulas for estimating the standard errors of the statistics are not applicable. Tables and

formulas showing estimates of standard errors for the

1965 NFS and the 1976 NSFG are included in appendix I of this report. Tables of standard errors for the

1973 NSFG were published in several reports in

Series 23.9-12 The base numbers needed to determine

the standard errors from these tables and formulas are

shown in this report. The base numbers appear in

4
table 1 for 1976, table 2 for 1973, and table 3 for

1965.

Further discussion of the survey designs and

deftitions of terms are in the appendixes of this report, in the detailed reports on the design of the

NSFG~~8 and in the full report of the 1965 NFS.A

In this report, the term “similar” means that an

observed difference between two estimates 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 level, using a two-tailed t-test with 40 degrees

of freedom. Statements of differences that are qualified by using the phrase “the data suggest” indicate

that the difference is significant at the 10-percent

level but not at the 5-percent level.

Characteristics reported such as age, race, years

since first marriage, parity, intent to have a birth, religion, and education refer to women interviewed. The

term “couples” also refers only to wives; for example,

the expression “black couples” refers to couples with

black wives, and “couples 3044 years of age” refers

to couples with wives 30z14 years of age, regardless of

the race or age of husbands in those couples.

The methods of contraception generally used before 1960–the diaphragm, condom, foam, rhythm,

withdrawal, douche, and other–are referred to in this

report as “traditional methods.” Methods of contraception not available or rarely used before 1960–the

pill, IUD, and sterilization-are referred to as “modern methods.” Research based on the NFS and the “

NSFG has shown that the modern methods have

lower probabilities of failure in use than the traditional methods.13-16

The three surveys were designed to represent approximately the same population, and the interview

schedules covered the same basic topics. There were

some differences in the sampling procedures and interview schedules, however, that may have affected

comparisons in some cases; these instances are discussed in this report. (The complete questionnaires

for currently married women in Cycles I and II of the

NSFG were published in another NCHS report ;lT the

complete questionnaire used in the 1965 NFS was

published in the full report of that study.4 )

To maximize comparability, the procedures used

in classi~ing the current contraceptive status of

women in the NSFG were used on the data from the

NFS as well. These procedures are described in

appendix 11.

.

5
Comparisons with other data

Because the NFS data used for this report were

tabulated according to the procedures used in the

NSFG, the data for 1965 published in this report may

differ slightly from data published in previous papers

based on the NFS.2’4 In no case are the differences

substantively important.

The results reported for 1973 are based on final,

revised data and are comparable to the data for 1973

published in other Cycle I reports.lO~l 8~lg Both differ slightly from the preliminary data for 1973 in an

earlier article.3 None of these differences are substantively important.

The data in this report for Cycle II of the NSFG

(1976) are final, revised data. They supersede the preliminary data for Cycle 11 published in several

preliminary reports ;zo-z z the differences generally

are very small.

Data in this report may differ substantially from

the data based on the 1975 National Fertility

Study ~3~2’1which was a longitudinal study of white

women married fewer than 25 years in intact first

marriages begun before the women were 25 years of

age. The 1975 NFS data are not comparable to the

data in this report because (1) the coverage of the

samples were different in many respects, (2) the data

in NFS reports23724 were standardized, and (3) the

NFS data refers to 1975 rather than 1976.
Use or nonuse of

contraception (contraceptive

status)

Compared with the changes in the distributions of

methods used by contraceptors discussed in later sections, the changes from 1965 to 1976 in contraceptive status generally were small (table 4). Many

changes from 1965 to 1976 were not statistically significant and, in some cases, when they were significant, they may be attributed to the differences in the

questionnaires and procedures used in the three surveys. Some of these differences are discussed in detail

in appendix II of this report, especially in the definitions of surgical and nonsurgical sterility.

Contraceptive status (tables 4-6) is a characteristic of couples that was measured at, the approximate date of the interview and contains four principal

categories: (1) using contraception (contraceptors);

(2) not using contraception because the woman was

pregnant, post partum, or trying to become pregnant;

(3) not using contraception because of sterility

(noncontraceptively sterile); and (4) not using contraception for other reasons (other nonusers). The latter

category includes reasons for nonuse of contraception

such as religious or personal objections to contraception, low risk of pregnancy because of difficulty

conceiving, and indifference to the risk of pregnancy.

Among younger women (15-29 years of age), most

wives not using contraception were pregnant, post

partum, or seeking pregnancy; among women 30-44

years of age, most noncontraceptors were noncontraceptively sterile or other nonusers.

The percent of couples using a method of contraception at the date of the interview (68 percent) was

smaller than the percent who regularly used a

method; both were smaller than the percent who ever

used a method. The 13 percent of women who were

pregnant at the date of interview, were seeking

pregnancy, or had just completed a pregnancy (post

partum) included many who had used contraception

and many who would return to the practice. These

women, with those who were noncontraceptively

sterile (11 percent in 1976), were not at risk of an

unplanned pregnancy. Therefore, the percent of

women at risk (contraceptors plus other nonusers)

who were using contraception (contraceptors) was

67.7 divided by (67.7+ 7.6) or 89.9 percent in 1976.

In this report, the contraceptive method used at

the approximate date of the interview is used as an

indicator of the couple’s usual method of contraception, in part because the current method may be

defined more clearly and, therefore, is understood

easily by the respondent and interviewer. Because

most couples at risk of an unplanned pregnancy usually use contraception, the pattern of method preference is shown using contraceptors as the base.

The percent of couples in a given group using a

particular method, such as the pill, is affected by two

factors: (1) the percent of that group using a contraceptive method, and (2) the popularity of that

method among couples using contraception. To describe differences among social, racial, and age groups

in the proportion using any method, tables 4-6 show

categories of contraceptive status. To describe differences in method popularity, tables 7-14 show percents of couples using particukir methods, the base of

which is limited to couples using contraception. b

Although it is difficult to predict whether the

percent of currently married women 15+4 years of

age who were using contraception (68 percent in

1976) will increase or decrease in future years, it is

possible to suggest the probable limits on those

changes. These depend on factors such as the proportions of wives pregnant and seeking pregnancy and

the prevalence of noncontraceptive sterility and subfecundity. Comparisons with data from other Western

industrial nations suggest that the percent of wives

1544 years of age using contraception at the date of

interview is unlikely to exceed approximately 80

percent.25

Contraceptors

Table 4 contains data on the contraceptive status

of currently married women of all races in 1965,

7
1973, and 1976. The percent of couples 1544 years

of age using contraception increased from 63 percent

in 1965 to 70 percent in 1973, and decreased (nonsignificantly) to 68 percent in 1976. The decrease between 1973 and 1976 may be attributed at least in

part to changes in the survey procedures with regard

to surgical sterilization, as discussed in appendix II; it

probably does not represent a real decrease in the

percent of couples using contraception.

Overall, the percent of women using contraception increased from 63 percent in 1965 to 68 percent

in 1976. Although many differences were too small

to be statistically significant, the percent using contraception increased during 1965-76 in every catego~

but one shown in table 4, and the lone exception was

not statistically significant. Increases tended to be

larger among younger women than among older

women (from 55 to 69 percent among married teenagers, but only from 63 to 67 percent among women

30-44 years of age). Similarly. there was a larger increase among women married fewer than 5 years than

those married longer, and a larger increase among

women who intended to have more children than

among those who did not intend to have more

children.

Table A shows the percent distribution of all currently married women 15-44 years of age by contraceptive status and method. Four principal points are

evident. First, despite the increase in use of the pill

and the IUD, the percent of wives 15-44 years of age

using nonsurgical methods of contraception at the

date of interview declined from 1965 to 1976 from

55 to 49 percent. This decline occurred, however,

only among wives 30-44 years of age; the percent of

wives 30-44 years of age using nonsurgical methods

declined from 53 percent in 1965 to 40 percent in

1976. There was no significant change among wives

15-29 years of age. Second, the percent using

contraceptive sterilization rose from 8 percent in

1965 to almost 19 percent in 1976. This change also

was confined primarily to couples 30-44 years of age,

among whom the percent contraceptively sterile rose

from 10 to 27 percent during 1965-76. Third, the

percent using the pill increased from 15 pexcent in

1965 to 25 percent in 1973 but then declined slightly

to 23 percent in 1976. This trend occurred in both

age groups, but the increase in 1973 was more

pronounced among wives 15-29 years of age. Fourth,

the percent using traditional methods declined dramatically from 1965 to 1976, from 40 to 20 percent.

This decline differed little by age. Tables 7-14 in this

report show the rise of contraceptive sterilization, the

increase in use of the pill, and the decline in

traditional methods, but they do not explicitly reveal

that the percent of all couples using any nonsurgical

method declined during this period of time. This

topic is explored in more detail by Pratt et al.~G

In tables 7-14, contraceptors are classified by the

specific contraceptive methods they were using. The

base of the percents in tables 7-14 is not all currently

married couples; the base is the number of couples

using contraception.

Pregnant, post partum, seeking pregnancy

From 1965 to 1976, overall birth rates declined

in the United States.27 As might be expected when

birth rates decline, the data suggest that the percent

Table A. Percent distribution of currentl y married women 15-44 years of age by contraceptive status and method, according to age: United States,

1965, 1973, and 1976

Age

Contraceptive status and method 15-44 years 15-29 years 30-44 years

1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965

All women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contraceptors

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

Sterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nonsurgical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oral contraceptive . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intrauterine device . . . . . . . . .

Traditional methods . . . . . . .

Noncontraceptors

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

Pregnant, post partum, or seeking pregnancy

Noncontraceptively sterile . . . . .

Other nonusers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent distribution

. . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.7 69.6 63.2 68.9 70.2 63.1 66.7 69.1 63.3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.6 16.4 7.8 8.1 7.9 *3.9 27.2 23.4 10.4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.2 53.2 55.4 60.8 62.3 59.2 39.5 45.7 52.9

. . . . . . . . . . . . 22.5 25.1 15.1 35.1 37.6 26.1 12.0 14.8 8.0

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 6.7 *0.8 7.2 8.4 *1.1 5.6 5.2 ‘0.5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.4 21.4 39.5 18.4 16.2 32.0 21.9 25.7 44.3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.3 30.4 36.7 31.1 29.8 36.9 33.3 30.9 36.7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 14.3 15.4 22.2 23.0 27.2 5.8 7.0 7.8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 7.5 11.6 3.3 1.3 3.3 18.2 12.6 17.0

. . . . . . . . . . . ., 7.6 8.7 9.7 5.6 5.5 6.4 9.3 11.3 11.9

NOTE: Statistics are based on samples of tha household population of the conterminous United States. See appendixes I and II for descriptions of the

sample design Of each survey, estimates of sampling variability, and definitions of terms.

8
of married women who were pregnant, post partum,

or seeking pregnancy at the date of interview declined, from 15 to 13 percent. The decline was

greater among women 15-29 years of age than among

women 30-44 years of age and greater among women

married fewer than 5 years than among those married

longer.

Noncontraceptively sterile

The decrease in the percent of couples noncontraceptively sterile, from 12 percent in 1965 to 8 percent in 1973, was probably the result of trends in

contraceptive use. One reason for this decrease was

the increase in the proportion of couples using contraception during 1965-73. In 1973, couples probably were less likely to discover noncontraceptive sterility than in 1965 because of the trend by 1973 of

increased and earlier use of contraception. This point

also holds for contraceptive sterilization, which more

than doubled from 1965 to 1973 among couples

30-44-couples sterilized for contraceptive reasons,

for example, at age 32, cannot discover noncontraceptive sterility that would have appeared several

yews later. The apparent increase in the percent of

couples noncontraceptively sterile from 8 percent in

1973 to 11 percent in 1976 probablj reflects(1) the

change in the wording of the question on the contraceptive intent of sterilization between 1973 and

1976 (see appendix II), and (2) the addition of some

followup questions on the 1976 survey concerning

difficulties in conceiving. In short, it is not possible to

conclude from these data whether there was a substantial upward trend in noncontraceptive sterility

during this period. The data on noncontraceptive

sterility are useful, however, to examine differences

between groups (differentials) in particular years.

These differentials are discussed in the section titled

“Differentials in contraceptive status.”

Other nonusers

This category comprises women who were not

using contraception and were not sterile, pregnant,

post partum, or seeking pregnancy and, therefore,

were at risk of an unplanned pregnancy at the date of

interview. Approximately 10 percent of women were

classified as other nonusers in 1965, compared with

approximately 8 percent in 1976. Most declines from

1965 to 1976 in the percent of women who were

other nonusers were not statistically significant.

Differentials in contraceptive status

In all 3 survey years, the percents of women using

contraception were not significantly different by age

(table 4). In 1973 and 1976, for example, younger

wives (15-29 years of age) were more likely to be

pregnant, post partum, or seeking pregnancy than

those 30-44 years of age and less likely to be other

nonusers. In both years, the percent pregnant, post

partum, or seeking pregnancy declined, and noncontraceptive sterility increased as the number of years

since f~st marriage increased. In 1976, women who

intended to have more children were much more

likely to be pregnant, post partum, or seeking pregnancy, less likely to be sterile, and less likely to be

other nonusers than women who did not intend to

have more children. Women with a high school education were more likely in 1976 to use contraception

and less likely to be noncontraceptively sterile or

other nonusers than those with less than a high

school education.

Tables 5 and 6 contain data orI the contraceptive

status of white women and black women. In all 3 survey years, black wives were much less likely than

white wives to be using contraception and more likely

to be other nonusers. In 1965, 56 percent of black

and 64 percent of white wives were contraceptors, an

8 percentage point difference (figure 1). In 1965,

black wives were less likely to use contraception than

white wives among those 30-44 years of age, those

married 15 years or more, and those who did not intend to have more children. The differences in 1965

80 —

70

60 –

50

40 –

30 –

20

10

0 .

64

r

1965 1973

m##$!& Black

~ White

1976

Figure 1. Percent of currently married women 1544 years of age using

COntraC4?ptiOt?, by race: United States, 1965, 1973, and 1976

9
were much smaller and not statistically significant

among wives 15-29, those married fewer than 5 years,

and those intending to have more children.

In 1973, black women were more likely than

white women to be other nonusers in both age

groups, in each category of years since the wife’s first

marriage, and at each educational level. In 1976, the

differences usually were smaller and many were not

significant. Also in 1976, no significant difference by

race was found in the percent of women who were

other nonusers among women who intended to have

more children.

In 1976, 16 percent of black wives were pregnant,

post partum, or seeking pregnancy, compared with 13

percent of white wives. In all 3 survey years, however,

there were few other statistically significant differences between white and black women in the percent

of wives who were pregnant, post partum, or seeking

pregnancy or noncontraceptively sterile.

White wives are shown by religion in table 5.

