Data from the

NATIONAL SURVEY OF FAMILY GROWTH

ContraceptiveUtilization

UnitedStates,1976

Statistics, based on data collected in 1976, are presented on the use

of contraception by currently married women, never-married

women with offspring in the household, and widowed, divorced,

and separated women. Women who used contraception are shown

by the method of contraception used, according to race and age of

the woman and by various socioeconomic characteristics.

DHHS Publication No. 81-1983

Series 23

Number 7

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service

Office of Health Research, Statistics, and Technology

National Center for Health Statistics

Hyattsviller Md. March 1981
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Mosher, W’illiarn D.

Contraceptive utilization, United States.

(Vital and health statistics : Series 23, Data from the National Survey of Family

Growth ; no. 7) (DHHS publication ; (PHS) 81-1983)

Includes bibliographical references.

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

I. Title. II. Series: United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and health

statistics : Series 23, Data from the National Survey of Family Growth ; no 7. 111. Series:

United States. Dept. of Health and Human Services. I)HHS publication ; (PI IS) 81-1983.

[DNLM: 1. Contraception behavior. W2 A N148vw no. 7]

HQ766.5.U5M67 613.9’4’0973 80-39981

ISBN 0-8406 -0210-3
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS

DOROTHY P. RICE, Director

ROBERT A. ISRAEL, Deputy Director

JACOB J. FELDMAN, Ph.D., Acting Associate Director for Analysis and Epidemiology

GAIL F. FISHER, Ph.D., A cting Associate Director for the Cooperative Health Statistics System

GARRIE J. LOSEE, Acting Associate Director for Data Processing and Services

ALVAN O. ZAR4TE, Ph.D., A ssistantDirector for International Statistics

E. EARL BRYANT, Acting Associate Director for Interview and Examination Statistics

ROBERT C. HUBER, Acting Assoczkte Director for Management

MONROE G. SIRKEN, Ph. D., Acting Associate Directorfor Research andiilethodology

PETER L. HURLEY, A cting Associate Director for Vital and Health Care Statistics

ALICE HAYWOOD, Information Officer

DIVISION OF VITAL STATISTICS

JOHN E. PATTERSON, Director

ALICE M. HETZEL, Depu ty Director

WILLIAM F. PRATT, Ph.D., Chiej Family Growth Survey Branch

MABEL G. SMITH, Chiej Statistical Resources Branch

JOSEPH D. FARRELL, CJziefi Programming Branch

Vital and Health Statistics-Series 23-No. 7

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 81-1983

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 80-39981
CONTENTS

Summary of Principal Fkxlings .................................................................. ............................................

Background .... ........................................................................................................................................

Contraceptive Use Among Married Couples ............................................................................................

Age md&ce ................................................................. .......................................... .........................

Hispanic Origin .................................................................................................................................

Region ...................................................................................... ........................................................

Poverty Level Income .............. .........................................................................................................

Parity .................................................................. ..............................................................................

Labor Force Status ................. ................................................. ....... .................................................

Education ....................... ............... ...................................................................................................

Rel@ion ............................................................................. .......... .....................................................

Contraceptive Use Among Widowed, Divorced, and Separated Women ..................................................

Contraceptive Use Among Never-Married Women With Offspring in the Household ....................... ........

References ..................................................... .................................................................. .......................

List of Detailed Tables .................................. ........................... ..............................................................

Appendixes

I. Technical Notes ........................................................................................................................

II. Definitions of Terns .................................................................................................................

III. Selected Sections of the Currently Married Women Questionnaire of the National Survey of

Family Growth ............................................................................................................. ..........

,.

LIST OF TEXT FIGURES

1. Percent of currently married women 1544 years of age using surgical and nonsurgical methods of

contraception, by race and age: United States, 1976 ...................................................................

2. Percent of currentfy married women 15-44 years of age using contraceptives other than sterihation who were using the IUD, by origin and age: United States, 1976 .........................................

3. Percent of currently married women 15-44 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization, by age and parity: United States, 1976 ......................... . ....................................................

4. Percent of currently married women 15-44 years of age not using contraception, by type of nonuse and parity: United States, 1976 .............................................................................................

5. Percent of cumently married women 1544 years of age, by contraceptive status and education:

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

6. Percent of currently married white women 15-44 years of age using contraceptives other than

sterilization who were using the oral contraceptive piU and percent using rhythm, by religion

and age: United States, 1976 ..................................................... ....... ...........................................

LIST OF TEXT TABLES

A. Percent distribution of currently mm-ried women 15-44 years of age, by contraceptive status and

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

1

2

3

5

7

7

8

8

9

10

10

11

13

14

15

47

54

57

7

7

9

9

10

11

3

1

...

Ill
B. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status, according to race and age: Urdted States, 1976 ................................. ......................... 4

c. Number of currently married women 15-44 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization and percent distribution by method of contraception used, according to race and age:

United States, 1976 ........................................ ............................................................................. 6

D. Number of widowed, divorced, and separated women 15-44 years of age and percent dk.tribution

by contraceptive status, according to race: United States, 1973 and 1976 .................................. 12

SYMBOLS

Data not available----————— --..-—- -- .

Category not applicable--—-–----— ------- ., .

Quantity zero-—–-——---–— .- —----

Quantity more than O but less than 0.05-— 0.0

Figure does not meet standards of

reliability or precision——---— *

iv
CONTRACEPTIVE UTILIZATION

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

The National Survey of Family Growth, a

periodic survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, is designed to provide

information on fertility, family planning, and

aspects of maternal and child health that are

closely related to childbearing. This report presents statistics on the use of contraception in the

United States by currently married women, by

previously married women, and by nevermarried women with offspring living in their

households. Data are presented on whether contraception was used at the time of interview

(contraceptive status) and if so, what contraceptive method was used, according to race and

age of the woman and various socioeconomic

characteristics.

This report presents final, revised data on

contraceptive use from Cycle II of the National

Survey of Family Growth, which was conducted

in 1976. Preliminary data for currently and previously married women were pubIished in the

Advance Data series.1 *Z The final data in this report supersede the 1976 data in those preliminary reports.

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL

FINDINGS

An estimated 13.5 million, or 49.2 percent,

of the married couples with wives 15-+4 years of

age were using nonsurgical methods of contraception in 1976. Another 5.1 million wives or

their husbands, or 18.6 percent, had been surgically sterilized because they had all the children

they wanted. Therefore, a total of 18.6 million,

or 67.7 percent of couples were using contraception in 1976. Of the 32.3 percent of couples not

using contraception, 11.4 percent were sterile

for reasons other than contraceptive intent; 13.3

percent were pregnant, post partum, or seeking

pregnancy; and 7.6 percent were not using contraception for other reasons.

The percent of couples using any method of

contraception did not change dramatically between 1973 (69.6 percent) and 1976 (67.7 percent), but the distribution of contraceptive

methods used did change in important ways. For

the first time, the number of married women

using the oral contraceptive pill dropped, from

6.7 million in 1973 to 6.2 million in 1976. Apparently, a trend away from the pill, and toward

sterilization and methods other than the pill,

had be<gun.

However, among couples who were using

nonsurgical methods of contraception (nonsurgical contraceptors) in 1976, the pill was still the

most popular method, accounting for 45.8 percent of nonsurgical contraceptors (or 22.5 percent of alI married couples). The condom

accounted for 14.8 percent of nonsurgical contraceptors; the intrauterine device (IUD), 12.9

percent; the rhythm method, 6.9 percent; foam,

6.1 percent; the diaphragm, 5.9 percent; and

withdrawal, douche, and other methods, 7.7

percent.

The percent of couples using nonsurgical

methods of contraception was much higher

among couples with wives 15-29 years of age

than among those with wives 30-44 years of age.

Conversely, the percent using sterilization as a

contraceptive method was higher among couples

with wives 30-44 years of age than among those

with wives 15-29 years of age.

Among couples using nonsurgical methods

of contraception, those with wives 15-29 years

1
of age were more likely to use the pill and less

likely to use the diaphragm or the condom than

those with wives 30-44 years of age.

White couples were more likely than black

couples to have been surgically sterilized because

they had all the children they wanted ( 19.3 percent compared with 12.7 percent). In addition,

the data suggest that white couples were more

likely than black couples to use nonsurgical

methods of contraception (49.5 percent compared with 45.9 percent).

The data on the contraceptive status of currently married couples also include the following findings: couples in which the wife was of

Hispanic origin were much less likely than other

couples to be surgically sterile because they had

all the children they wanted (surgical contraceptors); the percent of couples using nonsurgical methods was higher in the Northeast Region

than in other regions and higher among white

Catholic than among white Protestant couples;

and the percent using nonsurgical methods of

contraception increased sharply with education.

Among currently married couples using nonsurgical methods of contraception (nonsurgical

contraceptors) the differences by socioeconomic

characteristics include the following: wives of

Hkpanic origin were much more likely to use

the IUD than other wives; use of the pill was

lower in the Northeast Region than in the other

regions; use of the diaphragm was more common

among high income than among women below

the poverty level, and more common among

wives with at least some college education than

among wives with a high school education or

less; the percent using the pill was higher among

wives in the labor force than among other wives;

and white Protestant couples were more likely

to use the pill, and less likely to use the rhythm

method than white Catholic couples.

In 1976, 40.0 percent of the 4.4 million

widowed, divorced, and separated women 15-44

years of age were using nonsurgical methods of

contraception; another 13.7 percent were surgically sterile because they had all the children

they wanted (surgical contraceptors). In contrast

to currently married women, the number and

percent of previously married women using the

pill increased between 1973 and 1976, from

18.1 to 24.3 percent.

Among the 1.1 million never-married women

with offspring living in the household, 57.0 percent were using nonsurgical methods of contraception; 4.7 percent were surgically sterile because the y had all the children they wanted.