White Catholic wives were less likely than white Protestant wives to be using contraception in 1965 (57

percent compared with 67 percent). (See also ilgure 2.) From 1965 to 1976, however, the percent of

Catholic women -using contraception increased 11

percentage points and, by 1976, the religious difference was not statistically significant-69 percent of

Protestant and 68 percent of Catholic wives were

using contraception in 1976. The increase in the percent of Catholic wives using contraception coincided

with an 8 percent decrease in the percent who were

pregnant, post partum, or seeking pregnancy, from

21 percent in 1965 to 13 percent in 1976.

80

70 [

1965 1973

Czi ~~ Catholic

n

Protestant

72.1

........

::::::::::::::::

+:+:+:+:

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

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

::::::::::::::::

+:.:+x% >~.:.fi,:.

:::~:::

::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::

:::~.~

::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::

:::-.::::::

:jj~:;

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

f::y.y::>

1976

Figure 2. Percent of currently married whita women 15-44 yaars of

age using contraception, by religion: United States, 1965, 1973,

and 1976

10
Trends in use of contraceptive

methods

The increase in the percent of couples using the

pill, the IUD, and sterilization from 1965 to 1973

has been characterized as a “contraceptive revolution” and as the “modernization” of contraceptive

practice.1’s But the changes duning 1973-76 differed

from earlier changes and, among some groups, represent less protection horn unplanned pregnancy than

in 1973.1s’1s The demographic effects of these

trends depend primarily upon whether they continued after 1976.

Table 7 shows the percent distributions of currently married couples using contraception in 1965,

1973, and 1976. This section presents a proffle of use

in 1965 and 1976 and discusses trends in individual

methods, focusing on differences and trends by age of

the wife.

Age

In 1965, the leading methods of contraception

were the pill (24 percent of contraceptors) and condom, with 22 percent (table 7). By 1976, the pill accounted for 33 percent of contraceptors, but sterilization was the next most common method with 27

percent.

Among younger couples (15-29 years of age), the

pill was the leading method in 1965 (41 percent), followed by the condom (19 percent). By 1976, the pill

was still the most popular, used by 51 percent of

younger contraceptors; it was followed by sterilization, used by 12 percent.

Among wives 30-44 years of age in 1965, the

condom was the leading method, used by 24 percent

of contraceptors; sterilization was used by 16 percent. By 1976, however, sterilization was the leading

method in this age group, accounting for 41 percent

of contraceptors. The pill was used by 18 percent of

contraceptors 30-44 years of age in 1976.

Oral contraceptive pill. –In 1965, only five years

after its introduction in the United States, the pill

was the leading method of contraception, accounting

for 24 percent of contraceptive use (table 7). Use of

the pill increased substantially by 1973, accounting

for 36 percent of contraceptors. By 1976, however,

use of the pill had decreased slightly but significantly,

to 33 percent of contraceptors. A recent study found

that pill discontinuation rates increased between

1967 and 1975, especially since 1972. The most

common reasons given for pill discontinuation were

related to “problems of use”; most of these were

physical and medicaL28

The percent of contraceptors using the pill differed sharply by age. In 1976, for example, 51 percent of contraceptors 15-29 years of age were using

the pill, compared with 18 percent of contraceptors

30-44 years of age. In all 3 survey years, the pill was

the leading method of contraception among younger

wives (15-29 years of age) and, in 1973 and 1976, it

was used by more than half of the wives 15-29.

Sterilization. –Unlike the trend in pill use, which

peaked in 1973 and decreased by 1976, use of contraceptive sterilization increased sharply throughout

1965-76. Sterilization (male or female) increased

from 12 percent of contraceptors in 1965 to 24 percent in 1973 and 27 percent in 1976.

These increases were evident particularly among

couples 3044 years of age–from 16 percent of contraceptors in 1965 to 41 percent in 1976. Sterilization was the leading method among couples 30-44

years of age in 1976.

Intrauterine device. –Like the pill, use of the IUD

appears to have peaked around 1973. In that year,

the IUD accounted for approximately 10 percent of

contraceptors. There was no significant change from

1973 to 1976, overall or in either age group. Like the

pill, the IUD has been alleged to pose health risks for

some women,29 .30 and this may account for the absence of an increase in use of the IUD during 1973-76.

Other methods. –The percent of married contraceptors using traditional methods declined markedly

from 1965 to 1973, from 63 to 31 percent. This

dramatic decrease, observed in both age groups, did

11
not continue from 1973 to 1976. Among contraceptors 15-29 years of age, the percent using traditional

methods increased from 23 to 27 percent. In contrast, the percent of contraceptors 30-44 years of age

using traditional methods declined from 1973 to

1976, perhaps because of the rapid increase in contraceptive sterilization among this group.

The condom was the second leading method in

1965, with 22 percent of use. The percent of contraceptors using the condom decreased to 11 percent in

1976, and this trend was not sharply different by age.

Race

Tables 8 and 9 contain data for white couples and

black couples using contraception in 1965, 1973, and

1976. This section presents a profile of contraceptive

use within each age group by race in 1965 and compares the trends and differences as of 1973 and 1976.

In 1965, the leading methods of contraception

among white couples (table 8) were the pill, used by

24 percent of contraceptors, and the condom, used

by 22 percent. Rhythm, the diaphragm, and sterilization also were used by at least 10 percent of white

contraceptors.

In 1965, “the pill was the leading method among

black couples, accounting for 22 percent of contraceptors (table 9). The other methods used by at least

10 percent of black contraceptors were the condom

(17 percent), douche (16 percent), and female sterilization (15 percent).

The pill dominated contraceptive practice of

white wives 15-29 years of age in 1965, when 42 percent of the younger white contraceptors used it. The

condom, used by 19 percent, was the only other

method that was used by more than 10 percent of

contraceptors in that age group.

Among younger black contraceptors ( 15-29 years

of age) in 1965, the most popular methods were the

pill (31 percent), condom (19 percent), and douche

(14 percent).

Among white couples 30-44 years of age in 1965,

contraceptive practices were much more diverse than

among couples 15-29 years of age. The condom, used

by 24 percent of contraceptors, was the leading

method, but sterilization, rhythm, the pill, and diaphragm each were used by at least 10 percent of couples 30-44 years of age (table 8).

The leading methods used by black contraceptors

30-44 years of age in 1965 were female sterilization

(23 percent), douche (19 percent), condom (16 percent), and the pill (12 percent).

In 1965, the percents of white couples and black

couples using the pill, the IUD, or sterilization did

not differ significantly. By 1973, however, black contraceptors were more likely than white contraceptors

to use the pill (44 percent compared with 36 percent), the IUD (13 compared with 9 percent), and

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

D~~~ Black .. ..... .

n

White

1965 1973 1976

Fiaure 3. percent of currantlv married contracetXors 15-29 vears of

age using the oral contraceptive pill, by race; United Statas,, 1965,

1973, and 1976

modern methods as a group (81 percent compared

with 68 percent).

Among younger wives (15-29 years of age) in

1965, 42 percent of white contraceptors were using

the pill, but only 31 percent of black contraceptors

were (figure 3). By 1973, however, this differential

reversed. The percent of the younger black women

using the pill doubled from 31 percent in 1965 to 64

percent in 1973. During the same period, the percent

of younger white contraceptors using the pill increased from 42 to 53 percent.

Popularity of male sterilization and female sterilization procedures differed sharply for white couples

and black couples. In all 3 survey years, black contraceptors were more likely than white contra~ceptors

to use female sterilization and much less likely to use

male sterilization (figure 4). Among white couples in

all 3 survey years, the percents of white contralceptors

using female sterilization and male sterilization were

not significantly different (7 and 6 percent in 1965;

14 percent each in 1976). In marked contrast, however, male contraceptive sterilization was rare among

black couples; in 1965, for example, 15 percent of

black contraceptors were using female sterilization

and only 1 percent were using male sterilization. In

12
ml “a”

25

[

c1 “’”

1965 1973 1976

Figure 4. Percent of currently married contraceptors with wife 3044

vears of age using male sterilization, by race: United States, 19S5,

i 973, and-l 976 -

1976, 19 percent of black contraceptors were using

female sterilization; only 3 percent were using male

sterilization-a ratio of more than 6 to 1.

In 1965 and 1973, these differences in sterilization by sex approximately counterbalanced each

other, so that percents of white contraceptors and

black contraceptors using sterilization (male and female) were not significantly different. In 1976, however, this was no longer true– 28 percent of white

contraceptors and 22 percent of black contraceptors

were using contraceptive sterilization.

In 1965, 16 percent of black contraceptors were

using douche as the only method of contraception,

compared with only 4 percent of white contraceptors. In 1973, 3 percent of black contraceptors were

using douche, compared with 1 percent of white contraceptors; in 1976, these figures were 5 percent and

1 percent.

From 1965 to 1973, the percent of black contraceptors 15-29 years of age using modern methods

doubled, from 43 percent to 88 percent. Some researchers suggested that these rapid changes in contraceptive practice among black wives could be attributed to organized family planning programs and,

if the trends continued, the fertility differences between white couples and black couples would narrow

considerably.31~3 2

During 1973-76, however, these trends did not

continue. Among black contraceptors, the percent

using modern methods decreased substantially, from

81 percent to 70 percent. This decrease was statistically signiilcant in both age groups but was larger

among younger black women, from 88 percent in

1973 to 74 percent in 1976. The data suggest that the

percent of younger black contraceptors using the pill

decreased from 64 to 56 percent.

Among younger black contraceptors, the percent

using traditional methods doubled from 1973 to

1976, from 13 percent to 26 percent. It has been suggested that this trend toward traditional methods accounted for a doubling of abortions to black women

from 1973 to 197633 and speculated that if abortion

were not available, unwanted births to black women

would increase.34

Married teenagers

Teenage wives (15 to 19 years of age) have been

the subject of considerable public attention and research interest because of problems associated with

teenage, marriage and childbearing.ss>sG’37 Statistics

on the contraceptive practice of teenage wives are

shown in table 10. Because of the small number of

sample cases of married teenagers in each survey,

small differences should be interpreted very

cautiously.

In 1965, 52 percent of teenage contraceptors

used oral contraceptives (table 10). By 1973, this proportion rose substantially to 77 percent, and the PW

dominated contraceptive use among teenage wives.

The apparent decrease in 1976 to 71 percent using

the pill was not statistically significant; when combined with the marked increase in the percent of

teenage wives using contraception (table 4), the percent of all teenage wives using the pill at the date of

interview showed a nonsign~lcant increase, from 44

percent in 1973 to 49 percent in 1976.

Comparison of teenage contraceptors (table 10)

with contraceptors 15-29 years of age (table 7)

showed that married teenagers were much more likely

to use the pill than were married contraceptors in

their twenties in 1973 and 1976. This dominance of

the pill among teenagers has caused concern among

some observers about the possible health risks of prolonged use of oral contraceptives,30 but it does suggest that most of these women were well-protected

against unplanned pregnancy.l 3-15

.

Years since fmt marriage

The number of years since the wife’s first marriage (table 11) is referred to in this report as “years

since fmt marriage” or as “duration.” Ages at which

13
wives in any age group were married vary; therefore,

the number of years since marriage at date of interview may also vary for wives within each age group. It

is therefore useful to compare the contraceptive practices of couples with similar durations.

The data in table 11 show that recently married

contraceptors relied on the pill throughout the study

period (1965-76). Table 11 also reveals that couples

married 15 years or more increasingly depended on

sterilization.

In 1965, 1973, and 1976, the pill was the leading

method of contraception among couples married

fewer than 5 years. The percent of these women using

the pil) increased from 48 percent in 1965 to 63 percent in 1973, but the data suggest a decrease to 59

percent in 1976. Among black women married fewer

than 5 years, both of these changes were more pronounced than among white women. In 1965, 30 percent of black contraceptors married fewer than 5

years were using the pill. By 1973, this figure more

than doubled to71 percent; by 1976, it had decreased

to 60 percent. Comparisons with white women show

that among contraceptors married fewer than 5 years,

black women in 1965 were substantially less likely

than white women to use the pill; in 1973, black contraceptors were more likely; in 1976, there was no

significant difference (table 11).

In 1976, sterilization was the leading method of

contraception among couples married 15 years or

more and was used by 47 percent of contraceptors. In

1965, however, the condom–used by 23 percent of

contraceptors married 15 years or more–was the

leading method, and sterilization was used by 19 percent.

In 1965 and 1976, the percent of contraceptors

using the pill decreased substantially as duration increased. In 1965, 48 percent of contraceptors married

fewer than 5 years were using the pill, compared with

only 11 percent of those married 15 years or more. In

1976, this range was from 59 percent of those married fewer than 5 years to 14 percent of those married 15 years or more.

In a pattern complementary to that of the pill,

the percent of contraceptors using sterilization increased sharply as duration increased, in 1965 and

1976. In 1965, only 1 percent of contraceptors married fewer than 5 years were using sterilization, compared with 19 percent of contraceptors married 15

years or more. Because of the sharp increases in sterilization in this period, however, by 1976, these figures were 3 percent of contraceptors married fewer

than 5 years and 47 percent of those married 15 years

or more.

From 1965 to 1973, the percent of contraceptors

using the pill and the percent using sterilization increased in each duration category. From 1973 to

1976, however, these patterns were not consistent.

The percent of white contraceptors using the pill

did not change significantly between 1973 and 1976

in any of the first three duration categories (less than

15 years duration). However, the percent c~fwhite

women married 15 years or more using the pill

decreased from 19 percent in 1973 to 14 percent in

1976. This decrease was related to sharp increases in

sterilization among white contraceptors married

10-14 years and 15 years or more.

Parity and intent to have more children

Table 12 contains data on contraceptors by parity

and intent to have more children. These data provide

insight into the motivations for contraceptive choice,

and reflect the obvious fact that contraceptors who

intended to have more children could not use

sterilization.

In 1965, contraceptive practice among couples

who intended no more births was diverse—the condom, the pill, and sterilization were the leading

methods, but no method accounted for more than

one in four contraceptors.

By 1976, however, sterilization was the leading

method among contraceptors who did not intend to

have more children, accounting for 43 percent. The

pill was the second leading method, used by 22 percent of contraceptors who did not intend to have

more births.

The increase in the use of the pill from 1965 to

1973 was much more pronounced among women in- <

tending to have more births (table 12). By 1973, 61

percent of contraceptors who intended to have more

births were using the pill; no other method was used

by more than 13 percent of these women in 1‘973.In

1976, the percent of contraceptors using the 13illhad

decreased to 56 percent, but the pill was still the leading method among these couples.

The differences between white contraceptors and

black contraceptors (tables 8 and 9) are explained in

part by the data by intent to have more children (table 12). Among contraceptors in 1976 who intended

to have more children, no statistically significant differences were found between white contraceptors and

black contraceptors in the percents using the pill, the

IUD, or traditional methods. This similarity was

present overall and in both parity groups. So in 1976,

the differences between white contraceptors and

black contraceptors were only among those who did

not intend to have any more births. Black women

who did not intend to have more children were more

likely than white women to use female sterilization;

the data also suggest that black women were more

likely to use the pill. However, these differences were

counterbalanced by the 17 percentage point difference in male sterilization in 1976–22 percent of

white contraceptors, but only 5 percent of black contraceptors who did not intend to have more children,

were using male sterilization.