The pill or IUD were used by the majority of

nonsurgical contraceptors regardless of marital

status.

BACKGROUND

Cycle H of the National Survey of Family

Growth (NSFG) was based on personal interviews with a multistage area probability sample

of 8,611 women 15-44 years of age in 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 with them in the

household.

Between January and September of 1976,

3,009 black women and 5,602 women of other

races were interviewed. The interview focused

on the respondents’ marital arid pregnancy histories, their use of contraception, whether each

pregnancy was planned at the time of conception, their use of maternal care and family pkmning services, reproductive impairments, and a

wide range of social and economic characteristics.

Characteristics, such as age, race, Hispanic

origin, parity, education, geographic region, labor force status, and religion are reported for

the women interviewed. For convenience in

writing, in this report the term “black couples”

refers to couples with black wives and “couples

30-44 years of age” refers to couples with wives

30-44 years of age, regardless of the rac(e or age

of the husbands in those couples.

The statistics are estimates for the national

population from which the sample was drawn.

Because the estimates are based on a sample,

they are subject to sampling variability. Also,

nonsampling errors may have been introduced

during data collection, processing, and analysis,

although quality control measures were used at

each stage to minimize error. Further discussion

of the survey design, definition of terms, and

sampling variability can be found both in the

appendixes and in “Sample Design, Estimation
Procedures, and Variance Estimation: National

Survey of Family Growth, Cycle II,” Series 2,

Number 87?

The term “similar” means that any observed

difference between two estimates being compared is not statistically significant; terms such

as “greater,” “less,” “larger,;’ and “smaller” indicate that the observed differences are statistically significant at the 5-percent level by using a

2-tailed t-test with 40 degrees of freedom. Statements about differences that are qualified in

some way (e.g., the data suggest or some evidence) indicate that the difference is significant

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

level.

Sections discussing detailed findings for currently married women, previously married

women, and single women with offspring follow

this summary and background. Appendixes I-III

contain technical notes, definitions of terms,

and a reproduction of the survey questions on

contraception.

CONTRACEPTIVE USE AMONG

MARRIED COUPLES

Between 1960 and 1973, the proportion of

currently married couples using contraception to

plan their families increased from 50.4 percent

in 19604 to 63.9 percent in 19655 and 69.6

percent in 1973 # In 1976, however, the proportion was essentially unchanged, but the distribution of methods continued to shift in important

ways. The apparent decrease between 1973 and

1976 (table A) in the percent using contraception was caused by a change in the wording of

the survey question on the contraceptive intent

of surgical sterilization, and did not reflect any

increase in the proportion of couples at risk of

an unplanned pregnancy. More discussion of this

topic can be found in two pertinent publications.1 ~6

Between 1965 and 1976 (table A), the percent of married couples using sterilization as a

method of contraception increased dramatically,

from 7.8 percent in 1965 to 18.6 percent in

1976. At the same time, the percent of couples

using the oral contraceptive pill increased from

15.3 percent in 1965 to a high of 25.1 percent

in 1973, but dropped to 22.5 percent in 1976.

Tabla A. Percent distribution of currently married women

15-44 years of age, by contraceptive status and method:

United States, 1965, 1973, and 1976

Contraceptive status and method

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

Contraceptors .....................

Surgical .........................................

Nonsurgical ...................................

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

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

Othar methods .........................

Noncontraceptors ...............

Noncontracaptively sterile ............

Pregnant, post partum or seeking

pregnancy ...................................

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

ElzEIEE

Percent distribution

T

100.0 100.0

67.7 69.6

18.6 16.4

49.2 53.2

22.5 25.1

6.3 6.7

20.3 21.4

32.3 30.4

1

11.4 7.4

13.3 14.2

7.6 8.7

100.0

63.9

7.8

56.1

15.3

0.7

40.1

38.1

14.4

14.2

7.5

SOURCES: lSee reference 1.

2we5toff C. F.: The modernization of U.S. contraceptive

.

practice. Farn. Plann. Perspect 4(3):9-13, July 1972. table 2.

Similarly, use of the IUD increased from 0.7

percent of couples in 1965 to 6.7 percent in

1973, but decreased (nonsignificantly) to 6.3

percent in 1976.

The upward trend in use of the pill and IUD

came to a halt by 1976, and was replaced by an

apparent trend toward the use of surgical sterilization and contraceptive methods other than the

pill ~d the IUD. Furthermore, this trend differed markedly among various segments of the

population.1 J7

This report focuses on differences in nonsurgical contraceptive practice between various

groups in the United States in 1976. It is similar

in scope and design to a previous report based

on Cycle I of the NSFG.A

Women not using contraception were divided into three groups in this report: (1) those

women who were pregnant, post partum, or

seeking pregnancy; (2) women who were sterile

for reasons other than contraception; and (3)

women who were other nonusers of contraception (table B). Most noncontracepting wives 15-

29 years of age were pregnant, post partum, or

trying to become pregnant; most noncontracepting wives 30-44 years of age were sterile or

3
Table B. Number of currently married women 15-44 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status, according to race

and age: United States, 1976

Number of

Race and age women in

thousends

All racesl I

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

F

27,488

15-29 years ........................................................ 12,463

30-44 years ........................................................ 15,024

White I

15-44 years ............................................. I 24,795

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

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

Black

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

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

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

11,218

13.577

2,169

993

1,177

Ilncludes white, black, and other races.

Contraceptive status

1] Contraceptors I Noncontraceptors

IfEIzEz

Percent distribution

100.0II 18.6 I 49.2

100.0II 8.1 I 60.8

-u100.0 27.2 39.5

100.0 19.3 49.5

J----L 100.0 8.5 61.5

100.0 28.2 39.6

100.0 12.7 45.9

100.0 5.4 55.6

100.0 18.8 37.7

11.4

3.3

18.2

11.4

3.1

18.2

11.7

Pregnant,

post partum,

or seeking

pregnancy

13.a

22.2

5.8

12.7

21.8

5.2

16.4

-

Other

nonuser

7.6

5.6

9.3

7.1

5.1

8.7

13,3

9.6

16.4

other nonusers. Among these other nonusers, cent distribution of currently married couples in

the reasons for not using contraception may

have included a low risk of pregnancy because of

a fecundity impairment, indifference to the risk

of pregnancy, or religious or personal objections

to contraception.

The data in this report refer to the contraceptive status of women and the methods they

used at the interview date. The proportion of

couples who reported use of contraception at

the interview is smaller than the proportion who

have ever used a contraceptive method and

somewhat smaller than the proportion who regularly use a contraceptive method. The 13.3 percent of women who were pregnant at the time

of the interview, who were seeking pregnancy,

or had just completed a pregnancy (post partum)

included many who had previously used and

would return to using contraceptive methods.

Couples may not be at risk of an unplanned

pregnancy because they are definitely sterile, or

because the wife is pregnant, post partum, or

seeking pregnancy. Tables 1 and 2 show the per1976 by detailed contracep-tive status to- show

the relative importance of a number of these

categories and their variations by age, race, and

origin. These data are helpful in interpreting

tables 3-22.

Sten”lity by sex and contraceptive intent. –

For couples of all races and origins, 30.0 percent

were sterile at the time of interview (table 1),

almost all (28.2 percent) were surgically sterile,

and only 1.7 percent were nonsurgically sterile.

Although contraceptive surgical sterility was

about evenly divided between husbands and

wives, noncontraceptive surgical stenlit y was

almost entirely among femaIes. Thus, in oddnumbered tables 3-21, the category “noncontraceptively sterile” is predominantly surq”cal sterility among females.

BIack couples were substantially less likely

to be surgically sterile than white couples (21.6

percent compared with 29.0 percent) (table 1).

This difference was because a much lower percent of black than white husbands had opera-
tions (1.7 percent compared with 10.5 percent,

respectively). The percents of white and black

couples with female operations were similar.

Thus for white couples in the odd-numbered

tables 3-21, the category “surgical contraceptors” is about half male and half female operations (although this varies with other characteristics as well). For black couples, however, this

category reflects predominantly female

operations.

Hispanic couples were much less likely to be

surgically sterile (18.7 percent) than other couples (28.9 percent). Hispanic wives were less

likely than other wives to be surgically sterile

(14.0 percent compared with 18.7 percent); similarly, Hispanic husbands were less likely than

other husbands to be surgically sterile (4.6 percent compared with 10.1 percent). This pattern

contrasts with the difference in surgical sterilization between white and black couples, which

was primarily due to the difference in the prevalence of male operations (table 1).

Prepant, post partum, or seeking @-egnancy. —Data on contraceptive status by race

and age appear in table 2. The percent pregnant

or post partum ranged from 14.7 at 15-24 years

of age to 1.1 percent at 35-44 years of age. The

percent seeking pregnancy also declined as age

increased, from 10.3 percent at 15-24 years of

age to 2.0 percent at 35-44 years of age. The

category “pregnant, post partum, or seeking

pregnancy,” (which appears in odd-numbered

tables 3-2 1) may be divided into pregnant or

post partum and seeking pregnancy (see tables 1

and 2). Data in table 2 show that the relative

share of this division changes with age. Among

wives 15-24 years of age, about 59 percent of

the women who were pregnant, post partum, or

seeking pregnancy were pregnant or post pm-turn

(14.7 percent divided by 25.0 percent), but at

3544 years of age, this percent was only 35 (1.1

percent divided by 3.1 percent). Therefore, in

the odd-numbered tables 3-21, at the younger

ages most of the women in the category “pregnant, post partum, or seeking pregnancy” were

pregnant or post partum; at the older reproductive ages, most were trying to become pregnant.

Other nonusers. –The last category of noncontraceptors shown in the odd-numbered tables

3-21 is “other nonusers.” It includes women

who were not using contraception; did not report that it was impossible for them to have a

baby; and were not pregnant, post partum, or

seeking pregnancy. Some of these women had

fecundity impairments, but did not report that

they were sterile; others were not using contraception for religious, esthetic, or other reasons.

Contraceptors.–Couples who were using

contraception are divided into two groups: surgical contraceptors (those who had a sterilization operation because they had all the children

they wanted) and nonsurgical contraceptors

(those who were using methods such as the contraceptive pill, IUD, condom, etc.). Couples

using nonsurgical methods of contraception

(nonsurgical contraceptors) (table B) comprised

49.2 percent of all couples. In tables 1 and 2,

the percent of couples using a particular

method, such as the pill, is affected by two factors: (1) the percent who are using a nonsurgical

method of contraception, and (2) the popularity

of the particular method among those couples.

To describe differences among social, racial, and

age groups in the proportion using any nonsurgical method, the odd-numbered tables 3-21 show

that category with the noncontraceptive categories that were previously discussed, based on all

women. To describe differences in contraceptive

method popularity, the even-numbered tables 4-

22 show percents of women using particular

methods, the base of which is limited to nonsurgical contraceptors.

Age and Race

The current contraceptive status of wives

was strongly associated with their age at interview and their race. The age differences may reflect both differences in stages of the life cycle

that persist in successive cohorts, and particular

histories of the age cohorts represented. The differences by race may be caused by social and economic differences (e g., education and income)

between white and black couples, the greater

dependence of black wives on public family

planning clinics rather than on personal physicians,s or other factors.

The percent of currently married women

using nonsurgical methods of contraception was

sharply higher among the younger wives (60.8

5
percent of wives 15-29 years of age, compared

with 39.5 percent of wives 30-44 years of age)

(table B). Conversely, the percent using sterilization (surgical contraceptors) was much higher

among the older wives (3 O-44 years of age)

(table B).Thus the proportion of couples using

some method of contraception was not sharply

different by age–68.9 percent of the younger

and 66.7 percent of the older wives used either

surgical or nonsurgical methods of contraception.

The methods used by nonsurgical contraceptors differed substantially by age (tables C and

4). Among the younger contraceptive method

users, a majority (57.8 percent) used the pill;

11.9 percent, the IUD; and 10.9 percent, the

condom. No other method accounted for more

than 6 percent of use among nonsurgical contraceptors 15-29 years of agei

Among nonsurgical contraceptors SO-44

years of age, only 30.4 percent used the pill, but

it was still the leading method; 19.8 percent

used the condom; 14.1 percent, the IUD; and

10.0 percent, the rhythm method.

Overall and in both 15-year age groups,

white couples were more likely than black couples to be surgical contraceptors (table B and

figure 1). Among the older couples this difference was almost 10 percentage points (28.2 percent compared with 18.8 percent). In addition,

the younger white couples (wife 15-29 years of

age) were more likely than the younger black

couples to be using nonsurgical methods of contraception; however, among the older couples

(wife 30-44 years of age), the percents using

nonsurgical methods were similar for black and

white couples.

The percent of black couples not using contraception was higher than that of white couples, overall and in both M-year age groups

(table B). Among the three types of nonuse, the

principal reason for this difference appears in

the other nonuser category: black couples, overall and in both age groups, were notablly more

likely than white couples to be other nonusers

(table B). Among wives 30-44 years of age, black

wives were also more likely than white wives to

be pregnant, postpartum, or seeking pregnancy.

Among nonsurgical contraceptors (tables C

and 4), the percents of white and black wives

using the pill were similar in each 10- and 15-

year age group. This similarity by race also held

for the IUD. These findings by race represent a

change from 1973, when black nonsurgical contraceptors were much more likely than white

nonsurgical contraceptors to use the pill or IUD

(75 percent compared with 59 percent).A By

1976 this 16 percentage point difference had

Table C. Number of currently marriad women 1544 years of age using contraceptives othar than sterilization and percant distribution by mathod of

contraception used, according to race and age: United States, 1976

,

Race and aga

All racasl

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

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

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

Whita

1544years .. ..... .... .... .. .. .... ..

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

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

Black

1544 years .... .. .. .... .... .... .... .

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

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

Number of Method of contraception

woman in 1

thousands Al I

Pill IUD Dia- Ccmdom Foam Rhythm Withmethads phragm drawal

Douche I Other

I

Percent distribution

13,511 100,0 45.8 12.9 5.9 14.8 6.1 6.9

7,574 100.0 57.8 11.9 4.4 10.9 5.4 4.5

5,937 100.0 30.4 14.1 7.7 19.8 6.9 10.0

12,270 100.0 45.7 12.6 6.1 15.1 5.9 7.1

6,899 100.0 57.5 11.9 4.7 11.0 5.4 4.8

5,371 100.0 30.6 13.9 7.9 20.3 6.4 10.5

994 100.0 48.5 13.5 3.8 10.0 8.3 3.1

551 100.0 61.5 10.0 1.5 9.2 5.4 3.4

443 100.0 32.3 17.9 6.7 11.1 11.9 2.7

4.2 I 1.4 I 2.1

1

2.8 0.7 1.5

5.9 2.4 2.7

=-l-A=’

44

2.8 0.4 1.6

5.9 2.0 2.6

3.9 5.9 3.0

2.8 4.3 1.9

5.2 7.8 4.3

lIncludes white, black, and other races.

6
80 -

70 -

60 -

EO -

g

%

~

.

40 -

m -

20 -

10 -

0

n

IJ White nonwrgicalcontraceptm

~ Wtitewr*im!m.traceptom

~ BIackmnwrgim[c.ntwptom

IRS Black surgical contraceptom

n

15.29 years 3044 years

AGE

Figure 1. Percent of currently married women 1544 years of

age” using surgical and nonsurgical methods of contraception, by race and age: United States, 1976

been reduced to astatistically nonsignificant, 3.5

percentage points’ (table 4). The virtual disappearance of this differential is probably attributable to the increase between 1973 and 1976 in

the use of methods other than the piII and the

IUD among black couples.T Some observers have

linked this increase among black couples to increases in abortions to black women, and speculated that unwanted births to black women

might also increase if this trend continued.9

Hispanic Origin

Hispanic women 15-29 years of age were

more likely than other wives (table 5) to be

pregnant, post partum, or seeking pregnancy.

Among those 30-44 years of age, Hispanic wives

were more likely than other women to be other

nonusers. As a result, wives of Hispanic origin

were substantially more likely to be noncontraceptors (40.5 percent) than other wives (31.8

percent).

At the same time, Hispanic couples were

substantially less likely than other coupIes to be

contraceptively sterile (surgical contraceptors).

These differences counterbalanced each other;

therefore, the percents of couples who were

nonsurgical contraceptors were not significantly

different by Hispanic origin-overall or in either

age group (table 5).

Among nonsurgical contraceptors (table 6

and figure 2), Hispanic wives were considerably

more likely than other wives to be using the IUD

(23.7 percent, compared with 12.2 percent).

This difference was present at 15-29 years of

age, and the data suggest that it was also present

at 30-44 years of age. The percents of Hispanic

and other wives using the pill and the rhythm

method were similar.

Region

Differences in contraceptive status and

method choice among the four major geographic

regions may be related to varying age, race, and

ethnic composition; socioeconomic and religious

composition; variations in medical practice and

family planning services; or other factors.

The percent of couples who were contraceptiveIy steriIe (surgical contraceptors) was 10wer

Izizl 15.29 years

AGE

3044 yam

Figure 2. Percent of currently married women 15-44 years of

age using contraceptives other than sterilization who were

using the IUD, by origin and age: United States, 1976

7
and the percent using nonsurgical methods was

higher in the Northeast Region than in the other

regions (table 7). These differences were consistent and significant for couples of all races and

white couples, but they were not evident at all

for black couples. Finally, the percent of white

couples who were other nonusers was higher in

the Northeast Region than in the other regions.

Among nonsurgical contraceptors (table 8),

four differences in method choice by geographic

region were found; all of these were present for

women of all races and white women. Use of

the pill was lower in the Northeast Region than

in the other regions; and the percent using the

IUD was higher in the West Region than in the

other regions. The percent of contraceptive

method users who used the diaphragm ranged

from about 10 percent in the Northeast Region

to about 3 percent in the South Region. Finally,

the percent using the rhythm method ranged

from about 10 percent in the Northeast Region

to about 5 percent in the West and South

Regions.

Poverty Level Income

In tables 9 and 10 family income is shown as

a ratio of total family income to poverty level

income as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the

Census. Because income was less completely

reported than other items, special caution

should be used in interpreting findings that use

this measure (see appendix II). Differences in

contraceptive status between poverty level income groups (table 9) were generally not statistically significant. However, the percent of couples who were noncontraceptively sterile was

lower for poor couples than for couples at 200

percent or more poverty level income. In contrast, the percent of other nonusers was higher

for couples below the poverty level than it was

in the highest income category. It is possible

that this difference reflects better diagnosis of

fecundity impairments among high-income couples, or age differences between the income categories, or both.

The distribution of methods used by nonsurgical contracept ors varied with poverty level

income, particularly among wives 15-29 years of

age (table 10). The data suggest that use of the

pill was less common among high-income contraceptive method users than among those with

incomes below the poverty level at ages 15-29

years (56.6 percent compared with 68.1 percent,

respectively). Use of the diaphragm waa higher

among high-income women 15-29 years of age

(4.2 percent) than among poor women (0.7 percent). Among nonsurgical contraceptors 15-44

years of age, 6.1 percent of high-income women

and 1.7 percent of women with incomes below

the poverty level used the diaphragm.

Parity

Contraceptive status and methods used are

shown according to parity (the number of Iive

births a woman had) in tables 11 and 12. Differences by parity are intended to indicate stages of

family growth, but may ako be related to the

age composition of parity groups.

The percent of couples using sterilization

(surgical contraceptors) (table 11) increased

sharply with parity; this pattern was strong and

significant for wives 15-44 and 30-44 years of

age. Among wives 15-29 years of age, the differences were large, but one of the percents was

unreliable.