14
The findings discussed in this section were generally similar within parity groups. The statistics for

women with three or more births who intended to

have more children should be interpreted very cautiously, however, because of the small number of

sample cases in this group.

Religion

For at least two decades, fertility surveys have

shown religion to be associated closely with family

size and contraceptive practice.4~ Table 13 is limited

to white Protestant wives and white Catholic wives

because the samples of other groups were not large

enough to permit statistically reliable analysis of

trends. .

Three developments from 1965 to 1976 are

noteworthy: (1) the decline of use of rhythm among

Catholic women (figure 5), (2) the increase in use of

the pill by both Protestant women and Catholic

women and the convergence of the two religious

groups in the percent using the pill (figure 6), and (3)

the divergence between Protestant couples and Catholic couples in the use of contraceptive sterilization

from 1973 to 1976.

In 1965, the leading method of contraception

among Catholic contraceptors was rhythm, used by

32 percent of Catholic contraceptors, compared with

5 percent of Protestant contraceptors. The leading

methods among Protestant couples in 1965 were the

pill (27 percent of contraceptors) and condom (23

percent).

In 1965, sterilization was used by 14 percent of

Protestant couples and only 7 percent of Catholic

couples. Use of the diaphragm among Protestant contraceptors (12 percent) also was greater than among

Catholic contraceptors (5 percent).

From 1965 to 1973, the percent of Catholic couples using rhythm decreased dramatically-from 32

percent in 1965 to 8 percent in 1973. The increase

from 1973 to 1976 was not statistically significant;

furthermore, no statistically significant changes were

found during 1973-76 in the percent of Catholic

women using any of the methods of contraception

listed in table 13. In 1973 and 1976, Catholic couples

were somewhat more likely to use rhythm than

Protestant couples, but rhythm was used by less than

1 in 10 Catholic contraceptors in both years.

In 1965, 18 percent of Catholic contraceptors

used the pill. By 1973, the proportion of Catholic

35

30

25

20

g

2

d!

15

10

5

0

1965

n~ Catholic

U Protestant

1973 1976

40

35

30

[

1965

c1W Catholic

U Protestant

36.1

33.1 33.1

1973 1976

Figure 5. Percent of currently married white contreceptors 15-44

years of age using tha rhythm method, by religion: United States,

1965, 1973, and 1976

Figure 6. Percent of currently married white contr~ptors 15-44

years of age using the oral contrawptive pill, by raligion: United

States, 1965, 1973, and 1976

15
contraceptors using the pill approximately doubled to

34 percent. In 1973 and 1976, the pill was the leading method among Catholic couples, used by approximately one in three contraceptors. Also in 1973 and

1976, the percent of Catholic contraceptors and

Protestant contraceptors using the pill was not significantly different.

In 1965, 14 percent of Protestant contraceptors

used sterilization, compared with 7 percent of Catholic contraceptors. By 1973, the percent of contraceptors using sterilization increased substantially, but the

difference between Protestant couples and Catholic

couples was about the same–8 percentage points.

From 1973 to 1976, the dramatic increase in contraceptive sterilization among white coupleszz (table 8)

did not occur among Catholic couples. Although the

percent of Catholic couples using sterilization increased a nonsignificant 2 percentage points during

1973-76 (from 18 to 20 percent), the percent of

Protestant contraceptors using sterilization increased

from 26 percent in 1973 to 33 percent in 1976. In

1976, 33 percent of Protestant and only 20 percent of

Catholic contraceptors were using sterilization-a

difference of 13 percentage points, compared with

differences of 7 percentage points in 1965 and 8

percentage points in 1973.

Education

Data for women using contraception are shown

according to education and race in table 14.

In 1965, the pill and condom were the leading

methods of contraception in all three educational

categories; each was used by approximately 1 in 4 or

1 in 5 contraceptors in each education group. The

percent using the diaphragm increased sharply with

education in 1965, from 4 percent of contraceptors

with less than a high school education to 10 percent

of high school graduates and 19 percent of contraceptors with more than a high school education.

In 1965, 12 percent of contraceptors with less

than a high school education were using female sterilization, compared with 5 percent of contraceptors in

the other two education groups (figure 7). Black

women with less than a high school education were

about twice as likely as white women to use female

sterilization (23 percent compared with 10 percent)

in 1965. In the other two educational groups, there

was no significant difference by race in female sterilization.

The percent of contraceptors using the pill, the

IUD, and sterilization increased sharply in each educational group from 1965 to 1973. The size of the increases in the pill, the IUD, or male sterilization

varied little, but the increase in female sterilization

from 1965 to 1973 was approximately 9 percentage

points ( 12 percent to 21 percent) among women

with less than a high school education and only 3 per30

25

20

15 I

Less than High More than

high school school high school

Figure 7. Percent of currently married contraceptors 15-44 years of

age using female sterilization, by education: United States, 1965

and 1976

centage points among women with more than a high

school education.

These trends in modern methods during 1965-73

were similar for white women and black women. One

striking trend from 1965 to 1973, however, was the

increase in use of the pill among black women with a

high school education, from 26 percent in 1965 to 53

percent in 1973.

From 1973 to 1976, sterilization increased among

white couples with a high school education or more—

from 23 percent to 29 percent among high school

graduates and from 18 percent to 22 percent among

women with more than a high school education. The

percent of white contraceptors with more than a high

school education using the pill decreased from 38

percent to 33 percent.

In part because of a small number of sample cases

in some educational groups, only one of the changes

in individual methods within education grotlps was

statistically significant for black contraceptors from

1973 to 1976: the percent using the pill decreased

from 53 to 44 percent of black contraceptors with a

high school education. Many of the changes in percents using traditional methods were increases; so the

percent of black couples with less than a high

16
school education using traditional methods increased

sharply during 1973-76, from 13 percent to 23 percent. Among black high school graduates, the percent

of contraceptors using traditional methods also increased, from 19 percent in 1973 to 29 percent in

1976.

In 1976, the pill and sterilization were the leading

methods of contraception in each educational group.

In 1976 as well as in 1965 (figure 7), the percent of

contraceptors using female sterilization was greater

for those with less than a high school education (25

percent in 1976) than for those with a high school

education (13 percent in 1976) or more (9 percent in

1976).

In 1976, approximately 35 percent of black contraceptors compared with only 24 percent of white

contraceptors with less than a high school education

were using female sterilization. In the other two education groups, however, the percents of white and

black contraceptors using female sterilization were

not significantly different. In 1976, black contraceptors were less likely to use male sterilization than

white contraceptors in each education group. This

difference was larger in 1976 than in 1965 because

male sterilization rose substantially among white

couples but showed little change among black

couples.

17
References

1Ryder, N., and Westoff, C.: The Contraceptive Revolution.

Princeton, N.J. Princeton University Press, 1977.

2Westoff, C.: The modernization of U.S. contraceptive practice. Family Planning Perspectives 4(3): 9-12, July 1972.

3Westoff, C.: Trends in contraceptive practice: 1965-1973.

Family Planning Perspectives 8(2): 54-57, Mar./Apr. 1976.

4Ryder, N., and Westoff, C.: Reproduction in the United

States, 1965. Princeton, N.J. Princeton University Press, 1971.

5Whelpton, P., Campbell, A., and Patterson, J.: Fertility and

Family Planning in the United States. Princeton, N.J. Princeton University Press, 1966.

6Freedman, R., Whelpton, P., and Campbell, A.: Family

Planning, Sterility, and Population Growth. New York, N.1’.

McGraw-Hill, 1959.

7Nation~ Center for Health Statistics: The National Survey of

Family Growth, Cycle I: Sample design, estimation procedures,

and variance estimation, by D. French. Vital and Health

Statistics. DHEW pub. No. (PHS) 78-1350-Series 2-No. 76.

Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing

Office, Jan. 1978.

8National Center for Health Statistics: The National Survey of

Family Growth, Cycle 11: Sample design, estimation procedures, and variance estimation, by W. Grady. Vital and Health

Statistics. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 81-136 l-Series 2-No. 87.

Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing

Office, Feb. 1981.

9Nation~ Center for Health Statistics: Utilization of familY

planning services by currently married women 15-44 years of

age: United States, 1973, by F. Notzon. Vital and Health

Statistics. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 78-1977-Series 23-No. 1.

Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing

Office, Nov. 1977.

10National Center for Health Statistics: Contraceptive utilization: United States, by K. Ford. Vital and Health Statistics.

DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 79-1 978-Series 23-No. 2. Public Health

Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Sept.

1979.

11 National Center for Health Statistics: Trends in breast

feeding among American mothers, by C. Hirschman and G.

Hendershot. Vital and Health Statistics. DHEW Pub. No.

(PHS) 79-1 979-Series 23-No. 3. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Nov. 1979.

12 National Center for Health Statistics: Patterns of employment before and after childbirth: United States, by L. Bumpass and J. Sweet. Vital and Health Statistics. DHEW Pub. No.

(PHS) 80-1980-Series 23-No, 4. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 1980.

13National Center for Health Statistics: Contraceptive efficacy

among married women 1544 years of age in the United States,

1970-73, by K. Ford. Advance Data from Vital and Health

Statistics, No. 26. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 78-1250. Public

Health Service. Hyattsville, Md., Apr. 6, 1978.

14National Center for Health Statistics: Contraceptive efficacy

among married women aged 15-44 years: United States, by B.

Vaughn et al. Vital and Health Statistics. DHHS Pub. No.

(PHS) 80-198 l-Series 23-No. 5. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1980.

15Vaughn, B. et aL: Contraceptive failure among married

women in the United Statesj 1970-1973. Family Planning

Perspectives 9(6): 251-258, Nov./Dee. 1977.

16Ryder, N.: Contraceptive failure in the United States.

Family Planning Perspectives 5(3): 133-142, Summer 1973.

17 Nation~ Center for Health Statistics: Statistics needed for

national policies related to fertility: A report of the United

States national committee on vital and health statistics. Vital

and Health Statistics. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 78-1455-Series

4-No. 18. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government

Printing Office, Jan. 1978.

18 National Center for Health Statistics: Contraceptive utilization among currently married women 15-44 years of age:

United States, 1973, by K. Ford. Monthly Vital Statistics

Report. DHEW Pub. No. (HRA) 76-1 120-VO1. 25-No. 7,

SUPP. Health Resources Administration. Rockville, Md., Oct.

4, 1976.

19Mosher, W., Sayetta, R., and Johnson, D.: A comparison of

birth control pill user data from two national surveys. Review

of Public Data Use 8(l): 1-11, June 1980.

20Ford, K.: Contraceptive use in the United States, 1973-

1976. Family Planning Perspectives 10(5): 264-269, SepL/Ott.

1978.

21Ford, K.: Contraceptive practice among U.S. couples.

Forum for Family Planners in the Western Hemisphere 1(2):

5-7, Oct. 1978.

22 National Center for Health Statistics: Contraceptive utilization in the United States: 1973 and 1976, by K. Ford.

Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, No. 36. llHEW

Pub. No. (PHS) 78-1250. Public Health Service. Hyattsville,

Md., Aug. 18, 1978.

23 National Center for Health Statistics: Patterns of aggregate

and individual changes in contraceptive practice: United

18
States, 1965-1975, by C. Westoff and E. Jones. Vital and

Health Statistics. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 79-1401-Series 3-No.

17. public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government

Printing Office, June 1979.

24Westoff, C., and Jones, E.: Contraception and stertization

in the United States, 1965-1975. Family Planning Perspectives

9(4): 153-157, July/Aug. 1977.

‘Leridon, H.: Fertility and contraception in 12 developed

countries. Family Planning Perspectives 13(2): 93-102, Mar./

Apr. 1981.

26Pratt, W. et al.: An overview of experience with vaginal

contraceptives in the United States. Vaginal Contraception:

New Developments. Edited by Sobrero Zatuchni et al.

Hagerst.owm, Md. Harper and Row, 1980.

27Vital Statistics of the United States 1976, Volume I,

Natality. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1980.

28Jones, E., Beniger, J., and Westoff, C.: Pill and IUD

discontinuation in the United States, 1970-1975: The influence of the media. Family Planning Perspectives 12(6):

293-300, Nov./Dee. 1980.

29Bruce, J., and Shearer, S. B.: Contraceptives and Common

Sense: Conventional Methods Reconsidered. New York, N.Y.:

The Population Council: 1979, Pp. 7-8 and 105-107.

30Hatcher, R. A. et al.: Contraceptive Technology 1978-1979.

9th ed. New York, N.Y. Halsted Press (John Wiley & Sons),

1978, chaps. 4 and 6.

31Cutright, P., and Jaffe, F... Family planning program effects

on the fertility of low-income U.S. women. Family Planning

Perspectives 8(3): 100-110, May/June 1976.

32Westoff, C.: The decline of unplanned births in the United

States. Science 191:38-41, Jan. 9, 1976.

33Forrest, J. D. et al.: Abortion in the United States,

1977-1978. Family Planning Perspectives 11(6): 329-341,

Nov./Dee. 1979.

34 Anonymous: In this issue. Family Planning Perspectives

10(5): 263, Sept./Ott. 1978.

35 National Center for Health Statistics: Teenage childbearing:

United States, 1966-1975, by S. J. Ventura. Monthly Vital

Statistics Report. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 77-1120-VO1. 26-No.

5, Supp. Health Resources Administration. Hyattsville, Md.

Sept. 8, 1977.

36MiUman, S., and Hendershot, G.: Early fertility and lifetime

fertility. Family Planning Perspectives 12(3): 139-149, May/

June 1980.

37National Center for Health Statistics: Selected demographic

characteristics of teenage wives and mothers, by S. M.illman

and W. Mosher. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics,

No. 61. Office of Health Research, Statistics, and Technology. Hyattsville, Md. Sept. 26, 1980.

19
List of detailed tables

1. Number of currently married women 15-44 years of aga, by

contraceptive status, race, and selected characteristics:

United States, 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age, by

contraceptive status, race, and selected characteristics:

United States, 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Number ofcurrently married woman 15-44 years ofage inthe

sample, by contraceptive status, race, and selected characteristics: National Fertility Study, United States, 1965 . . . . . . .

4. Percent distribution of currently married women 15-44 years

of age, by contraceptive status, according toselacted characteristics: United States, 1965, 1973, and 1976 . . . . . . . . .

5. percent distribution ofcurrently married white women 15q4

years of age, by contraceptive status, according to selected

characteristics: United Statesr 1965, 1973, and 1976 . . . . .

6. Percent distribution ofcurrently married black women 15-44

years of aga, by contraceptive status, according to selectad

characteristics: United States, 1965, 1973, and 1976 . . . . .

7. Parcent distribution of currently married women 1544 years

of age using contraception by method of contraception, according to age: United States, 1965, 1973, and 1976 . . . . .