Conversely, the percent of wives using nonsurgical methods of contraception decreased

sharply with parity, from 56.1 percent of wives

with O-1 child to 27.9 percent of wives with 5

chiklren or more (figure 3). For wives 15-29

years of age, the range was from 63.6 to 29.4

percent, respectively. Among wives 30-44 years

of age, however, the pattern was different: the

percent using nonsurgical methods increased

from 34.3 percent of wives with O-1 child to

43.4 percent of wives with 2-4 children (figure

3). This difference is probably related to the

high percent of older wives with O or 1 child

who were pregnant, post partum, or seeking

pregnancy (18.4 percent compared with only

3.2 percent of wives 30-44 years of age with 2-4

children).

The percent of wives who were not using

contraception was lowest for those with 2-4

children (25.7 percent) (figure 4). Among

women with O or 1 child, 41.2 percent were not

using contraception, most of whom (25.3 percent) were pregnant, post partum, or seeking

I

8
70 —

60 -

50 —

40 —

~

;

&

30 —

20 -

10 —

o

1 I I

0.1 2-s 5

or

more

PARIN

1529 years

15-S4 years

3044 years

Figure 3. Percent of currently marriad women 15-44 years of

age using contraceptives other than sterilization, by age and

parity: United States, 1976

pregnancy. Of women with 5 or more children,

31.8 percent were not using contraception, and

only 2.2 percent were pregnant, post partum, or

seeking pregnancy.

Among nonsurgical contraceptors 15-44

years of age, the percent using the pill decreased

from 56.2 percent at pmity O-1 to 27.7 percent

at parity 5 or more, a difference of almost 30

percentage points (table 12). However, within

age groups 15-29 and 3044 years, the percent

using the pill differed by less than 10 percentage

points across parity groups. In addition, differences within the two age groups between adjacent parity categories (O-1 and 2-4, 2-4 and 5 or

more) were not statistically significant in 3 of 4

comparisons. Therefore, much of the parity difference was related to age: higher parit y women

are older than lower parity women, and as

shown in table 4, older women were less likely

to use the pill. Nonetheless, in each of the nine

40 In

or

PARITY

more

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

age not using contraception, by type of nonuse and parity:

United States, 1976

age-parity categories for women of all races, the

pill was the most popular method.

Labor Forca Status

Among wives 15-29 years of age, those in

the labor force were more likely than those not

in the labor force to use nonsurgical methods of

contraception, and less Iikely to be pregnant,

post partum, or seeking pregnancy (table 13).

Among young wives (15-29 years of age) in the

labor force, 66.5 percent were nonsurgical contraceptors, compared with 55.4 percent of

young wives not in the labor force. Among wives

15-29 years of age, 18.0 percent of those in the

labor force and 26.1 percent of those not in the

labor force were pregnant, post partum, or seeking pregnancy.

The principal difference by labor force status in method choice among nonsurgical contraceptors was a greater reliance on the pill among

those in the labor force (table 14). Wives in the

labor force were more likely to use the pill than

9
those not in the labor force. This difference was

evident for both white and black wives. Among

black wives 15-44 years of age, 52.9 percent of

nonsurgical contraceptors in the labor force used

the pill, compared with 40.5 percent of those

not in the labor force. The percents of couples

of all races using the IUD were not significantly

different for those with wives in and out of the

labor force; the same finding was true for the

condom.

Education

Overall and in both age groups (15-29 and

30-44 years), the percent of wives using nonsurgical methods of contraception increased sharply

with education (table 15 and figure 5). In contrast, the percent using surgical methods of contraception ranged from 21.7 percent for wives

W S.rgicalcc.ntraqmors

a Nonsurgical.ontmreptm

~ No.contra.wmrs

60

r

I n

EDUCATION

Figure 5. Percent of currently married women 15-44 years of

age, by contraceptive status and education: United States,

1976

with less than a high school education to 15.4

percent for wives with 1 year or more of college.

Furthermore, the percent not using contraception decreased as education increased (figure

5). This pattern appears to reflect noncontraceptive sterility, which decreased as education increased among wives 15-44 years of age.

Among nonsurgical contraceptors, the percent using the piIl ranged from 50.0 percent of

wives with less than a high school education to

41.7 percent of wives with 1 year or more of

college (table 16). In contrast, overall and in

both age groups, use of the diaphragm was more

common among wives with 1 year or more of

college than among wives with 12 years of education or less.

Religion

The following discussion will be restricted to

white women, because the number of black

women in some religion categories was too small

to make statistically reIiable comparisons.

Catholic wives were more likely than Protestant wives to use nonsurgical methods of contraception. This statement is related to thle finding

that Catholic couples were much less likely than

Protestant couples to be contraceptively sterile

(table 17). Among white wives 15-44 years of

age, ,53.8 percent of Catholic and 46.0 percent

of ,Protestant, women’ were ,“.using”nonsurgical

methods 1The percent of Protestant couples who

were contraceptively sterde Was 22.8; “this percetit W% iignificm’tly higher than that of CathoIic couples (1’3.6 percent), Jewish couples (12.1

percexit),’ and “ those ivith no religion (14.1

“percent).

,. ,Arnong white women using ,ncmsurgical

rnet,hods of contraception (table 18), Catholic

wives were more likely than Protestant wives to

use the ‘rhythm method and less likely to use the

pill. For both, methods, these differences were

significant overall .at i.5-44 years of age; significant and large among the wives 30-44 years of

age, and small and not statistically significant

among wives 15-29 years of age (figure 6).

Jewish nonsurgical contraceptors and those

with no religion were. more likely to use the diadu-am-nthan Protestant wives.

10
❑ Protestant

~ Catholic

PILL

70

60

[ n

RHYTHM

AGE

Figure 6. Percent of currently married white women 15-44

yeers of age using contraceptives other than sterilization

who were using the oral contraceptive pill and percent using

rhythm, by religion and age: United States, 1976

CONTRACEPTIVE USE AMONG

WIDOWED, DIVORCED, AND

SEPARATED WOMEN

The data in tables 19 and 20 arerevised estimates of the current contraceptive status of

widowed, divorced, and separated women in the

United States in 1976. For convenience, these

women will be referred to collectively as postmarried women. Preliminary data on the contraceptive status of postmarried women in 1976

were published in Advance Data No. 40;2 the

data in tables 19, 20, and D supersede those

preliminary estimates.

In analyzing data on contraceptive use by

married women the assumption was made implicitly that they were sexually active, and if not

sterile, exposed to the risk of pregnancy. Although some unmarried women do become

pregnant, many do not have intercourse or do so

infrequently, therefore, many unmarried women

may have no regular need for contraceptives.

Contraceptive status of the unmarried women in

the sample was determined according to the

rules used for married women, with some modifications: (1) unmarried women who were not

using a contraceptive method were not asked if

they were trying to become pregnant, and those

who were seeking pregnancy would fall into the

other nonuser category; (2) unmarried women

were not asked about the sterility of male partners; therefore, only female procedures were included in the sterile categories.

Table D shows data on the contraceptive status of postmarried women in 1973 and 1976.

One important difference between those years

is the 2 l-percent increase in the number of

postmarried women (from 3,601,000 to 4,359,

000), compaed with a 3-percent increase among

currently married women. The increase was

about 23 percent among white postmarried

women and only 11 percent among black postmarried women. The rapid growth in the population of postmarried women reflects an earlier

growth in the population of young married

women, the high and rising divorce rate, and the

declining remarriage rate.

Another notable feature of table D is that

bIack women comprised about 1 out of 4 postmarried women in 1976, but only about 1 in 13

currently married women. This disproportionate

representation of black women among the

postmarried is attributable to the higher rates of

separation and divorce and lower probability of

remarriage among bIack than among white

women.1 ‘J 1

Between 1973 and 1976 (table D), the percent of postmarried women who were other

nonusers dropped almost 15 percentage points,

from 45.3 percent in 1973 to 30.6 percent in

1976. Most of this decline in nonuse of contraception was accounted for by an increase of

almost 5 percentage points in surgical sterility

and an increase of about 6 percentage points in

11
Table D. Number of widowed, divorced, and separated women 15-44 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status and

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

Contrace~tive status and method

All racesl White Black

1976 19732 1976

I

19732 1976 19732

Number in thousands

All women ........................................................................................ 4,359 j 3,601 1] 3,134 I 2,546 1 1,145 I 1,02B

Percent distribution

100.0 100.0

21.4

100.0

26.6

100.0

20.3

100.0

30.5

100.0

24.4

STERILE WOMEN

All sterile women ................................................................. ............. 27.7

Surgically sterile ........................................ ..............................................c.......<.

Contraceptively sterile ............................ .....................................................

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

Nonsurgically sterile ..........................................................................................

25.5

13.7

11.7

2.2

1.7

20.9

12.3

8.4

‘0.5

2.9

24.8

13.1

11.7

1.8

1.3

30.7

19.9

11.1

8.6

‘0.3

2.3

27.7

15.2

12.5

2.9

2.9

23.5

15.3

8.2

*0.9

4.5

FECUND WOMEN

Noncontraceotors

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

Other nonuser ................................................................................................... 30.6 45.3 47.4 28.5 39.2

Contracaptors

All methods ............................................................................................ 40.0 30.4 41.4 30.1 38.1 31.9

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

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

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

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

24.3

8.0

1.2

1.6

1.2

1.0

0.4

0.9

1.3

18.1

7.2

1.3

“0.9

“0.7

*0.4

+0.3

*0.3

1.2

26.1

7.9

1.2

1.8

1.0

1.2

0.2

0.8

1.3

18.6

7.0

1.5

1.1

‘0.4

‘0.4

*0.4

*0.7

20.4

8.9

1.2

1.5

2.0

0.6

0.9

1.3

1.5

17.2

7.9

“0.6

‘0.5

*1.6

*0.4

*0.O

*1.1

2.5

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

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

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

1 Includes white, black, and other races.

2For 1973 data, see reference 20

use of the pill. The increase in use of the pilI age points, but decreased by 2.6 percentage

among the rapidly growing group of white postmarked women was almost 8 percentage

points–from 18.6 in 1973 to 26.1 percent in

1976. Among black postmarried women, the increase was not statistically significant.

The increase in surgical sterilization between

1973 and 1976 among postmarked women (4.6

percentage points) was comparable to the increase among currently married women (5.3 percentage points). Among postmarried women, the

percent using the pill increased by 6.2 percentpoin;s among currently married women.