8. Parcent distribution ofcurrently married white women l544

years of age using contraception by method of contraception,

according to age: United States, 1965, 1973, and 1976 . . . .

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

.-

9. Parcent distribution ofcurrently married black women 15.44

years of age using contraception by method of contraception,

according to age: United States, 1965, 1973, and 1976 . . . . 28

10. Percent distribution of currently married women 15-19 years

of age using contraception, by method of contraception:

United States, 1965, 1973rand 1976. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

11. Percent distribution of currently married women 15-44 years

of age using contraception by race and method of contraception, according to number of yaars sinca first marriage:

United States, 1965, 1973, and 1976. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

12. Percent distribution of currently married women 15-44 years

of age using contraception by race and mathod of contraception, according to parity and intent to have more children: United Statas, 1965, 1973, and 1976: . . . . . . . . . . 30

13. Percent distribution of currently married white women 1544

years of age using contraception by method of contriiception, according to religion: United States, 1965, 1973, and

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...33

14. Percent distribution of currently married women 1544 years

of age using contraception by race and method of contraception, according to education: United States, 1965, 1973,

and 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...34

20
Tablel. Number ofcurrently married women 15Myeam of~e, bycontraceptive status, race, andselected characteristic* United States, 1976

Contraceptive status and race

Characteristic All women Contrweptors

All White Black AII

recesq

White

rxes 1

Black

Tota!2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,488

Age

15-29years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

3044years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Years since first marriage

0-4years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5-9years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10-14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15yearsormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parity and intent to have more children

All parities

Intend nomore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intendmore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parity O-2:

Intend nomore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intendmore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parity 3 or more:

Intend nomore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

lntendmore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Religion

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

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

Otherornone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

Lessthan high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Highschool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Morethan highschool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12,463

1,043

15,024

7,039

6,389

4,972

8,750

16,956

7,731

8,861

7,336

7,995

395

17,354

7,792

2,289

6,272

12,970

8,198

24,795

11,218

918

13,577

6,253

5,740

4,512

8,048

15,412

6,891

8,229

6,558

7,183

334

15,368

7,336

2,042

5,442

11,941

7,364

Numberin thousands

2,169

993

99

1,177

585

503

368

627

1,298

625

610

577

688

48

1,908

165

91

691

889

588

18,609

8.589

725

10,020

4,706

4,492

3,607

5,602

11,970

4,858

6,167

4,642

5,803

216

11,750

5,185

1,631

3,767

8,811

5,980

17,051

7,849

654

9,202

4,258

4,109

3,315

5,215

11,005

4,428

5,777

4,236

5,228

192

10,584

4,942

1,483

3,369

8,182

5,460

1,269

604

61

664

363

290

220

348

794

361

319

337

475

*24

1,125

86

57

333

542

393

1Includes white, black, and other races.

21nc]ude~w~men for whom information on years since first marriage, intent to have more children, religion, oreducation wasmissin9; alsO includes

women who did notknowwhather they intended to have more chi[dren ordisegreed with their husbands about it; seeappendix Il.

NOTE: Statistics are based on asample of the household population of the conterminous United States. Seeappendixesl and Ilfor descriptionsof

the sample design of the survay, estimetesof sempling variability, and definitions of terms.

21
Table2. Number ofcurrently married women 15-~years ofage, bycontracaptive status, race, and selected characteristics: United States, 1973

Contraceptive status and race

Characteristic All women Contraceptors

All White Black All

races 1

White

races 1

Black

Number in thousands

Tota12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age

15-29years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

30-44years, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Years since first marriage

0-4years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6-9years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10-14yaars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15yearsor mora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parity and intent to have more children

All paritias

Intend nomore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intendmora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parity O-2:

Intend nomore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intendmore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parity 3 or more:

Intend nomore ;....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intendmora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Religion

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

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

Otherornone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

Lessthan highschool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

High school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Morethan highschool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26,646 24,249 2,081 18,548 17,107 1,249

614

49

635

374

282

252

341

781

347

278

312

504

35

1,066

129

64

458

534

12,040

1,028

14,606

10,963

915

13,286

964

86

1,117

8,451

586

10.097

7,756

524

9,351

7,109

5,808

4,914

8,815

6,378

5,289

4,450

8,132

624

424

405

628

4,726

4,225

3,667

5,930

4,296

3,3J36

3,383

5,561

16,426

7,813

15,038

7,050

7,343

6,713

7,695

337

1,241

616

512

552

730

64

12,270

4,714

5,694

4,462

6,576

252

11 #393

4,283

5,380

4,081

6,013

203

7,934

7,398

8,492

415

16,988

7,684

1,974

15,101

7,362

1,786

1,802

183

96

12,003

5,109

1,436

10,883

4,888

1,335

7,102

12,904

6,641

6,134

11,974

6,141

867

830

384

4,426

9,178

4,943

3,898

8,596

4,613 256

Ilncludes white, black, and other races.

21ncludas women wh~did notknowwhetherthay intended tohavemore child renordisagreed with their husbands about it; sa0aPP0ndiX Ii.

NOTE: Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of theconterminous United States. Seereferences7 and9-12for descriptions of

the sample design of the survey, estimates of sampling variability, and definitions of terms.

22
Table3. Numbarof currently married wmen lH4y@rs ofa~inthe sample, bycontraceptive status, race, and selected characteristics:

National Fertility Study, United Statas, 1965

Contraceptive status and race

Characteristic All women Contraceptors

All White Black All White Black racesl racesl

Tota12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age

15-29years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

30-44years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Years since first marriage

0-4years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5-9years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10-14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15yearsormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parity and intent to have more children

All parities:

Intendnomore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

intend more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parity O-2:

Intendnomore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intend more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parity 3 or more:

Intendnomore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intend more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Religion

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

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

Otherornona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

Lessthan high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

High school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Morethan highschool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4,810

1,918

212

2,892

944

982

983

1,900

3,269

1,273

1,292

1,041

1,977

232

3,378

1,179

253

1,844

2,108

857

3,771

1,447

155

2,324

701

769

769

1,531

2,547

1,001

1,080

821

1.487

180

2,432

1,0%

243

1,248

1,790

734

Numbarinsample

969

440

54

529

230

200

198

343

675

253

216

205

459

48

891

70

8

555

302

112

2,988

1,204

113

1,784

541

648

861

1,137

2,125

702

717

552

1,408

150

2,139

885

184

1,012

1,377

2,410

915

84

1,495

398

514

532

965

1,711

560

621

441

1,090

119

1,613

620

177

716

1,171

522

541

272

26

269

134

129

121

157

388

134

89

103

299

31

494

41

6

274

198

69

1Includes white, black, and other races.

21nclude5women whodidnot kno~~hether they intend~to have more children ordisagrmd with their husbands abOutit; we appendiX l!.

NOTE: Statistics are based on a sample of tha household population of tha conterminous Unitad States. See appendixes I and Ilfor descriptions of

thesemple design of thesurvey, estimatesof sempling variability, arrddefinitions of terms.

23
Tabie4. Percent distribution ofcurrently married women 15-44 years of age, bycontraceptive status, according to selected characteristics:

United States, 1965, 1973, and 1976

Contraceptive status

Characteristic

Pregnancy, post

Contraceptors

Noncontraceptively

partum, seeking sterile Other nonusers

pregnancy

1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965

Total I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age

15-29years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

30-44years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Years since first marriage

0-4years . . . . . . .

5-9years . . . . . . .

10-14years . . . . .

15years or more .

Parity and intent

All parities

Intend no more

Intend more .

Parity 0-2:

Intend no more

Intend more . .

Parity 3 or more:

Intend no more

Intend more . .

Education

Lessthan high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

High school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Morethan highschool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67.7

68.9

69.4

66.7

66.9

70.3

72.5

64.1

70.6

62.9

68.9

63.3

72.6

54.8

60.1

68.0

73.1

69.6

70.2

57.0

69.1

66.5

72.7

74.6

67.3

74.7

60.3

71.8

60.3

77.4

60.8

62.3

71.1

74.4

63.2

63.1

55.0

63.3

57.5

66.3

68.1

61.8

66.3

55.6

57.4

53.6

72.4

64.7

56.5

65.4

70.5

13.3

22.2

23.6

5.8

25.4

20.0

6.6

2.6

4.1

31.9

6.4

31.9

1.6

31.4

13.7

13.5

12.6

Percent of currently married women

14.3

23.0

35.8

7.0

27.2

19.2

9.6

3.2

4.6

33.9

6.9

34.3

2.5

27.6

13.9

14.0

15.1

15.4

27.2

36.7

7.8

35.1

21.7

11.1

5.1

7.2

35.6

7.5

38.3

6.9

23.3

15.0

15.6

15.7

11.4

3.3

“0.2

18.2

2.0

4.3

13.3

22.8

17.8

. . .

16.4

. . .

19.3

. . .

15.0

11.5

8.6

7.5

1.3

‘0.4

12.6

‘0.8

1.7

7.2

16.8

12.1

. . .

11.3

. . .

12.9

..<

10.2

7.3

4.8

11.6

3.3

*0.6

17.0

1.7

4.5

11.8

19.9

‘17.2

. . .

25.6

. . .

11.5

. . .

13.3

12.1

7.4

7.6

5.6

*6.8

9.3

5.7

5.5

7.5

10.5

7.5

5.1

8.3

4.7

6.5

*I 3.9

11.2

7.1

5.8

8.7

5.5

6.8

11.3

5.5

6.4

8.5

12.8

8.6

5.7

10.0

5.4

7.2

*11.6

13.5

7.5

5.7

9.7

6.4

7.7

11.9

5.7

7.5

9.0

13.1

9.4

8.8

9.6

8.1

9.2

12.0

15.2

6.9

6.4

Ilncludes women for whom information on years sinca first marriage, intent to have more childran, or education was missing; also includes women

who did not know whether they intended to have more children or disagreed with their husbands about it; sae appendix Il.

NOTE: Statisticsara based on samples of thehouaahold population of thecontarminous United States. Seeappendixesl and Ilfordescriptions of the

semple design of each survey, estimates of sampling variability, and definitions of terms.

24
Table5. Percent distribution of currently married white women 15-44 years of ~e, bycontraceptive Satus, according to selected characteristics

United States, 1965, 1973, and 1976

Contraceptive status

Characteristic

Pregnancy, post

Conrraceptors

Noncontreceptively

partum, sacking sterile Other nonusers

pregnancy

1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965

Totell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.8 70.5 64.1

Age

15-29years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.0 70.7 63.4

30-44years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.8 70.4 64.5

Years since first marriage

0-4years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.1 67.4 57.2

5-9years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.6 73.1 66.8

10-14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.5 76.0 69.2

15yearsormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.9 68.4 63.2

Parity and intent to have more children

All parities:

Intend nomore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.5 75.8 67.3

Intend more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.3 60.8 56.1

Parity O-2:

Intend nomore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.3 73.3 58.8

Intend more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.6 60.8 53.8

Parity 3 or more:

Intend nomore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.8 78.1 73.4

Intend more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.5 60.2 66.1

Reiigion2

Protestant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.9 72.1 66.5

Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.5 66.4 56.8

Education

Lessthan highschool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.9 63.6 57.8

High school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.6 71.8 65.5

Morethan highschool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.1 75.1 71.1

Percent of currently married white women

12.7 14.2 15.2 11.4 7.4 11.8 7.1 7.8 9.0

21.8 23.0 27.4 3.1 1.3 3.2 5.1 5.0 6.0

5.2 6.9 7.5 18.2 12.5 17.2 8.7 10.2 10.8

24.7 27.0 35.5 2.0 0.8 1.7 5.2 4.9 5.6

19.6 19.7 21.5 3.8 1.6 4.6 5.0 5.7 7.2

6.1 9.7 10.8 13.2 7.2 11.8 7.2 7.0 8.2

2.3 3.1 4.9 23.0 16.6 20.1 9.8 12.0 11.8

3.9 4.5 6.5 17.6 12.0 17.5 7.0 7.7 8.7

30.7 34.0 35.9 . . . . . . . . . 4.9 5.2 8.0

5.9 6.8 7.1 15.9 10.8 25.5 7.9 9.1 8.6

30.9 34.2 38.6 . . . . . . . . . 4.4 5.0 7.6

1.5 2.3 6.1 19.7 13.1 11.8 6.0 6.4 8.7

*27.2 30.0 23.9 . . . . . . . . . *1 5.3 *9.8 10.0

12.6 13.2 12.9 12.6 8.1 12.6 6.0 6.7 8.0

12.9 16.7 20.9 10.5 6.7 10.4 9.1 10.2 11.9

13.0 13.9 14.7 15.2 10.5 13.8 9.9 12.1 13.7

13.0 13.9 15.4 11.6 7.2 12.3 6.9 7.1 6.8

12.0 15.0 15.3 8.4 4.8 7.4 5.4 5.1 6.3

llnclude~ women for whom information on years since first marriage, intent to have more child ren, religion, oreducetion WaSrrtkSh9;dS0 itmludas

women who did not know whatharthay intanded to have more children or disagreed with their husbands about it; see appendix II.

2women with ~aligiou~preferanca$ ~thar than protestant and catholic and those with no religion are not shown .wparately bacauseof limitations of

sempla size.

NOTE: Statisticsara based on samples of thehousahold population of theconterminous Unitad States. Sea appendixes I and II for descriptions of the

sample design of aach survay, estimates of sampling variability, and definitions of terms.

25
Table6. Percent distribution of currently married black women 15-44 years of age, bycontraceptive status, according toselemed characteristics

United states, 1965, 1973, and 1976

Contraceptive status

Pregnancy, post

Characteristic Contraceptors

Noncontraceptively

partum, seeking Other nonusers

pregnancy

sterile

1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965 ?976 1973 1965

Percent of currently married black women

Totall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age

15-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Years since first marriage

0-4years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5-9years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10-14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15yearsormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parity and intent to have more children

All parities

Intend nomore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intendmore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parity O-2:

Intend nomore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

intend more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parity 3 or more:

Intend no more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Irrtendmore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

Less than high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

High school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Morethan highschool . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58.6

61.0

56.5

62.2

57.7

59.7

55.6

61.3

58.0

52.3

58.5

69.2

51.0

48.1

61.0

67.0

60.0

63.7

56.6

60.0

66.6

62.1

54.3

62.9

56.4

54.2

56.5

69.0

55.2

52.9

64.3

66.8

56.2

62.2

51.1

58.5

65.2

62.1

46.0

57.9

53.2

41.4

50.5

65.7

64.6

49.9

65.6

61.6

16.4

23.9

10.1

25.9

23.4

12.5

5.1

7.4

36.3

12.9

35.8

*2.6

*4I .5

15.6

18.0

15.1

14.0

22.8

6.4

27.3

14.0

9.1

*3.9

5.6

31.7

7.4

32.9

4.3

*2I .3

13.5

14.8

13.5

17.9

26.3

10.8

32.3

23.2

11.8

8.5

13.4

30.6

13.5

33.8

13.4

16.7

16.9

19.2

18.7

11.7

5.4

17.0

* 2.6

*7.6

17.4

18.7

18.4

. . .