In 1976, the percent of postmarried women

who were other nonusers (3 O.6 percent) was

substantially higher than that of currently married women (7.6 percent). This difference probably reflects a higher percent of postmarked

than currently married women who were not

sexually active.

Overall and at 30-44 years of age, ithe percents of white and black postmarried women

who were contracep tively sterile were similar

12
(table 19). Because only female sterilizations are

included, this finding parallels the white-black

similarity in female surgical sterilization among

currently married women (table 1).

Among postmamied nonsurgical contraceptors, 60.8 percent used the pill, and 20.1 percent

used the IUD. The pill accounted for 70.9 percent of nonsurgical contraceptors among postmarried women 15-29 years of age, compared

with 49.0 percent among postmarried women

30-44 years of age (table 20). This difference by

agewas present for both white and black women.

Despite striking increases between 1973 and

1976 in the number and percent of postmarried

women who reported using contraception, the

pattern of method preference among postmarried nonsurgical contraceptors was similar in

1973 and 1976. No statistically significant differences were found between 1973 and 1976 in

in the percent of postmarried nonsurgical contraceptors who reported using the pill, the IUD,

or methods other than the pill or IUD as a

group. This finding was true for women of all

races, and white and black women.

CONTRACEPTIVE USE AMONG

NEVER-MARRIED WOMEN WITH

OFFSPRING IN THE HOUSEHOLD

Never-married women with offspring living

in the household will be referred to as single

mothers. The single mothers are not representative of all never-ma.nied women. Many nevermarried women experience pregnancies; however, the outcomes do not always result in

having their baby live with them. Sometimes

these pregnancies result in fetal losses, induced

abortions, or adoptions. Women who were single

mothers in the past may be excluded from this

category because of marriage; those who had

married by the survey date were included with

the currentIy married or postmarried groups. In

1976 the 1.1 million single mothers comprised

about 6 percent of the 17.7 million nevermarried women 15-44 years of age.12 A recent

report based on the National Survey of Family

Growth contained selected characteristics of

single mothers: about 69 percent were black

women; 65 percent were under 25 years of age;

61 percent had incomes below the poverty level;

57 percent had less than a high school education; and 70 percent received Aid to Families

with Dependent Children.1s

In 1976, 57.0 percent of single mothers were

using nonsurgical methods of contraception

(table 21). Use of nonsurgical methods was

more common among single mothers 15-29

years of age than among those 30-44 years of

age. Among single mothers who were nonsurgical contraceptors, 64.1 percent used the pill, and

21.0 percent used the IUD (table 22).

000

13
REFERENCES

INation~ Center for Health Statistics: Contraceptive

utilization in the United States: 1973 and 1976, by

K. Ford. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistz”cs,

No. 36. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 78-1250. Public Health

Service. Hyattsville, Md., Aug. 18, 1978.

2Nation~ Center for Health Statistics: Contraceptive

utilization among widowed, divorced, and separated

women in the United States: 1973 and 1976, by

K. Ford. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics,

No. 40. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 78-1250. Public Health

Service. Hyattsville, Md., Sept. 22, 1978.

3Nation~ Center for Health Statistics: The National

Survey of Family Growth, Cycle II: Sample design, estimation procedures, and variance estimation, by

W. Grady. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 2-No. 87.

DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 81-1361. Public Health Service.

Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office.

4Nation~ Center for Health Statistics: Contraceptive

utilization: United States, by K. Ford. Vital and Health

Statistics. Series 23-No. 2. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 79-

1978: Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Sept. 1979.

5Westoff, C. F.: Trends in contraceptive practice:

1965-1973. Fare. Plann. Perspect. 8(2):54-57, Mar./Apr.

1976.

6pratt, W. F., et al: An overview of experience with

vaginal contraceptives in the United States, in G. I.

Zatuchni, et al, eds., Vaginal Contraception: New Developments. Hagerstown. Harper and Row, 1980.

7Ford, K.: Contraceptive use in the United States,

1973-1976. Fare. Plann. Perspect. 10(5) :264-269, Sept./

Oct. 1978.

8National Center for Health Statistics: Use of family

planning services by currently married women 15+4

years of age: United States, 1973 and 1976, by

G. Hendershot. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, No. 45. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 79-1250. Public

Health Service. Hyattsville, Md., Feb. 7, 1979.

9Anonymous: In this issue. Fare. Plann. Perspect,

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

10McCarthy, J.: A comparison of the probability of

the dissolution of first and second marriages. Demography 15(3):345-359, Aug. 1978. table 2.

11Nation~ Center for Health Statistics: Remarriages

of women 15-44 years of age whose first marriage ended

in divorce: United States, 1976, by W. Grady. Advance

Data @om Vital and Health Statistics, No. 58. DHEW

Pub. No. (PHS) 80-1250. Public Health Service. Hyattsville, Md., Feb. 14, 1980.

12U.S. Bureau of the Census: Marital status and living

arrairgements: March 1976. Current Population Reports.

Series P-20, No. 306. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 1977.

table 1.

13Nation~ Center for Heflth Statistics: Selected demographic characteristics of teenage wives and mothers,

by S. Milhnan and W. Mosher. Advance Data from Vital

and Health Statistics, No. 61. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 80-

1250. Public Health Service. Hyattsville, Md., Sept. 26,

1980.

14Nation~ Center for Heath Statistics: The Nation~

Survey of Family Growth, Cycle I: Sample design, estimation procedures and variance estimation, by

D. French. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 2-No. 76.

DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 78-1350. Public Health Service.

Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan.

1978.

15Natio~ Center for He~~ Statistics: Statistics

needed for national policies related to fertflity: The

United States National Committee on Vital and HeaIth

Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 4-No. 18.

DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 78-1455. Public Health Service.

Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan.

1978. pp. 100-149.

16Nation~ Center for Health Statistics: Reproductive

impairments among currently married couples: United

States, 1976, by W. Mosher. Advance Data j?om Vital

and Health Statistics, No. 55. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 80-

1250. Public Health Service. Hyattsville, Md., Jan. 24,

1980. p. 10.

17u.s. Bureau of the Census: Money income in 1975

of families and persons in the United States. (M-rent

Population Reports. Series P-60, No. 106. U.S. Bureau

of the Census. Washington. U.S. Government Printing

Office,June 1977. tabIe A-3.

14
LIST OF DETAILED TABLES

1. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status and method,

according to race and origin: United States, 1976 ........................ .............................. ...............................................................

2. Numk of currently married women 1EA4 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status and method,

according to race and age: United States, 1976 ............................ .................................................................... .........................

3. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age and percent distribution by contrmeptive status, according to race

and age: United States, 1976 ................ .......................... ....... ...................................................................................................

4. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization and percent distribution, by mathod of contraception used, according to race and age: United Statas, 1976 ..........................................................

5. Number of currently married women 15-44 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status, eccording to origin and age: Unitad States, 1976 ................................. ..............................................................................................................

6. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization and percent distribution

by method of contraception used, according to origin and age: United States, 1976 ............... .................................................

7. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status, according to geographic region, race, and age: United States, 1976 ................................................................. .......... ............................... ..........

8. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization and percent distribution

by method of contraception used, according to geographic region, race, and age: Unitad States, 1976 .......................... ..........

9. Numb-w of currently married women 1544 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status, according to

poverty level income, race, and age: United States, 1976 ..........................................................................................................

10. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization and percent distribution

by method of contraception used, according to poverty level income, race, and age: United States, 1976 .... ...........................

11. Number of currently married women 15A14 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status, according to

parity, race, and age: United States, 1976 ............................................................. ......................................... ...........................

12. Number of currantly married women 1544 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization and percent distribution by method of contraception used, according to parity, race, and age: United Statas, 1976 ...............................................

13. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status, according to labor

force status, race, and age: Unitad States, 1976 .................................................................................................................. ......

14. Number of currantly married women 1544 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization and parcant distribution

by method of contraception used, according to labor force status, race, and age: United States, 1976 .....................................

15. Number of currently married women 1544 yaars of age and percant distribution by contraceptive status, according to education, rata, and age: United States, 1976 ... ............................................................................................................ ........ .........

16. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization and percent distribution

by method of contraception usad, according to education, race, and age: United States, 1976 ................................ ................

17. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status, according to religion, race, and age: United States, 1976 ................................................ ........................................................ ...........................

18. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization and percent distriMtion

by method of contraception used, according to religion, rata, and age: United States, 1976 ............................. .......................

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

25

27

28

31

33

35

36

37

41

42

15
19. Number of widowed, divorced, and separated women 1544 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status,

according to race and age: United States, 1976 .............................................................................................................. ........... 4!.3

20. Number of widowad, divorcad, and separated women 1544 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization and

percant distribution by method of contraception used, according to race and age: United States, 1976 ............................. ...... 44

21. Numbar of nevar-married women 1544 yaars of age with offspring in the household and percent distribution by contraceptive status, according to age: United States, 1976 .................. ............ .............................................. ......................................... 44

22. Number of never-married women 1544 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization with offspring in the household and percent distribution by method of contraception used, according to age: Unitad States, 1976 .................................. 45

16

r
Table 1. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age and percant distribution by contraceptive status and method,

according to race and origin: United States, 1976

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterminous United States. See appendixes for discussion of the

sample design, estimates of sampling variabilityy, and definitions of terms]

Contreceptiva status and method

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

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

Sterile ......................................................................................................................