21.5

. . .

15.5

. . .

14.3

11.8

8.5

8.1

++1.5

13.7

*1.5

*3.2

8,2

17.8

13.5

. . .

16.8

. . .

11.2

. . .

9.4

8.0

‘5.1

9.0

*2.1

14.8

1.3

1.5

10.3

17.9

13.0

. . .

22.8

. . .

8.4

. . .

10.6

6.0

9.8

13.3

9.6

16.4

9.3

11.4

●10.4

20.5

13.0

*5.5

13.3

*5.4

12.6

*7.5

22.0

9.2

9.4

17.9

12.0

23.1

11.2

16.3

20.6

24.1

17.9

11.9

21.5

10.5

15.4

*23.5

24.2

12.9

14.6

16.9

9.4

23.2

7.9

10.1

15.9

27.6

15.7

16.3

22.3

15.7

12.5

18.7

22.6

9.3

9.8

llnclude~ ~omen for ~h~m information on years since first marriage, intent to have more childran, or education was missing; also includes women

who did not know whether they intended to have more children or disagreed with their husba”ds about it; aeeappendi~ II.

NOTE: Statiatica are basedon samples of the household population of theconterminous United States. See appendixes I and II for descriptionsof the

sample design of each survay, estimates of sampling variability, and definitions of terms.

26
Table7. Percent distribution ofcurrently married women 15~years of~eusing contraception bymethod ofcontrxeption, according to age:

United States, 1965, 1973, and 1976

Age

Method of contraception 15-44 years 15-29 years 30-44 years

1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965

Percent distribution

Allcontraceptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Modern methods

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.0 69.2 37.5 73.3 76.9 49.3 67.1 62.9 29.9

Femalesterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.1 12.3 7.2 6.3 5.9 3.2 20.8 17.7 9.8

Malasterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 11.2 5.2 5.5 5.3 2.9 20.0 16.1 6.6

Oral contraceptivepill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.2 36.1 23.9 51.0 53.6 41.3 18.0 21.4 12.7

lntrauterinedevice (lad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 9.6 *1.2 10.5 12.0 1.8 8.4 7.6 *0.8

Traditional methods

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.0 30.8 62.5 26.7 23.1 50.7 32.9 37.1 70.1

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 3.4 9.9 3.9 2.5 6.2 4.6 4.2 12.2

Condom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.8 13.5 22.0 9.6 10.0 19.3 11.7 16.4 23.8

Foam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 5.0 3.3 4.8 5.1 4.8 4.1 4.9 2.3

Rhythm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 4.0 10.8 4.0 2.0 7.6 5.9 5.7 12.9

Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 2.1 5.7 2.4 1.5 3.2 3.5 2.7 7.3

Douche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.8 5.o 0.6 0.4 4.3 1.4 1.2 5.5

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 1.9 5.8 1.4 1.6 5.3 1.6 2.1 6.1

NOTE: Statistics ara based on samples of the household population of the conterminous United Stetes. See appendixes I and [I for descriptions of the

sample design of each survey, estimates of sampling variability, and definitions of terms.

Table 8. Percent distribution of currently married white women 15-44 years of age using contraception by method of contraception, according to agw

United States,1965, 1973,and 1976

Age

Method of contraception 15-44 years 15-29 years 3LW4years

1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965

Allcontraceptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0

Modern methods

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.2 68.4 37.1

Femalesterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.9 11.6 6.5

Malesterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 11.9 5.5

Oral contreceptivepiH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.9 35.6 24.0

intrauterine device (lad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 9.4 ●1.1

Traditional methods

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.8 31.6 62.9

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 3.6 10.4

Condom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.9 14.1 22.4

Foam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 5.0 3.1

Rhythm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 4.1 11.5

Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 2.2 5.8

Douche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.7 4.1

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 1.9 5.6

Percent distribution

100.0 100.0 100.0

73.2 76.0 49.9

6.1 5.7 2.8

6.0 5.6 3.2

50.6 52.9 42.4

10.5 11.9 ●1.5

26.8 24.0 50.1

4.1 2.6 6.6

9.7 10.5 19.2

4.8 5.3 4.5

4.0 2.0 8.0

2.5 1.5 3.1

0.4 0.3 3.4

1.4 1.7 5.4

100.0

67.6

20.5

21.1

17.8

8.1

32.4

4.6

11.9

3.8

6.1

3.4

1.2

1.5

100.0

62.1

16.5

17.1

21.2

7.4

37.9

4.4

17.1

4.7

5.9

2.8

1.0

2.1

100.0

29.2

8.7

7.0

12.8

“0.8

70.8

12.8

24.4

2.2

13.7

7.4

4.5

5.8

NOTE: Stetietics are based on samples of the household population of the conterminous United States. See appendixes 1 and I I for descriptions of the

sample design of eech survey, estimates of sampling variability, end definitiona of terms.

27
Table 9. Percent distribution of currently married black women 15-44 years of age using contraception by method of contraception, according to

age: United States, 1865, 1973, and 1976

Age

Method of contraception 15-44 years 15-29 years 30-44 years

1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965

Allcontraceptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Modern methods

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

Female sterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Male sterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oral contraceptive pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

lntrauterinedevice (lad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Traditional methods

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

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

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

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

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

Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Douche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

100.0

70.2

18.7

*3.O

38.0

10.6

29.8

‘3.0

7.9

6.5

*2.4

3.1

4.6

●2.3

100.0

81,0

22.7

*1.7

43.8

12.7

19.0

+2.0

5.3

5.0

●1.3

*0.7

3.0

*1.6

100.0

40.3

15.3

‘0.6

21.6

2.8

59.7

5.0

17.4

6.3

2.6

4.1

16.3

8.1

Percent distribution

100.0

74.0

8.6

‘0.3

56.0

9.1

26.0

+1.4

8.4

4.9

*3.1

*2.6

4.0

*1.7

100.0

87.5

9.8

*0.7

63.9

13.1

12.5

*1.2

●3.1

3.5

*1.6

*0.5

*2.1

*0.5

100.0

43.4

7.4

“0.4

30.9

4.8

56.6

3.3

18.7

8.1

2.9

4.0

14.0

5.5

100.0

66.8

27.9

*5.4

21.5

11.9

33.2

*4.5

7.4

8.0

*1.8

*3.5

5.2

*2.9

100.0

74.6

35.2

‘2.7

24.3

12.4

25.4

*2.8

7.5

6.6

*0.9

*0.9

4.0

*2.7

100.0

37.2

23.4

“0.7

12.3

0.7

62.8

6.7

16.0

4.5

2.2

4.1

18.6

10.8

NOTE: Statistics are based on samples of thehousehold population of theconterminous United Stetas. See appendixes I end II fordescriptions of the

sample design of each survey, estimates of sampling variability, and definitions of terms.

Tabie 10. Percent distribution ofcurrently married women 15-19 years of ageusing contraception, bymethod of contraception: United States,

1965, 1973,and 1976

Method of contraception 1976 1973 1965

Allcontraceptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Modern methods

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

Femalesterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maiesterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oral contraceptive pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

lntrauterinedevice (lad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Traditional methods

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

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

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

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

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

Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Douche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

100.0

81.5

*1.1

71.0

‘9.3

18.5

‘2.4

6.8

3.7

*2.9

●1.9

‘0.8

Percent distribution

100.0

83.2

*0. I

*0.7

77.0

*5.3

16.8

*1.3

*7.9

*2.8

*1.4

*1.4

*0. I

*1.8

100.0

56.6

51.7

*4.9

43.4

*3.1

11.8

*4.5

*2.5

“5.9

*9.6

● 5.9

NOTE: Statistics are based on samples of the household population of the conterminous United States. See appendixes I and II for descriptions of

theeemple design of each survey, estimates of sampling variability, and definitions of terms.

28
Table Il. Percent distribution ofcurrently married women 15Wyears ofa@using contraception byraceand method ofcontraception, according

to number of years since f irst marriage: United States, 1965, 1973, and 1976

Years since first merriaga

Race and method of contraception O-4 years

Allracesl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Modern methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Female sterilization . . . . . . . . . .

Male sterilization . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oral contraceptive pill . . . . . . . .

Intrauterine dwice (IUD) . . . . . .

Traditional methods . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Douche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Modern methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Female sterilization . . . . . . . . . .

Male sterilization . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oral contraceptive pill . . . . . . . .

httrauterine device (lUD) . . . . . .

Traditional methods . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Modern methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Female sterilization . . . . . . . . . .

Male sterilization . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oral contraceptive pill . . . . . . . .

intrauterine device (lUD) . . . . . .

Traditional methods . . . . . . . . . . . .

1976 1973 1965

100.0

70.1

1.3

1.3

58.8

8.6

29.9

5.6

9.6

5.4

4.2

2.7

0.6

1.8

100.0

69.9

*1.1

●1.4

58.8

8.5

30.1

100.0

73.0

+4.1

. . .

59.9

*9.O

27.0

100.0

77.5

2.4

1.8

63.3

10.0

22.5

2.3

10.3

4.3

2.5

1.4

0.3

1.4

100.0

76.9

2.2

2.0

62.9

9.9

23.1

100.0

86.8

*4.4

*0.1

70.9

11.3

13.2

100.0

50.3

0.1

0.5

47.7

‘2.0

49.7

5.0

16.9

5.4

8.9

3.6

4.7

5.2

100.0

52.3

‘0.5

50.3

+1.5

47.7

100.0

37.3

‘0.7

*0.7

29.9

‘6.0

62.7

5-9 years I@ 14 years

1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965

Percent distribution

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

72.2 72.0 42.6 72.4 66.0 34.6

10.9 9.9 *2.6 19.0 15.9 9.0

8.6 8.5 4.4 19.8 14.9 5.7

40.2 39.4 33.5 22.4 25.2 19.5

12.5 14.2 *2.1 11.1 10.0 ‘0.5

27.8 28.0 57.4 27.6 34.0 65.4

4.3 3.1 9.o 3.7 3.4 9.8

8.9 11.4 21.2 10.1 15.0 24.4

4.3 7.2 3.8 4.5 6.0 3.7

4.7 2.6 10.0 4.8 4.7 12.3

3.4 1.7 3.6 2.4 1.6 5.2

0.5 0.4 ●3.5 1.1 0.9 5.3

1.7 1.7 6.3 1.1 2.3 4.7

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

72.5 71.0 42.6 72.5 65.5 33.8

11.0 9.2 ●2.1 19.1 15.5 7.7

9.3 8.9 4.7 20.8 15.7 6.2

40.0 38.9 33.9 21.3 24.5 19.5

12.1 14.1 *1.9 11.2 9.8 ‘0.4

27.5 29.0 57.4 27.5 34.5 66.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100,0 100.0

73.9 89.5 38.8 75.2 69.6 43.0

●11.6 21.0 8.5 24.0 20.0 21.5

‘0.5 ●1.3 --- 1.7 ●4.5 ---

47.8 51.1 26.4 35.6 31.7 19.8

14.0 16.0 *3.9 *13.9 13.3 *1.7

26.1 10.5 61.2 24.8 30.4 57.0

15 years or more

1976 1973 1965

100.0

66.9

24.0

23.2

13.5

6.3

33.1

3.5

13.8

3.5

5.8

3.4

1.5

1.4

100.0

67.3

23.2

24.2

13.7

6.2

32.7

100.0

64.9

36.2

*9.O

12.0

*7.7

35.1

100.0

62.7

19.8

18.3

18.8

5.8

37.3

4.6

16.6

3.4

5.8

3.2

1.5

2.2

100.0

61.8

18.1

19.3

18.9

5.5

38.2

100.0

75.9

46.2

*1.7

16.9

11.2

24.1

100.0

30.7

11.9

7.4

10.6

‘0.8

69.3

12.6

23.3

*1.9

11.3

8.0

5.9

6.4

100.0

29.7

10.8

7.7

10.5

“0.8

70.3

100.0

42.0

28.7

*1.3

12.1

. . .

58.0

I ]nr,lude~ ~hi~~, b}a~k, and ~~h~~ r~ce~.

NOTE: Statistics are based on samples of thehousehold population of theconterminous United States. See appendixes I and 11for descriptions of the

sample design of each survey, estimetesof sampling variability, and definitions of terms.
Table 12. Percent distribution ofcurrently married women 15-44years ofageusing contraception byraceand method ofcontraception, according

toparity andintent tohave more children: United States, 1965, 1973, and 1976

Parity and intent to have more children

A II parities

Race and method of contraception

Intend no more Intend more

1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965

Percent distribution

Allracesl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Modern methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Female sterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Malesterllization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oral contraceptivepill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

lntrauterinedevice (lad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Traditional methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Douche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Modern methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Female sterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Male sterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oral contraceptivepill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

intrauterine device (lad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Traditional methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Modern methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Femalesterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Malesterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oral contraceptivepill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

lntrauterinedevica (lad).... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Traditional methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

See footnotes at end of table.

100.0

72.9

21.9

20.7

22.0

8.4

27.1

3.3

10.6

3.9

4,3

2.9

0.9

1.2

100.0

73.3

21.5

21.9

21.6

8.3

26.7

100.0

70.9

29.B

“4.7

27.0

9.4

29.1

100.0

68.8

18.7

16.9

25.3

7.9

31.2

3.5

13.8

4.3

4.3

2.4

1.0

1.9

100.0

67.8

17.4

17.8

24.B

7.8

32.2

100.0

81.0

36.3

*2.7

30.6

11.4

19.0

100.0

38.1

10.2

7.3

19.5

*1.2

61.9

11.3

22.4

2.4

9.2

6.0

4.9

5.7

100.0

37.3

9.1

7.8

19.3

*1.1

62.7

100.0

45.4

21.4

*0.8

20.6

*2.6

54.6

100.0 100.0 100.0

65.8 71.2 39.5

. . . . . . . .

55:8 6;:; 38:1’

10.0 10.1 *1.4

34.2 28.8 60.5

6.4 3.7 5.8

10.8 12.6 19.1

5,8 5.8 5.5

5.5 3.1 14.3

3.2 1.5 4.7

1.2 0.5 5.3

1.2 1.7 5.7

100.0 100.0 100.0

65.6 70.8 40.7

. . . . . . . . .

55:5 6i:l’ 39:5

10.1 9.7 *1.2

34.4 29.2 59.3

100.0 100.0 100,0

69.6 83.0 27.6

. . . . . . . . .

6; :4 6+:; 24.6

*8.2 15.3 ‘3.0

30.4 17.0 72.4

30
Table 12. Percent distribution ofcurrently married women 15Uyears ofa@using contraception byraceand method ofcontraception, according

toparity andintent tohave more children: United States, 1965, 1973, and 1976-Con.