Surgically sterile ..................................................... .............................................

Contraceptively sterile ...................................................................................

Female ......................................................................................................

Male ..........................................................................................................

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

Female ......................................................................................................

Male ............................................. .............................................................

Nonsurgically sterile .. ..........................................................................................

Pregnant, post pamum ......................................................... .....................................

Seeking pregnancy ............... ....................................................................................

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

Nonsurgical contramptors ........... .............................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ZEEiisE

Number in thousends

27,468 II 24,795 I 2,169 I 1,699 I 25,741

100.0

30.0

28.2

18.6

9.5

9.0

9.7

8.9

0.7

1.7

6.8

6.5

7.6

49.2

22.5

6.3

2.9

7.3

3.0

3.4

2.0

0.7

1.0

100.0I 100.0

30.7 I 24.4

29.0 21.6

19.3 12.7

9.6 10.9

9.7 *1.7

9.7 9.0

8.9 8.7

0.8 -

1.7 2.7

-%-b

7.1 I 13.3

49.5 I 45.9

1

22.6 22.2

6.3 6.2

3.0 1.8

7.5 4.6

2.9 3.8

3.5 ●1.4

2.1 1.8

0.6 2.7

1.0 *1.4

100.0

20.2

18.7

10.7

6.9

●3.8

8,0

7.1

*0.8

*1.5

13.5

7.0

10.5

48.8

20.4

11.6

●2.4

“;::

●3.1

●1.2

●0.1

●0.5

100.0

30.6

28.9

19.1

9.7

9.4

9.8

9.0

0.7

1.8

6.4

6.4

7.4

49.1

22.6

6.0

2.9

7.4

3.0

3.4

2.1

0.8

1.1

1~cludes white, black, and other races; also includes unknown orig~-

z~cludes au ~omen report~g any Hiipenic origin, regardless of race or other ethnic origins reported; Women of Hispanic origin are

included in the statistics by race.

17
Table 2. Number of currently married women 15-44 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status and method,

accord ing to race and age: United States, 1976

[Statistics are based on a sample of the househoId population of the conterminous United States. See appendixes for dmcuasion of the

sample design, estimates of sampling variability, and definitions of terms]

All racesl White Black

Total

15-24 25-34 35-44 15-24 25-34 35-44 15-24 25-34 35-44

years years years years years years years years years

Contraceptive status and mathod

Number in thousands

All women ............................ 27,488 II 6,020 I 12,179 I 9,288 ]1 5,412 I 10,993 I 8,390 / 509 I 912 I 749

Percent distribution

100.0

50.1

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

30.0

100.0

4.2

100.0

27.3

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

44.0

39.1

22.3

17.9

*4.3

16.8

16.7

4.9

*0.7

00.0 100.0

Sterile ................................................... 4.1 28.4 50.8 6.3

*5.1

4.0

*3.7

* 0.3

1.1

*1.1

1.2

11.2

18.3

16.5

9.6

9.2

*0.4

6.9

6.3

1.8

9,4

Surgically sterile ..............................

Contraceptively sterile ................

Female ...................................

Male .......................................

Noncontracaptively sterile ..........

Female ...................................

Male .......................................

Nonsurgically sterile ........................

28.2

18.6

9.5

9.0

9.7

8.9

0.7

1.7

6.8

6.5

3.9

3.5

2.4

*1.O

*0.4

*0.4

*0.4

14.7

10.3

25.8

19.1

10.4

8.6

6.8

6.0

0.7

1.5

7.3

8.0

47.1

27.7

12.9

14.8

19.4

18.3

1.2

3.0

*1.1

2.0

3.8

3.5

2.4

*1.1

*0.4

* 0.4

* 0.3

.,

14.8

26.9

20.1

10.7

9.3

6.8

6.0

0.8

1.5

7.2

48.0

28.5

12.6

15.9

19.5

18.3

1.2

2.8

Pregnant, post partum .......................... *1.1

Seeking pregnancy ................................ 9.7 7.4

5.3

1.6

10.7

14.4 11.3

7.8

*4.2

20.0

31.1

7.7

*5.1

*2.9

*4.3

4.5

*1.4

*1.3

*2.2

*1.8

Other nonuser ....................................... 7.6

49.2

22.5

6.3

2.9

7.3

3.0

3.4

2.0

0.7

1.0

5.8

64.9

42.9

6.3

2.5

5.1

2.9

2.6

1.6

*0.3

*0.7

5.6 11.4 5.2 13.3

Nonsurgical contraceptors .................... 51.8

23.5

7.6

3.0

7.5

3.2

3.2

2.0

0.6

1.3

35.5

7.9

4.7

2.9

8.4

2.9

4.2

2.3

1.2

‘0.9

66.3

43.9

6.3

2.8

5.3

2.9

2.6

1.6

*0.2

*0.7

51.7

23.4

7.5

3.2

7.6

3.0

3.4

1.9

0.3

1.3

35.8

7.9

4.8

3.0

8.7

2.8

4.3

2.5

*1,1

*0.8

54.7

35.8

*6.O

*0.2

*3.3

*2.O

*3.4

*1.9

*1.O

*1.3

53.1

26.6

7.2

1.7

5.6

4.3

‘0.4

2.2

4.1

*1.O

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1Includes white, black, and other races.

18
Table 3. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status, according to race

and aga: United States, 1976

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterminous United States. See appendixes for discussion of the

sample design, estimates of sampling variability, end definitions of terms]

Contraceptive status

Number

of

women

in

thousends

Contraceptors Noncontraceptors

All Noncontra- Pregnantr

women Non- Other

Surgical Total ceptivaly post pertum,

surgical

nonsterile or seeking

user

pregnancy

Race and age

All racesl Percent distribution

15-44 years............................ 27,488

6,020

1,043

4,977

12,179

6,443

5,736

9,288

4,814

4,474

24,795

5,412

10,993

8,390

2,169

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

700.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

18.6

*3.5

*0.8

*4.O

19.1

12.5

26.4

27.7

28.9

26.4

19.3

49.2

64.9

68.6

64.1

51.8

56.9

46.1

35.5

37.6

33.1

49.5

32.3

31.6

30.6

31.9

28.1

30.6

27.5

36.9

33.5

40.5

31.2

11.4

“0.8

*0.2

*0.9

8.3

●5.6

11.3

22.4

19.1

26.0

11.4

13.3 7.6

●5.8

*6.8

●5.6

*5.6

● 5.4

*5.8

11.4.

*1 0.4

12.4

7.1

15-24 yaars............................................

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

20-24 years.......................................

25-34 years............................................

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

30-34 years.......................................

3544 years............................................

35-39 years.......................................

4044 years.......................................

25.1

23.6

25.3

15.2

19.6

● 10.3

●3.1

*4.O

*2.1

White

12.7

15-24 years............................................

25-34 years............................................

35-44 years............................................

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

3.5

20.1

28.5

12.7

66.3

51.7

35.8

45.9

30.3

28.2

35.8

41.4

●0.7

8.3

22.4

11.7

24.4

14.6

●2.7

5.2

5.3

10.7

13.3

Black

15-44 years ................................. 16.4

15-24 years............................................

25-34 years............................................

3544 years............................................

508

912

749

100.0

100.0

100.0

54.7

53.1

31.1

41.3

37.3

46.6

“4.0

9.6

22.3

*2.3

8.7

21.8

25.6

20.8

●4.9

●13.3

7.8

20.0

Irncludes white, black, and other ~~~es.

19
Table 4. Numbar of currently married women 15-44 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization and percent distribution by

method of contraception used, according to race and age: United States, 1976

[Statistics are baaed on a sample of the household population of the conterminous United States. See appendixes for d~cussion of the sample

design, estimates of sampling variability, and definitions of terms] --

Number Mathod of contraception

Of women

in

thousands

Dia- Condom Foam Rhythm Withphragm drawal

Race and age

Douche Other

‘ All racesl Percent distribution

15-44 years .....

15-24 years .....................

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

20-24 years ................

25-34 years .....................

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

30-34 years ................

35-44 years .....................

35-39 years ................

40.44 years ................

White

*

1544 years ..........

15-24 years .....................

25-34 years .....................

35-44 years .....................

Black

1544 years ..........

15-24 years .....................

25-34 years .....................

3644 years .....................

13,511 100.0 45.8 12.9 5.9 14.8 6.1 6.9 4.2 1.4 2.1

3,907

716

3,191

6,313

3,667

2,646

3,291

1,808

1,483

12,270

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

66.1

71.8

64.8

45.4

49.0

40.4

22.3

24.7

19.3

45.7

9.6

9.4

9.7

14.6

14.2

15.2

13.3

17.7

8.0

12.8

*3.8

* 2.4

●4.1

*5.8

5.0

7.0

8.3

9.8

6.4

6.1

7.9

*6.9

8.1

14.4

14.1

14.9

23.8

18.9

29.7

15.1

*4.5

●3.8

●4.6

*6. 1

6.5

5.5

8.1

9.0

7.0

5.9

+4.0

* 2.9

*4.3

*6.1

5.1

7.6

11.9

9.2

15.3

7.1

*2.5

*1.9

* 2.6

*3.9

*3.O

5.1

6.6

●6.3

7.0

4.1

*0.4

*0.5

*1.1

*1.O

*1.3

3.3

*2.5

*4.2

1.1

*1.1

*0.8

●1.2

*2.4

*2.O

*3.O

*2.4

*1 .8

*3.3

2.0

3,587

5,687

2,996

994

278

484

233

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

66.2

45.3

22.0

48.5

65.4

50.2

24.7

9.5

14.5

13.3

13.5

● 10.9

13.7

16.5

4.1

6.1

8.4

3.8

*0.3

●3.2

“9.4

8.0

14.7

24.3

10.0

4.4

5.8

7.7

8.3

3.9

6.6

12.1

3.1

*2.5

3.7

6.9

3.9

*0.3

* 0.6

3.0

5.9

*1.1

2.5

●2.2

3.0

*6.1

10.6

●13.7

*3.6

8.1

● 14.4

●6.1

+0.7

●4.4

*3.4

*4. 1

*4.1

*1.8

7.7

*7.O

*2.3

*1.9

*5.9

1 Includes white, black, and other races.

20
Table 5, Number of currently married women 1544 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status, according to origin

and age: United States, 1976

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterminous United States. see appendmes for discussion of the

sample design, estimates of sampling variability, end definitions crfterms]

Origin and age

Ail originsl

15.44 years ............................

Hispanic2

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

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

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

Other origins

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

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

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

1Includes women of unlmown origin.

Number

of

women

in

thousands

27,488

1,699

834

865

25,741

11,624

14,117

All

women

Contraceptive status

Contraceptors

I

Surgical Nonsurgical

Noncontraceptors

~

I

Percent distribution

++

100.0 18.6 49.2

100.0 10.7 48.8

100.0 ●4.8 59.6

100.0 16.4 38.4

100.0 19.1 49.1

100.0 8.4 60.8

100.0 27.9 39.5

+

32.3 11.4 13.3 7.6

40.5 II 9.5 I 20.5 I 10.5

35.6 *0.8 30.8 “4.0

45.2 17.9 ●1O.5 16.7

31.8 11.5 12.8 7.4

30.8 I

3.4 21.6 5.7

32.6 18.2 5.6 8.8

Zlncludes all women reportkg an-y Hispanic origin, regardless of race or other ethnic origins reported; women of HL@anic origin are

included in the statistics by race.

21
Table 6. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization and percent distribution by

method of contraception usad, according to origin and age: United States, 1976

[Statistics are based on a sam~le of the household uouulation of the conterminous United States. See appendixes for discussion of the sample

design, e.stima~e; of sampling variability, and definitions of terms] - “

Origin and age

All originsl

1544 years .....

Hispanic2

1544 years ..........

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

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

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

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

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

Number

of women

in

thousands

13,511

829

497

332

12,637

7,072

5,566

Method of contraception

All Pill IUD Dia- Condom Foam Rhythm With- Douche

methods phragm drawal

E

Other

Percent distribution

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

45.8

41.9

50.8

28.5

45.9

58.3

30.2

-t12.9 5.9

+

23.7 *4.9

22.5 *3.8

25.5 *6.7

+

12.2 5.9

11.1 4.4

13.5 7.8

14.8

12.4

*11.1

*14.3

15.0

10.9

20.1

6.1 6.9 4.2 1.4

*7.1 *6.3 *2.5 *0.2

m

5.4 4.6 2.8 0.8

6.8 10.0 6.2 2.5

2.1

*1.O

*0.5

*1.6

2.1

1.7

2.8

1 ~cludes ~ome~ of u~~ow origin.

.2~~hsde~ M women reDortinz any H~~ani~ ~ri~fl, ~egertiess of race or other ethnic origins reported; women of Hiipanic origin are

included in the statistics by ;ace. - - -

22
Table 7. Number of currently married woman 1544 yeers of age and percent distribution by contracaptiva status, according to geographic ragion, race,

and aIW United States, 1976

[Statistics are baaad on a sample of the household population of the conterminous United States.. See appendixes for diacuaaion of the sample design,

estimates of samp~mg variability, end definitions of terms]

Contraceptive status

I COntraceptors I Norscontraceptors

umber

of

mmen

in

ousands

5,561

Geographic region, raca,l and age

All Noncontre- Pregnant,

women NonOther

Surgical Total ceptivaly post partum,

surgical

nonsterile or seeking

user

pragnancy

NORTHEAST

All races

1544 yaars ... .... .... ... .... ... . ... .... .... ... .... ... .. ... .... . 100.0 13.0 53.8 33.3 8.6 13.5 11.1

15-24 years . ....... .... .... ... .... .. .. ... .... ... . .... ....... .... .... .... .... ... .

25-34 years ..... ....... .... ...... ..... .... ... .... .... ...... .. ... .. .. .... .... .. ..

3544 years ..... ... .... ..... .. .. .. .... ... .... ... . ... . ....... .... .... ... .. .. . ... .

White

15-44 ywrs .. ... .. .. .... .... ... .... .... .... ....... .... .... .... .... ... ..

S63

2,545

2,052

5,100

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

+1.4

13.5

17.7

13.3

5.7

18.2

12.2

61.2

58.2

44.8

545

60.9

50.4

51.6

37.4

28.3

37.5

32.2

●1.1

“4.0

17.8

8.8

‘ 2.8

12.6

●9.1

29.2

14.9

“4.3

12.7

23.0

6.1

12.9

*7.1

9.3

15.4

10.7

7.6

12.7

14.1

“6.6

18.3

6.7

●4.9

4.5

10.9

6.4

4.2

8.3

15.1

●14.O

15.9

7.2

_

6.5

5.4

10.1

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

30-44 yearn . .... ... .... .... .... ... .. .. ....... ... ..... .... ..... .. . ... .... .... ....r

1,9s6

3,102

342

33.4

31.4

36.2

Slack

1544 yaars ... .... ... .... .... ....... .... ..... ... ..... .. .... .... .... .. ..

15-28years ......................................................................

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

121

220

7,893

1,778

3,491

2,624

7,479

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

●6.3

15.5

19.8

●4.3

21.2

28.4

20.2

70.9

40.9

48.0

65.6

50.2

33.0

47.8

62.1

35.5

45.3

●22.8

43.6

32.3

30.1

28.6

38.6

32.0

29.0

%.5

41.5

● 2.6

●12.7

12.7

“0.8

9.3

25.1

12.9

“2.1

22.2

11.4

● 13.4

‘12.7

12.9

24.3

14.8

‘2.5

12.7

22.7

4.0

15.0

NORTH CENTRAL

All races

1544 years .. ... .... .... .. ... .. .... .... .... .... .. .. .. .. ... ......!

15-24 yWrS .....................................................................<

25-34 years ... . ... .... .... .. ..... .... ... . ... .... .... .... ... .... .... .... ... .. .....

35-44 yaers ..... ..... .... ... . ... .... .... ... . ... . ... .... ... . .... ....... . ... .... ...

White

1544 years............................................................

15-2S yaars ......................................................................

3044 year3 ... .... .... ..... .. .... .... ....... .... ..... ... ...... ..... .... ... . ... . ..

3,463

4,016

304

100.0

100.0

100.0

8.9

30.0

13.2

Black

16& yaars . ....... .... ... .. ...... .... .... .... ... . ... .... .... .... ......

15-2Syears ......................................................................

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

SOUTH

lIB

166

9,213

100.0

100.0

100.0

+4.7

1B.6

16.5

55.2

39.0

46.6

40.1

42.4

32.9

“6.4

14.6

12.3

“19.7

“11.9

13.3

All rCCOS

1544 yaars ...... .... .. ..... . ... .... ... . ... . ... .... .... .... .... ..

15-24 years ... . ... .... .... ... . ... ...... ... .. . ... .... .... .... .. .. ... .... .... ..... .

25-34 years .... ....... .... .... ... .... .... .... ... .... .. .. .. .. ... .... .... .... .... ..

35-44 years ....... .... .... ....... .... .... ... .... .... .... .... ... .... .... ... . .... ..

2,s2

3,933

3,017

100.0

100.0

‘100.0

●2.8

19.2

29.4

67.5

49.0

33.9

29.6

31.8

36.7

●loo

10.2

23.6

22.1

16.2

2.9

23
Table 7. Number of currently married women 1544 years of ege and percent distribution by contraceptive status, according to geographic r~!ion, race,

and age: United States, 1976–Con.

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterminoua United States. See appendixes for discussion of the sample design,

estimates of sampliig variability, and defiiitiona of terms]

Geographic region, race,l and age

SO UT1–1-Con.

White

1544 years .. ... . ... .... .... .... .. .. ... . .... ... ....... .. .. .... .... ... . .

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

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

Black

1544 years . ..... .. . ... .... ...... ..... .... .... ... . ... .... .... .... .... ..

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

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

W EST

All races

1544 years . ... . ... .... .... .... .. .. ... . ... .... ..... ... ... .... ....

15-24 years .. ..... .....+.. .. .... ... .... .... .... ... . ... .... .... ...... ..... .... ....

25-34 years .. ... .... .... ... . ... .... .... ..... ...... ..... ... ..... .. .... .... ... . ... .

3544 years ..... .... .... ....... .... ... . ... . ... .. .. .... ..... ... .. ..... .... ....... .

Whita

1544 years .. ... . ... .... .... .... .... ....... .... ....... .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .

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

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

Black

1544 years .. .. . ... .... ...... .. ... ... ..... ... .... .. .. .... .... ... .... ...

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

30-44 .yaars ...... .... .... .. .. .. ..... .... ..... .. .... .... .... .... .. ..... . ... .... ...