Parity and intent to have more children

Parity O-2

Race and method of contraception

Intend no more Intend more

7976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965

Allracasl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Modern methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Femalesterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maie sterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oral contraceptivepill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

lntrauterinedevice (lad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Traditicmal methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Douche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Modern methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Femaiesterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maie sterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oral contraceptivapill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

lntrauterinedavice (lUD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Traditional methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Modern methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Femalesterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Malesterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Orelcontreceptivepill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

intrauterine device(lUD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Traditional methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

See footnotes at end of table.

100.0

72.3

14.6

19.0

29.1

9.7

27.7

3.9

10.3

4.3

3.4

3.7

1.0

1.0

100.0

73.2

14.5

20.2

28.8

9.6

26.8

100.0

62.3

17.7

*0.3

35.7

*8.7

37.7

100.0

65.7

10.7

14.0

32.3

8.6

34.3

3.5

16.0

5.0

3.7

3.0

1.2

2.0

100.0

65.1

10.0

14.5

31.6

9.0

34.9

100.0

76.3

24.2

●3.6

45.3

●3.3

23.7

Percent distribution

100.0

30.6

4.2

4.9

20.8

‘0.8

69.4

14.8

29.0

2.5

6.2

5.9

5.6

5.4

100.0

30.3

3.5

5.0

21.1

*0.6

69.7

100.0

34.8

9.0

●3.4

19.1

“3.4

65.2

100.0

65.7

. . .

. . .

56.1

9.7

34.3

6.4

11.4

5.6

5.5

3.1

1.0

1.3

100.0

65.5

. . .

. . .

55.7

9.7

34.5

100.0

70.2

. . .

. . .

62.1

●8.1

29.8

100.0

72.1

. . .

624

9.7

27.9

3.7

11.9

6.0

2.5

1.4

0.5

1.8

100.0

71.6

. . .

. . .

62.3

9.3

28.4

100.0

82.4

. . .

. . .

69.1

13.3

17.6

100.0

42.9

. . .

4i 14

*1.5

57.1

6.7

20.7

4.7

9.7

4.2

5.6

5.5

100.0

44.4

. . .

. . .

43.1

+1.4

55.6

100.0

28.2

. . .

. . .

25.2

●2.9

71.8

31
Table 12. Parcent distribution ofcurrently married women 15-44 years of age using contraception by race andmethod ofcontraception, according

toparity andintent tohave more children: United States, 1865, 1973, and 1976–Con.

Parity and intent to have more children

Parity 3 or more

Race and method of contraception

Intend no more Intend more

1976 7973 1965 1976 1973 1965

Percent distribution

Al[ races’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Modern methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Female stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Male sterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oralcontraceptive pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

intrauterine device(lUD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Traditional methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Douche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Modern methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Femalesterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Malesterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oral contraceptivepill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

lntrautarine device (lad) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Traditional methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Modern methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Femalesterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Malesterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oral contraceptivapill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

lntrauterinedevice (lad).... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Traditional methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

100.0

73.6

29.6

22.6

14.4

7.0

26.4

2.7

10.8

3.4

5.3

2.0

0.8

1.4

100.0

73.5

29.2

23.8

13.8

6.8

26.5

100.0

76.7

38.0

*7.7

21.1

9.9

23.3

100.0

71.4

25.6

19.5

19.1

7.3

28.6

3.5

11.8

3.8

4.9

1.9

0.8

1.8

100.0

70.2

24.0

20.8

18.7

6.7

29.8

100.0

83.6

43.0

*2.2

22.4

15.9

16.4

100.0

42.2

13.4

8.6

18.8

*1.4

57.8

9.4

18.8

2.4

10.8

6.0

4.6

5.8

100.0

41.3

12.3

9.4

18.3

*1.3

58.7

100.0

48.5

25.1

2i:i

*2.3

51.5

100.0

67.2

. . .

50 i

*17.1

*32.8

‘5.0

12.1

*5.7

●5.O

‘5.0

100.0

68.0

. . .

49:9

*18.1

*32.O

100.0

*6I .0

. . .

. . .

*51.5

*9.4

* 39.0

100.0

55.7

. . .

37:6

*18.1

44.3

*2.7

25.0

*2.O

*12.5

*2.1

100.0

53.8

. . .

3;:i

*16.8

46.2

100.0

88.9

. . .

556

*33.3

*11.1

100.0

26.8

. . .

25:8

●1.O

73.2

*2.6

13.2

8.6

31.5

6.4

*4.5

6.4

100.0

26.9

. . .

. . .

26.1

‘0.8

73.1

100.0

25.8

. . .

. . .

22.6

*3.2

74.2

Ilncluda$white, black, andothw races.

NOTE: Statistics are based on samples of thehousehold population of theconterminous United States. See appendixes I and II fordescriptians of the

sample design of each survey, estimates of sampling variability, and definitions of terms.

32
“’%

Table 13. Percent distribution ofcurrently married white women 1544years ofageusing contraception bymethod of contraception,

according to religion: United States, 1965, 1973, and 1976

Religion 1

Method of contraception Protestant Catholic

1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965

Percent distribution

Allcontraceptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Modern methods

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.5 71.3 42.0 63.0 62.6 25.0

Femalesterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3 12.6 7.4 10.3 10.5 ‘4.4

Malesterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.8 13.8 6.7 9.9 7.9 *2.1

Oral contraceptivepill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.1 36.1 26.8 33.1 34.1 17.9

intrauterine device (lUD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 8.8 ●1.1 9.7 10.0 *0.6

Traditional methods

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

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

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

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

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

Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Douche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25.5 28.7 58.0

3.2 3.6 11.7

9.9 12.7 23.1

4.0 5.2 3.3

3.7 2.6 4.5

2.4 1.9 5.0

1.0 0.7 4.5

1.3 1.9 5.9

37.0 37.4 75.0

4.1 2.6 4.5

12.7 15.9 19.0

4.8 4.9 *1.8

8.9 8.1 31.9

4.2 3.1 8.7

0.4 0.6 *3.5

2.0 2.3 5.5

Iwomen with ~eli9ious Preferen=a$ Other than prOta~tent and catholic and those with no religion ara notehown separately because of Iimitation$of

sample size.

NOTE: Statistics era basad on samples of the household population of thecontarminous United States. Seeappandixes I and II for descriptions of the

sample design of each survey, estimates of samplirw variability, and definitions of terms.

33
Table 14. Percent distribution ofcurrently married women 15-Uyears ofageusing contraception byraceand method of contraception, according

coeducation: United States, 1865, 1973, and 1976

Education

Race and method of contraception Less than high school High school More than high school

1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965 1976 1973 1965

Percent distribution

Allracesl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Modern methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.7 74.0 40.5 70.6 67.9 35.1 64.7 67.5 38.3

Female sterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.9 21.4 11.8 13.0 10.7 5.4 8.7 7.2 4.5

Malesteriiization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 11.2 5.6 14.9 11.5 5.0 12.4 10.7’ 5.1

Oral contraceptive pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.9 32.4 22.1 34.0 36.8 23.7 32.9 38.2 26.9

intrauterine device(lUD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 8.9 ●1.1 8.7 8.9 ++1.0 10.7 11.5 *1.8

Traditional methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3 26.0 59.5 29.4 32.1 64.9 35.3 32.5 61.7

Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ●2.o 1.8 4.0 3.1 2.6 10.1 7.5 6.5 18.5

Condom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 11.0 21.9 10.8 15.4 23.0 12.7 12.2! 19.9

Foam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 3.2 3-6 4.8 5.3 2.6 4.6 6.1 4-4

Rhythm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 3.7 6.5 5.3 4.o 13.8 5.5 4.2! 10.7

Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 2.5 8.2 3.0 2.5 5.7 2.6 1.1 *1.6

Douche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 1.4 7.6 1.0 0.8 4.5 0.5 0.5 *2.2

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *1.O 2.5 7.7 1.4 1.7 5.2 1.9 1.8 4.3

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Modernmethods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.9 72.7 40.1 70.6 66.9 34.7 65.2 67.6 38.5

Femalesterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.3 19.9 10.2 12.9 10.4 5.1 8.7 6.8 4.4

Maleaterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.9 12.3 6.1 15.9 12.1 5.2 13.1 11.1 5.4

Oral contraceptivepill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.5 32.1 22.9 33.2 35.6 23.5 32.7 38.3 26.8

lntrautarina devica(lUD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 8.4 ●0.8 8.5 8.8 ++0.9 10.7 11.4 *1.9

Traditional methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.1 27.3 59.9 29.4 33.1 65.3 34.8 32.4 61.5

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Modern methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.9 86.6 43.4 70.7 81.1 37.4 63.9 70.5 36.2

Female sterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.8 35.5 22.6 16.0 16.7 8.1 ●8.8 12.4 +7.2

Malesterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *2.4 *1.5 *0.7 ‘2.0 *1.6 *4.7 *2.3 *1.4

Oral contraceptive pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7 34.8 16.8 44.0 53.4 263 39.3 39.9 27.5

intrauterine device(lUD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.0 14.8 *3.3 8.7 9.4 *3.0 11.1 16.0 . . .

Traditional methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.1 13.4 56.6 29.3 18.9 62.6 36.1 29.5 63.8

I includes white, black, and other races.

NOTE: Statistics are based on samples of thehousehold population of theconterminous United States. See appendixes I and Ilfordescriptions of the

sample design of each survey, eatimatesof sampling variability, and definitions of terms.

34
Appendixes

1.

Il.

Ill.

Technical notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Statisticaldesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Measurement process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Data reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Reliability ofestimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Nonsampling error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

The 1965 National Fertility Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Standarderrors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Definitions ofterms inthe National Survey of Family Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Contraceptive status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Demographicterms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Selected sections ofthecurrentiy married women questionnaireof the National Survey of Family Growth . . . . . . . . . 46

List of appendix tables

1.

Il.

Ill.

Iv.

v.

Parameters used to compute estimated standard errors and relative standard errors of numbers andpercents of women,

by marital statusandrace: 1976 National Survey of Family Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~

Approximate relative standard errors and standard errors forestimated numbers ofcurrently married women ofall races

combined: 1976National Survey of Family Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Approximate standard errors expressed in percentage points for estimated percents of currently married women of all

races combined: 1976National Survey of Family Growth.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Standard errors expressed in percentage points of estimated percents .forcurrently married white women and women of

all races combined: 1965 National Fertility Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Standard errors expressed in percentage points of estimated percents for currently married black women: 1965 National

Fertility Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

35
Appendix L Technical notes

Background

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 wornen. A detailed description of the methods and procedures

used in Cycle I of the NSFG can be found in “National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle I: Sample

Design, Estimation Procedures, and Variance Estimation,” Series 2, No. 76, of Vital and Health Statistics. 7 The present report is based on Cycle II of the

NSFG. A detailed description of the methods and

procedures of Cycle II can be found in “National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle II: Sample Design, Estimation Procedures, and Variance Estimation,” Series

2, No. 87 of Vital and I?culth Statistics. 8 This appendix presents a summary discussion of the more important technical aspects of Cycle II.

Fieldwork for Cycle II was carried out under a

contract with NCHS by Westat, Inc., between January and September of 1976. The sample is representative of women 1544 years of age in the household

population of the conterminous United States who

were ever married or had coresident offspring. Interviews were completed with 8,611 women; 3,009 respondents were black women, and the other 5,602

respondents were of races other than black.

The interview focused on the respondents’ marital

and pregnancy histories, their use of contraception

and the planning status of each pregnancy, their use

of maternal care and family planning services, fecundity impairments and their expectations about future

births, and a wide range of social and economic

NOTE: A list of references follows the text,

characteristics. Although the time required to complete the interviews varied considerably, the average

Cycle H interview lasted about 58 minutes.

Statistical design

The NSFG is based on a multistage area probability sample. Black households were sampled at higher

rates than other households so that reliable estimates

of statistics could be presented separately for white

and black women. In addition, the sample was

designed to provide tabulations for each of the four

major geographic regions of the United States.

The frost 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 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 several 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.

If a woman 15-44 years of age, ever-married or nevermarried with offspring in household was listed as

being in the household, an extended interview was

conducted. If more than one woman in the household

met the eligibility criteria, one of the women was

randomly selected for an extended interview.

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 647 to 43,024 and averaged 3,822. They were derived by using three basic

steps:

● Inflation by the reciprocal of the probability of

selection. –The probability of selection is the

product of the probabilities of selection of the

36
PSU, segment, household, and sample person

within the household.

● Nonresponse ad@stnzent. –The weighted estimates were ratio adjusted for nonresponse by a

multiplication of two factors. The first factor adjusted for nonresponse to the screener by imputing the characteristics of women in responding

households to women in nonresponding households in the same PSU and stratum. The second

factor adjusted for nonresponse to the interview

by imputing the characteristics of responding

women to nonresponding women in the same agerace category and PSU. Response to the screener

was 93.8 percent; the response to the interview

was 88.2 percent, yielding a combined response

rate of approximately 82.7 percent.

● Poststratij?cation by marital status, age, and

race. –The estimates were ratio adjusted within

each of the 12 age-race categories to an independent estimate of the population of ever-married

women. The independent estimates were derived

from the U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population Surveys of March 197 l-March 1976. The

numbers of never-married women with coresident

offspring were inflated by the first and second

steps only.

The effect of the ratio-estimating process was to

make the sample more closely representative of the

population of women 1544 years of age living in

households in the conterminous United States, who

were ever married or with coresident offspring. 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 II were carried out by

Westat, 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 were reviewed; 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 accuracy was found. 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 111.The complete schedule for currently married women was reprinted elsewhere.1 T Two different forms of the questionnaire were used, one for interviewing currently

married women and the other for interviewing widowed, divorced, separated, or never-married women

with coresident offspring. The two forms differed

mainly in wording when reference was made to the

husband; some questions in one schedule did not appear in the other.

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 frost 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 identify inconsistencies between responses,

as well as code numbers that were not allowed in the

coding scheme; these errors were corrected.

Missing data on age and race were imputed because they were used in the nonresponse adjustments

and for poststratification purposes. Unlike Cycle I,

however, other missing data were not imputed to expedite release of the data. Therefore, percents and

other statistics in Cycle II were based on cases with

known data. For most variables, the level of missing

data was less than 1 percent. The level of missing data

is noted in the “Deftitions of Terms” for each item

that was missing 2 percent or more of the responses.

For those few variables for which missing data may

pose a problem for analysis (e.g., poverty level income), this fact is noted in the text.

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

would 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 wotid be less than twice the standard

error. The relative standard error of an estimate is

obtained by dividing the standard error of the estiNOTE: A list of references follows the text.

37
mate 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 25 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

balanced half-sample replication. This technique produces highly reliable, unbiased estimates of sampling

errors. Its application to the NSFG has been described elsewhere.7’8

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 itself) for numbers of women according to the model

RSE (N’)= (A + B/iV’YA

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.

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:

RSE~, = (A + B/~’)k

SEW,= (A + B/N’)z X N’

RSEP, = (B/P’ X ( 100- P’)/X’)%

SEP, = (B X P’ X (100 - P’)/X’)fi

where

IV’= number of women

P’ =percent

X’ = number of women in the denominator of

the percent

NOTE: A list of references follows the text.

38

SE = standard error

RSE = relative standard error

Tables II and III show some illustrative standard

errors of aggregates and percents of currently married

women of all races from Cycle II of the NSFG.

Testing differences. –The standard error of a difference between two comparative 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;

then

U.= ~(p;)’ ● (RW)2 + Q’;)2● (RWQ2

where Pi is the estimated percent for one group and

P: is the estimated percent for the other group, and

RSEp~ and RSEP\ are the relative standard errors of

Table 1. Parameters used to compute estimated standard errors and

relative standard errors of numbers and percents of women, by

marital status and race: 1976 National Survey of Family Growth

Parameter

Marital status and race

A B

Currently married

Allracas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -0.0013’I 858869 6751.0619

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.000631 0400 2798.6440

White and other . . . . . . . . . . . . . -0.0002056235 70~).1665

Ever married

All races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0001700390 6486.5185

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -0.0004520643 2648.2362

White and other . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0000422037 7111.5185

Table II. Approximate relative standard errors and standard errors for

estimated numbers of currently married women of all races

combined: 1976 National Survey of Family Growth

Size of estimate

Relative Standard

standard

error

error

50,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.7 1F3rooo

100,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.9 26,000

500,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 58,000

1,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 81,000

3,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 136,000

5,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 171,000

7,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 19!5,000

10,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 221,000

20,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 246,000
Table II 1. Approximate standard errors expressed in percentage points for estimated percents of currently married women of all races

combined: 1976 National Survey of Family Growth

Estimated percent

Base of percent

2 or 98 5 or 95 7 or 93 100r90 15 or 85 20 or 80 30 or 70 40 or 60 50

Standard error in percentage points

100,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 5.7 6.6 7.8 9.3 10.4 11.9 12.7 13.0

500,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.2 4.7 5.3 5.7 5.8

1,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 1.8 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.8 4.0 4.1

3,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.4

5,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.8

7,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.7. 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.6

10,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.3

20,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9

Example of use of table Ill: If 30 percant of currently merried women in aspecificcatagory used the oral contraceptive pill andthebeae of that

percant was 10,000,000, than tha 30-percant column and the 10,000,000 row would indicata that 1 standard error is 1.2 parcantage points and 2

stendard errors ara twica that, or 2.4 percentega points. Therefore, the chances are about 95 out of 100that the true percent in tha population was

betwaen 27.6 and 32.4 percent (30.0 percant *2.4 percent).Thisis called a95-percent confidence interml. Inaddition, theralative standard error of

that 30-percent estimate is 1.2 percent divided by30parcent or4.0 percent.

Pi andl’~, respectively. This formula will represent

the actual standard error quite accurately forthedifference between separate and uncorrelated characteristics although it is only a rough approximation in

most other cases.

A statistically significant difference arnongcomparable proportions or other statistics from two or

more subgroups insufficiently large when a difference

of that size or larger 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 significant, 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 useful. For greater confidence one wouId test for sign~icance at the 0.01

(1-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 0.10 level would be appropriate.

The term “similar” means that any observed difference between two estimates being compared is not

statistically significant, but terms such as “greater,”

“less,” “larger,” and “smaller” indicate that the observed differences are statistically significant at the

0.05 level, by using a two-taiIed t-test with 40 degrees

of freedom. Statements about differences that are

qualified in some way (e.g., by the phrases “the data

suggest” or “some evidence”) indicate that the difference is signit3cant 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 established with 95-

percent confidence from this sample. 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 halfsample replication design (40 for Cycle II) 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 between sample statistics are compared by

using a two-tailed t-test with 40 degrees of freedom.

Example: In 1976, 29.0 percent of 24,795,000

currently married white women or their husbands had

been surgically sterilized, compared with 21.6 percent

of 2,169,000 currently married black women or their

husbands. To test this racial difference at the 0.05

level of significance, compute

29.0 -21.6

t=

(29.0)2 ● RSE:29 o] + (21 .6)2 ● RSEf216,

By using the parameters from table I in the formula

for the RSE of a percent,

‘SE(29.0) =

7021.1665 . (100- 29.0)

29.0 24,795,000

= 0.026

39
and

‘SE(21.6) =

d

2798.6440 , (100 - 21.6)

21.6 2,169,000

= 0.068

Thus

29.0 -21.6 t=

(29.0)2 (0.026)2 +(2 1.6)2 (0.068)2

= 4.48

The two-tailed 0.95 critical value (1 - a) for a t statistic with 40 degrees of freedom is 2.02. Therefore,

the difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Nonsarnpling error

Although sampling error affects the precision or

reliabilityy of survey estimates, nonsarnpling error

introduces bias. 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 sub sample

of respondents; verification of coding and editing;

an independent recode of a sample of questionnaires

by NCHS; keypunch verification; and an extensive

computer “cleaning” to check for inconsistent responses, missing data, and invalid codes. A detailed

description of some of these procedures follows;

others were previously discussed.

The results of any survey are subject to at least

four types of potential nonsampling error including

interview nonresponse; nonresponse to individual

questions or items within the interview; inconsistency

of responses to questions; and errors of recording,

coding, and keying by survey personnel.

A discussion of interview nonresponse and item

nonresponse follows. The third and fourth types of

errors cannot be accurately measured, but the quality

control procedures (some of which are discussed

under “Measurement Process” and “Data Reduction”) of the survey were designed to reduce such

nonsampling errors to a minimum.

Interview rzonresponse. -Interview nonresponse

occurs when no part of an interview is obtained. It

can result from failures at any of three principal

steps: (1) failing to list all households in sample segments, (2) failing to screen all listed households, and

(3) 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 indirectly in two ways. First, an

independent relisting of about 20 percent of the segments was performed, and any differences between

the two lists were pointed out to listers by supervisory staff and reconciled. Second, listing accuracy

was 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, the entire structure was

checked for missed DU’S. About 700 dwelling units,

or about 2 percent of the sample of DU’S designated

for screening, were included in the sample as a result

of the missed DU procedu~e.

Of the original sample of 32,653 DU’S screened,

5,490 were found vacant, not DU’S, or group

quarters. Of the remaining DU’S, 6.2 percent were not

screened successfully. This figure included 2.5 percent refusals to have household members listed, 0.4

percent with language problems, 1.7 percent where

no one could be found at home, and 1.7 percent for

other reasons such as being refused access to the unit

or because of illness.

Of the 25,480 households for which screening

was completed, 10,202 were found to contain an

eligible respondent. However, interviews were not

completed in 11.8 percent of these cases because of

refusals by the eligible respondents (5.8 percent),

language problems (O.6 percent), no contact after

repeated calls (1.8 percent), or other problems (3.6

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 nonre,sponse. -Item nonresponse may have

occurred when a respondent refused to answer a

question 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 where

the answer was not codable. Nonresponse to individual questions was very low in Cycle II, as in Cycle I.

Some examples of item nonresponse among a total of

8,611 respondents are number of pregnancies, 3 cases;

religion of respondent, 17 cases; religion of husband,

232 cases; education, 14 cases; occupation, 185 cases;

and poverty level income, 1,348 cases. Most of the

items with relatively high levels of missing data were

characteristics of the respondent’s current or last

husband, and the sources and amount of income.

Unlike Cycle I of the NSFG, missing data items

were not imputed in Cycle II, except for a few re40
spondents with missing information on age and race,

which were required for the nonresponse and poststratification adjustments. A small amount of missing

data was tolerated in Cycle II to facilitate faster

release of data and data tapes from the NSFG. Assignment of missing data codes and editing of selected

variables was performed by the NSFG staff when necessary or desirable for analysis, as explained in the

appropriate section of the definitions.

As with all survey data, responses to the NSFG

are subject to possible deliberate misreporting by the

respondent. Such misreporting cannot be detected

directly, but it can be detected indirectly by the

extensive computer “cleaning” and editing procedures used in the NSFG.

The 1965 National Fertility Study

The 1965 National Fertility Study (NFS) collected information on fertility and family planning

from a nationally representative area probability sample of currently married women born since July 1,

1910 (15-55 years of age) and living with their husbands in the conterminous United States. The survey

was conducted by Norman B. Ryder and Charles F.

Westoff of the Office of Population Research, Princeton University, under contract with the National

Institute of Child Health and Human Development of

the U.S. Public Health Service.

National Analysts, Inc. of Philadelphia drew the

sample, conducted the interviews, edited and coded

the questionnaires, and prepared the basic data file.

A total of 5,617 women were interviewed, including

4,810 women 1544 years of age. The interview completion rate in the NFS (the number of successfully

completed interviews divided by the number of

women eligible to be interviewed) was 88 percent.

Of the 12 percent not interviewed, approximately

two-thirds, or 8 percent, refused to be interviewed;

the remaining 4 percent were cases in which no one

was at home and other miscellaneous reasons. Further

discussion of the design and conduct of the 1965

NFS may be found in the full report of the study.4

Standard errors

Standard errors for the 1965 NFS are measures of

sampling variabilityy—the variation that occurs because

a sample of women (rather than all women) was interviewed. The chances are approximately 68 out

of 100 that an estimate (a percent from the NFS)

would differ from the actual population value by less

than 1 standard error and approximately 95 out of

100 that the difference would be less than twice the

standard error.

The contractor for the 1965 NFS produced tables

of estimated standard errors, from which tables IV

and V were derived. As noted in the text, bases of

these percents are in table 3.

NOTE: A list of references follows the text.

Table IV. Standard errors expressed in percentage points of estimated percents for currently married white women and women of all races

combined: 1965 National Fertility Study

Estimated percent

Size of sample

5 or 95 10 or 90 150r85 20 or 80 25 or 75 30 or 70 40 or 60 50

50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1

75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6

100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2

150 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8

200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6

250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5

300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3

400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2

500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1

600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0

800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9

1,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8

1,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7

2,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7

2,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6

3,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6

3,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6

3,841 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6

4.3

3.5

3.1

2.5

2.2

2.0

1.9

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

Standard error in percentage points

5.1 5.7 6.2 6.6

4.2 4.7 5.1 5.4

3.7 4.1 4.4 4.7

3.0 3.4 3.7 3.9

2.6 3.0 3.2 3.4

2.4 2.7 2.0 3.1

2.2 2.5 2.7 2.8

1.9 2.2 2.4 2.5

1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3

1.7 1.9 2.0 2.1

1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9

1.4 1.5 1.7 1.8

1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

0.9 1.1 1.1 1.2

0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

7.0 7.2

5.8 5.9

5.0 5.1

4.2 4.2

3.6 3.7

3.3 3.3

3.0 3.1

2.7 2.7

2.4 2.5

2.3 2.3

2.0 2.1

1.9 1.9

1.6 1.7

1.5 1.5

1.4 1.4

1.3 1.4

1.3 1.3

1.3 1.3

41
u

Table V. Standard errors expressed in percentage points of estimated percents for currently married black women:

1965 National Fertility Study

Estimated percent

Size of sample

5 or 95 100r90 T5 or 85 20 or 80 25 or 75 30 or 70 40 or 60 50

50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 4.3

75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 3.6

100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 3.1

150 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 2.6

200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 2.3

250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 2.1

300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 2.0

400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 1.8

500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 1.6

600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 1.6

800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 1.4

1,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 1.3

Standard error in percentage points

5.2 5.8 6.3 6.6

4.3 4.8 5.2 5.5

3.7 4.2 4.5 4.8

3.1 3.5 3.8 4.0

2.8 3.1 3.4 3.6

2.5 2.8 3.1 3.2

2.3 2.6 2.8 3.0

2.1 2.4 2.6 2.7

2.0 2.2 2.4 2.5

1.9 2.0 2.3 2.4

1.7 1.9 2.0 2.2

1.6 1.8 1.9 2.1

7.1 7.2

5.9 6.0

5.1 5.2

4.3 4.4

3.8 3.9

3.5 3.5

3.2 3.3

2.9 3.0

2.7 2.7

2.5 2.6

2.3 2.3

2,2 2.2

42
-. -.

Appendix II. Definitions of

terms in the National Survey

of Family Growth

Contraceptive status

As noted in the text, data on contraceptive status

in 1976 in this report differ slightly from that in Advance Data No. 36.22 In this report, the 1976 data

are revised in two ways: the amount of missing data

on contraceptive status and method used was reduced

from 68 cases among currently married women to 3

cases by further analysis of cases with missing data,

and priority was given to the woman’s sterilization

operation when husband and wife had been surgically

sterilized.

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 probably are pregnant or not?” A woman

who reported that the onset of her last menstrual

period was within the 30 days before the interview

was automatically considered not pregnant.

Post partum. –A woman was classified as post

partum if she reported she was not currently using a

method, was not seeking a pregnancy, and her last

pregnancy had terminated within 2 months before

the date she was interviewed.

Seeking pregnancy. –A woman was classifed as

seeking pregnancy if she reported she was not using a

method at the time of interview because she wanted

to become pregnant.

Other nonusers. –Women who reported that they

were currently using no contraceptive method and

were not sterile, pregnant, post partum, or seeking

pregnancy were classified as other nonusers. Among

these are women who were indifferent to the chances

of pregnancy, had a very low risk of pregnancy due to

some fecundity impairment, or objected to contraceptive methods for personal or religious reasons.

Women who douched after intercourse but did not

report this as a method of contraception also were

classified as nonusers, although such douching pracNOTE: A list of references follows the text.

tice is known to have a very modest contraceptive

effect when done very soon after intercourse.

Sterile. –A woman was classified as sterile if she

reported that it was impossible for her and her husband to have a baby. Sterile couples were classified

further by whether the intent of the sterility was

contraceptive or noncontraceptive (see “Surgically

sterile”).

Nonsurgically sterile. --A woman 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.

In 1976, women who had been trying to conceive

for at least 3 years without a pregnancy also were

classified as sterile, probably accounting for most or

all of the increase in nonsurgical sterility between

1973 and 1976. In any case, this increase was not

statistically sigrdilcant.

All couples who were sterile for nonsurgical reasons were classified as noncontraceptively sterile in

tables4, 5, and 6.

Surgically sterile. -A woman was c1assii3edas surgically sterile if she or her husband were completely

sterile due to an operation. Because sterilizing operations frequently are obtained exclusively or partly as

methods of contraception because of their complete

effectiveness against conception rather than for therapeutic reasons, they have further been classified as

contraceptive and noncontraceptive. In Cycle I and in

the 1965 NFS, 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 Cycle II 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 1973 and 1976, probably for four reasons.

43
First, 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 1965 and 1973, but

as noncontraceptive in 1976. Second, in 1976, some

respondent women may have reported their feelings

about having had “all the children you wanted”;

sometimes, the woman’s preference may have differed from that of the couple jointly or that of her

husband. Third, in Cycle I, if a couple had had more

than one sterilizing operation–for example, a vasectomy followed a few years later by a hysterectomy --

the interviewer coded the earliest operation. In Cycle

II, however, the woman’s operation was given priority. Because the first operation usually was contraceptive and performed on the husband, and because

the woman’s operation usually was noncontraceptive,

couples with more than one sterilization operation

tended to be classified as contraceptively sterile in

1973 and as noncontraceptively sterile in 1976.

This change was made to obtain a complete count of

sterilizations for ever married women; because the

survey does not interview men, a complete count of

sterilizations among ever married men cannot be obtained from it. Fourth, it may be speculated that

some respondents in 1976 reported the reasons

(health-related or noncontraceptive) they switched

from a nonsurgical method of contraception such as

the pill or IUD, rather than the reason they used contraception initially. All four of these factors tended

to increase the fraction of sterilization operations

classified as noncontraceptive in 1976, compared

with 1973.

This problem has been discussed elsewhere by

Pratt et al.~ Despite this problem of comparability,

however, eliminating contraceptive sterilization from

the list of contraceptive methods (tables 7-14) would

provide an incomplete picture of trends in contraceptive practice from 1965 to 1976 because of the very

large increases in contraceptive sterilization in 1965-

73 and 1973-76.

Conmaceptors. -A woman who reported use of a

contraceptive method other than surgical sterilization

at the date of interview was classified according to

the specific method used. Methods used by extremely

small proportions of the population such as jelly,

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

category “other.” When more than one method was

reported in current use, the method generally considered the most effective was used for classification

purposes.

NOTE: A list of references follows the text.

44

Demographic terms

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

interview. “Teenager” refers to a woman 15-19 years

of age at the date of interview.

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

other. The number of sample cases of other women

was too small for reliable analysis. They were, therefore, not shown separately in tables 4-14. Race refers

to the race of the woman interviewed.

Parity. –Parity refers to the number of live births

the respondent had.

Years since wife’s j7rst marriage. -This refers to

the number of years between the wife’s first marriage

and the interview date.

Marital status. –This report is based only upon

currently married women. Couples temporarily separated for reasons other than marital discord, such as

vacation, illness, or Armed Forces, are classified as

married.

Household popzdation. –The household population consists of persons living in households. A household is a person or a group of persons, providing no

more than five are unrelated to the head of the household, who occupy a room or group of rooms intended

as separate living quzu-ters; that is, the occupants do

not live and eat with any other persons in the structure, and there is either(1) direct access from outside

the building or through a common hall, or (2) complete kitchen facilities for the exclusive use of the occupants of the household.

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 groups, two other

categories-other and none—were used. Because Protestant includes numerous individual denominations,

these respondents were asked to identify the denomination to which they belonged. Those who answered

“other” to the original question and then named a

Protestant denomination were included in their own

groups. Although specific denominational names were

obtained and recorded, the numbers of cases for most

denominations were too few to produce reliable estimates, so they were combined in larger categories. In

this report, only Protestant women and Catholic

women were shown separately because the number of

sampled Jewish women, women with other religions,

and those with no religion were too small for reliable

analysis.

Education, –Education is 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 is based on responses to a series of questions concerning (1) the last grade or year of school

attended, (2) whether that grade was completed, (3)
whether any other schooling of a vocational or generally nonacademic type was obtained, and (4) whether

other schooling was included in the years of regular

school or college reported in (1).

The term “high school” indicates that the woman

completed high school; the term “less than high

school” indicates that the woman did not complete

high school; the term “more than high school” indicates that the woman completed at least one year of

college.

Intent to have more children. –Currently married

fecund women were asked, “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 affmatively 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 (1) said she

and her husband disagreed, or (2) said she did not

know whether she intended to have a baby or another

baby, or (3) the response was not ascertained by the

interviewer, the woman was excluded from the. tabulations by “parity and intent.” Approximately 10

percent of wives in 1976 were excluded from these

tabulations for these reasons. Similar procedures were

followed for the 1965 and 1973 data.

45
Appendix Ill. Selected sections

of the currently married women

questionnaire of the National

Survey of Family Growth

OPEN INTERVAL CONTINUE OECK ~ &

Box 23, IF CURRENTLY PREGNANT, Go To C-43, OTHERWISE, CONTINUE,

I

C-34. Since your (last) pregnancy, have there been periods of one nwnth or

more in which you were not having intercourse , such as after your

pregnancy ended , when one of you was away or sick, or for any other

reason?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l (C-35)

29

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2 (c-36)

C-35, what months and years were those? FROM

PROBE : What other months?

j~~

j A HY!YIYh

j&. . . . ‘BYiYiYfl

1

C-36, plea= look again at the card. Since ( your [last] pregnancy/January, 1973 ) ,

have you ever used any method for one month or more to delay or prevent a pregnancy?

n

SAND

CARD 1

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l (C-37)54

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2 (P-43)

BEGIN DECK 07

C-37, Starting with the earliest method you xMw QT . . .._ T--_ –ti _ __

I 2nd METHODI 3rd MWHOD i LAST_ MiTHOD_

used during this period, please tell

me all the methods you used for one I 1 I

month or more in the order you used 55 56 ! 686911314126 27 @NTER them. INPROBE: ORDER what INANSWER other methods? AREA)mlm ‘~l[[n

(ASK C-38 THROUGH C-42 SEQUENTIALLY FOR

EACHMETHOD,)

& & &l&

C-38, ln What month and year did you

57 58 5960 7~ 71 7Z 73 15 26 171812& 2990 31

start to use mETfIOD)?

IImIluIIl

BOX 24, IF THE METHOD Is STERILIZATION (‘J’ OR ‘K’ ABOVE) Go To BOX 26,

OTHiRWISE, CONTINUE,

C-39i ~:et~m: were using (METHOD) during

were there times when you

skipped using any method at all? 61 74 19 32

Yes . . . . . . 1 (C-40) 1 (C-40) 1 (C-40) 1 (C-40)

No . . . . . . 2 (Box 25) 2 (Box 25) 2 (BOE 25) 2 (Box 25)

C-flcl,Would you say you skipped using ~

methods often, somatimes, or only

once or twice?

Often. . . . . 1 1 1 1

Sometimes. . . 2 62 2

75 2

20 233

Once/Twice . . 3 ,3 3 3

Box 25, IF Lm METHOD,ASK C-41, OTHERWISE, C-42,

1

C-41. Are YOU and your husband still

using (14ETn0D)?

63 76 21 34

Yes . . . . . . 1 (c-43) 1 (c-43) 1 (c-43) 1 (c-43)

No . . . . . . 2 (C-42) 2 (C-42) 2 (C-42) 2 (c-42)

C-42, ln What month and year did you

stop using (METROD) ?

+ * Z40.~R. *

6+ 6566 67 77 78 79 80 22Q8 2925 3s36 3? 38

Box 26, Go To NEXT METHOD (C-38),IF ANY, OTHERWISE, Go To C-43,

46
SECTIOND

BEGIN DECK 15_

We are talking with women about children they may have in the future, as well as about those

they already. have. (IF “R” NAS ALREADY MENTIONED STERILITY, MENOPAUSE, ETC.: I think we

have already covered some of these next guestions, but I‘d better go through them with you

to be sure that I record the answers correctly. )

D-1,

lt is physically impossible for scxne Possible. . . . . . . . . . . 1 (D-6)

couples to have children. As far as

% ~kF&r%%% Z %%%’=

Impossible. . . . . . ~ . . . 2 (D-2) 13

a (nether) beby, that is, to get Dontt Know, Not Sure. . . . . 8 (D-6)

pregnant (again)?

D-2, What is the reason that you are unable to have a (nether) baby? (RKCORD VERBATIM ON

LINES AT LEFT, CODE ALL TNAT APPLY, THEN FOLLOW SKIP INSTRUCTION FOR SMALLEST CODE

NUMBER. IF SESPONSE IWO ICATES A PROBLEW OTHER TKAN STERILITY, CHANGE

“POSSIBLE” AND GO TO D-6. )

“~ has had sterilizing

operation. . . . . . . .

Impossible for “R” due

to accident or Illness .

“~” sterile for other

reasons . . . . . . . . .

D-1 TO

14 15 16 17

1 1

. .01 (D-3)

. .02 (D-3)

. .03 (D-3)

“R” has reached menopause ..04 (D-14)

E~sband has had

~izing operation. . ..05 (D-3)

Impossible for husband

due to accident or illness .06 (D-3)

Husband sterile for

ther reasons. . . . . . .07 (D-3)

Cou le unable to conceive,

& know reason. . . . . .08 (Probe)

PROBE : How many years altogether have you gone without using any birth

control method and still not become pregnant? (FJ3CORDVERBATIN

ON LINES AT LEFT AND ENTER NUMBER 03’ YBARS .)

19

(BOZ 27A)

NO. OF YRS. m

ox 27A, IF 3 YEARS OR I F=, .SAY: I know that you ‘ve talked about the reasons that you

haven’ t become pregnant but could you tell me a little

bit more your difficulty in getting pregnant?

THEN CODE “YES” IN D-6 AND RECORD RESPONSE IN D-7,

lF MORFTHAN 3 YFARS, CODE6 IN D-3 AND CONTINUE,

D-3, I D-4, I D-5,

(ASK QUESTION ONLY IF CHCOSE APPROPRIATE QUESTION: Was one reason for

D-2 IS FBNALE OPERATION; (A) When was the operation done? the -ration

OTHERWISE , CODE because you had

WITHOUT ASKING .) (B) When did (you/your husband) become all the children

What kind of operation sterile? (If D.K. , PROBE: . . . you wanted?

was it? learn of the sterility)

One ovary

of ‘–CHECK THE APPROPRIATE CIRCLE IN D-3 AND PROBE TO FIND OUT IF SHE

=oved (“R” IS SURX TNAT SKE IS STERILE.

not sterile) . . . —

One tube tied

If she is sure, circle Code “6 - other reasons” in D-3 and follow

O( the appropriate skip instruction for that category.

=removed (”R“ If she is not sure, record her snswer verbatim and skip to D-8. .

not sterile) . . . —

Both ovaries Yes . . . 1 (D-7.5)

removed. . . . . . 1 (D-4A) /

MONTH / YEAR (D-5) No. . . . 2 (D-14)

Both tubes tied

=emoved . . . . 2 (D-4A) /

MONTH / YEAR (D-5)

Yes . . . 1 (D-76)

No. . . . 2 (D-14)

Hysterectomy Yes . . . 1 (D-76)

(Removal of /

uterus) . . . . . . 3 (D-4A) MONTH / YEAR (D-5) No. . . . 2 (D-14)

Vasectomy Yes . . . 1 (D-76)

(cutting male /

sperm ducts) . . . 4 (D-4A) MONTH / (D-5) No. . . . 2 (D-14)

Other operation or Yes . . . 1 (D-76)

type unknown . . . 5 (D-4A) /

MONTH / (D-5) No. . . . 2 (D-14)

Accident, illness or

other reasons. . . 6 (D-4B) /

MONTH / YEAR (D-14)

‘0 ❑ “-’”nzn”iz

47

fiU.S. GOVE81UiENTPRINTINGOFFICE: 1982-361-161:504
I

!

;1

[

i

I

I

Vital

SERIES 1.

SERIES 2.

SERIES 3.

SERIES 4.

SERIES 10

SERIES 11

SEf@ 12

:.’

SERIES 13

iand Health

Programs and Collection

the general programs of

Procedures. -Reports describing

the National Center for Health

%tiStlcs and its offices and divisions and the data co1.

Iection methods used. They also include definitions and

other material necessary for understanding the data.

Data Evaluation and Methods Research.-Studies of new

statistical methodology including experimental tests of

new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection

methods, new analytical techniques, objective evaluations

of reliability of collected data, and contributions to statistical theory.

Analytical and Epidemiological Studies.-Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies based on vital

and health statistics, carrying the analysis further than the

expository types of reports in the other series.

Documents and Committee Reports.- Final reports of

major committees concerned with vital and health statistics and documents such as recommended model vital

registration laws and revised birth and death certificates.

Data from the National Health Interview Suwey.–Statls

tics on illness, accidental injuries, disability, use of hospital, medical. dental, and other services, and other

health-related topics, all based on data collected In the

continuing national household interview survey.

Data From the National Health Examination Survey and

the National Health and Nutrition Examination Srsrvey.–

Data from direct examination, testing, and measurement

of national samples of the civil iarr noninstitutional ized

population provide the basis for ( 1) estimates of the

medically defined prevalence of specif!c diseases in the

United States and the distributions of the population with

respect to physical, physiological, and psychological

characteristics and (2) analysis of relationships among the

various measurements without reference to an explicit

finite universe of persons.

Data From the Institutionalized Population Surveys.– Discontinued in 1975. Reports from these surveys are included in Series 13.

Data on Health Resources Utilization. –Statistics on the

ut!lization of health manpower and facilities providing

descriptions

SERIES 14.

SERIES 15.

SERIES 20.

SERIES 21.

SERIES 22.

SERIES 23.

long-term care, ambulatory care, hospital care, and family

planning services.

Data on Health Resources: Manpower and Facilities.–

Statistics on the numbers, geographic distribution, and

characteristics of health resources Including physicians,

dentists, nurses, other health occupations, hospitals,

nursing homes, and outpatient facll! ties.

Data From Special Surveys.–Statlstlcs on health and

health-related topics collected In spec!al surveys that are

not a part of the continuing data systems of the National

Center for Health Statistics.

Data on Mortality .–Var!ous statisticson mortality other

than as Included In regular annual or monthly reports.

Special analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables; geographic and time series analyses; and

statistics on characterlst!cs of deaths not available from

the wtal records based on sample surveys of those records.

Data on Natality, Marriage, and Divorce.-Var!ous statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce other than as

Included (n regular annual or monthly reports. Special

analyses by demographic variables; geographic and time

series analyses; stud!es of fertility; and stattstlcs on

charactenst!cs of births not available from the v!tal

records based on sample surveys of those records

Data From the National Mortality and Natality Surveys.–

Discontinued in 1975 Reports from thesesample surveys

based on wtal records are Included in Series 20 and 21,

respectively.

Data From the National Survey of Family Growth. –

Statmt!cs on fertll!ty, family formation and dlssolutlon,

fam{ly planning, and related maternal and infant health

topics derived from a per!od(c survey of a nationwide

probability sample of ever-married women 1544 years of

age.

For a list of titles of reports published In these ser}es, write to”

Scientific and Tech n!cal Information Branch

National Center for Health Statistics

Public Health Service

Hyattsville, Md. 20782
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

I Public Health Service

I

, Office of Health Research, Statistics, and Technology

!

National Center for Health Statistics

3700 East-West Highway

Hyattsville, Maryland 20782

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

I

From the Office of Health Research, Statlstlcs, ;,r){l Te(hnu mJy

DHHS Publication No IPHS) 821986, Series 23. NO 10

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HHS

HHS 396

*Third Class 0*-

US.MAtL

For I!stings of publications in the VI1-AL AND HEALTH STATISTICS ,, I?.; ,+11 301 43fj NCI{S