Number

of

women

in

thousands

7,838

3,720

4,118

1,281

645

637

4,821

1,016

2,210

1,595

4,378

2,037

2,341

242

108

134

All

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Contraceptive status

COntraceptors Nonccmtraceptors

Noncontra- PregnantJ

Non- Other

Surgical Total ceptivel y

post partum,

surgical or seeking

nonsterile user

pregnancy

Percent distribution

19.6 j 49.2 I 31.2

-1--L 8.6 61.9 29.6

29.6 37.7 32.7

13.0 44.2 42.8

● 5.4 53.1 41.5

20.7 35.1 44.2

23.0 47.0 30.0

*5.2 61.5 33.3

21.9 52.1 26.0

36.0 30.6 33.5

24.1 47.1 28.7

10.3 60.3 29.3

36.2 35.6 28.2

●1 0.8 47.6 41.5

● 5.3 53.5 47.3

*1 5.4 42.9 41.7

12.4 I 12.4

1-- 4.5 19.8

19.5 5.9

12.5 17.5

*6.7 I 25.1

18.3 9.9

10.8 13.6

8.1

21.5

10.2

‘ 2.9

16.5

11.7

●2I .3

28.7

14.6

*2.6

13.3

22.7

5.1

17.6

333

‘4.6

6.4

5.4

7.3

12.9

9.7

16.0

5.6

*4.5

●3.3

9.4

5.3

●3.7

6.6

12.2

+7.7

● 15.9

1Includes white, black, and other races.

24
Table 8. Number of currantly married women 1544 years of age using contraceptives other then sterilization and percent distribution by

method of contraception used, according to geographic region, race, and age: Unitad States, 1976

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterminous United States. See appendixes for discussion of the sample

design, estimates of sampling variability, and definitions of terms]

Numhar Method of contraception

of woman

in

thousands

Geographic region,

racarl and eW All Pill IUD Dia- Condom Foam Rhythm With- Douche methods Other phragm drawal

NORTHEAST

Percent distribution

All races

15-44 years .....

.

2.990 100.0 32.3

T

12.4 9.9

● 10.4 ● 5.2

12.6 10.9

13.5 11.2

10.0 —

●8.3

●6.4

17.1

10.0

6.7 —

●4.2

*6.2

“9.3

7.0

●5.O

8.5

●4.5

0.7

‘ 0.9

●0.7

●0.4

‘0.5

‘0.4

‘4.7

2.3 —

●2.8

●3.O

●2.5

●1.4

*3.3

“0.6

19.2

—

++ 11.2

17.7

27.0

19.5

6.3

●6.4

‘6.0

‘6.8

5.7

.

15-24 years .....................

25-34 years .....................

35-44 years .....................

590

1,482

918

2,780

54.4

36.6

11.3

33.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

White

15-44 years .......... 11.81 10.2

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

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

1,217

1,563

176

100.0

100.0

100.0

47.0

22.0

“24.7

10.1 *8.7

13.1 11.4

● 14.8 ●6.1

15.3

22.8

● 18.3

●6.1

●5.3

●16.5

●5.7

13.2

●9.9

Black

1544 years .........<

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

3044 years ....................<

86

90

3,785

100.0

100.0

100.0

“29.2

“20.4

50.5

*11.6 ●1.5

*1 7.9 *1 0.4

10.2 5.9

●23.5

*1 3.3

13.7

*13.2

‘19.7

4.8

●16.5

●3.5

7.7

●4.5

●4.5

3.7

●9.1

●1.O

*1.1

2.5

NORTH CENTRAL

All races

1544 years .....

15-24 years .....................

25-34 years .....................

35-44 years .....................

1,166

1,754

865

3,577

2,151

1,426

138

65

73

4.476

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

67.9

47.3

33.6

50.4

7.4 ●4.8

13.5 6.1

* 7.5 6.8

7.3

12.8

24.1

13.7

9.3

20.4

●15.1

●16.2

●14.1

14.8

●4. 1

*4.7

“6.0

4.7

*4.8

●4.5

*9.3

●8.O

●1O.5

6.2

●3.8

9.1

●10. I

8.0

5.6

11.5

*1.3

● 2.4

5.1

●2.4

“3.4

“6.0

3.7

●2.6

*5.3

“0.6

●1.3

3.7

●0.5

+0.1

3.7

●0.9

● 0.3

●1.9

●4. 1

●7.9

2.6

*1.9

%1

●2.1

●2.4

*2.O

●3.2

●4.5

●3.9

‘5.0

●1.3 —

‘0.8

*1.4

‘2.0

White

t

10.0 6.0

10.4 5.3

●9.5 ●7.1

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

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

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

59.6

36.6

46.4

Black

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

15-28years .....................

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

50.3

42.9

50.9

* 13.6 ●3.5

12.6 2.8

SOUTH

All races

15-44 years .....

15-24 years .....................

25-34 years .....................

3544 years .....................

1,526

1,926

1,023

100.0

100.0

100.0

70.5

50.7

22.1

10.1 *0.8

14.0 “2.7

13.8 ●5.8

‘6.9

14.8

26.5

*4. 1

6.3

*9.3

●3.7

●4.2

●8.7

● 2.4

*3.4

“6.4

“0.7

● 2.6

●5.4

lIncludes white, black, and other races.

25
f

Table 8. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization and percent distribution by

method of contraception used, according to geographic region, race, end age: United States, 1976–Con.

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterminous United States. See appendixes for discussion of the sample

design, estimates of sampling variability, and definitions of terms]

Method of contraception

All Pill IUD Dia- Condom Foam Rhythm Withmethods phragm drawal

Douche

r

Other

Imber

women

in

usends

Geographic region,

race,l and age

SOUTH–Con.

White

1544 years ..........

Percent distribution

.-

-,

3,854 100.0 50.9 12.6 ●2.8 6.0 5.6 +1.1

*1.1

*1.2

*2.8

*2.3

*3.7

2.5

—

*1.6

●2.8

*3.0

●2.4

*2.1

*3.O

* 5.3

* 10.6

15.5 3.5

*2.2

*5.6

*5.3

*3.2

*8.6

2.4

*2,0

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

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

2,301

1,553

565

100.0

100.0

100.0

63.7

31.8

54.8

12.0

13.5

13.6

*1.8

●4.4

+1.7

9.7

24.0

7.3

5.2

7.1

*5.4

*3.7

8.4

*1.8

“0.6

‘4.0

7.3

Black

15.44 years ..........

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

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

342

223

2,260

100.0

100.0

100.0

67.6

35.2

45.4

++10.1

19.0

18.3

●0.7

*3.2

6.6

*4.2

* 12.0

10.9

+3.9

*7.7

7.7

*1.3

* 2.6

5.3

*6.8

*8.O

*0.9

WEST

All races

1544 years .....

15-24 years .....................

25-34 years .....................

35-44 years .....................

625

1,151

484

2,059

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

63.3

45.0

23.3

45.2

●12.O

20.0

22.3

19.2

●8.1

●4.1

*10.5

6.7

●8.1

12.3

+11.3

10.7

*4.3

7.9

*11.7

8.0

*1.2

*4.6

*12.1

*4.7

*1.5

*2.7

*3.O

* 2.2

*2.1

*2.5

‘0.6

*2.7

‘0.8

White

1544 years ..........

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

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

1,229

829

115

100.0

100.0

100.0

52.7

34.1

56.3

16.3

23.5

*11.2

*5.2

*8.9

*9.4

12.0

*8.8

*4.7

*9.4

*6.1

*1 0.6

*8.9

*7 7.9

●3.1

*7.2

*1 .0

‘0.4

*1.4

*3.3

Black

1544 years ..........

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

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

58

57

100.0

100.0

85.9

26.3

*3.4

* 19.0

*1.2

*18.8 “2.0 “5.4

lrn~ludes white, black, and ~th~~ races,
Tabla 9. Number of currantly married woman 1544 years of age and p+!rcent distribution by contraceptive status, according to puverty level income,

rata, and egw United Statas, 1976

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterminous United States. See appendixes for discussion of the sample design,

estimates of sampliig variabilityy, and deftitions of terms]

Contraceptive status

Number

of

women

in

thousand!

Contraceptors Noncontraceptors

Income level, race,l and age

All

women

Noncontra- Pregnant,

Non- Other

Surgical Total ceptively PUSt parmm,

surgical

nonsterile or seeking

user

pregnancy

BELOW POVERTY INCOME

All racas

1544 years ......................................................

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

3044 yaare ......................................................................

White

1544 yearn............................................................

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

3044 yaars ......................................................................

Black

1544 yeeE ............................................................

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

3044 yaars ......................................................................

100-149 PERCENT POVERTY INCOME

All races

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

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

30A14 years ......................................................................

White

1544 years............................................................

15-29 yaars ......................................................................

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

Black

1544 years............................................................

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

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

150-199 PERCENT POVERTY INCOME

Al I races

1544 yaars ......................................................

15-26 years ......................................................................

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

lIncludes white, black, and other races.

Percent distribution

1,41 f —

73.!

66C

1,117

100.0 ●I 7.5 47.9 34.( ●7.7 ●14.9 +12.0

1OcL(

100.(

100.(

●10.3

25.4

17.2

55.5

39.6

49.1

57.2

39.4

40.6

34:

35.(

33.;

33.<

34:

42.:

+3.1

●12.6

6.6

23.9

●5.2

16.2

24.B

● 5.9

‘9.4

● 7.3

17.1

11.0

● 5.3

17.8

18.9

611

5ff

252

100.C

Ioo.c

1Oo.c

●9.5

26.3

17.1

‘3.2

●1O.6

+14.0

99

153

2,030 —

1,026

1,004

1,748

1Oo.c

1Oo.c

1Oo.c

_

1Oo.c

1Oo.c

100.0

● 12.B

19.9

20.1 —

9.6

30.7

21.5

44.4

38.2

48.2 —

59.3

37.0

47.0

42.:

42.C

31.7

.

3Q.:

32A

31 .e

●2.9

21.1

8.7

‘ 2.6

14.9

9.2

● 18.3

●3.6

13.7

22.0

‘5.3

13,8

22.9

4.7

●13.1

●16.5

● 10.2

10.9

●21 .5

17.3

9.2 —

‘6.4

12.2

8.5

5.0

12.1

●14.9

860

866

226

105

121

3,098

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

10.5

32.6

●14.5

● 7.4

%?0.7

18.7

68.9

34.9

51.2

57.9

45.3

54.5

30.6

32.5

34.3

34.7

34.0

26.8

‘2.7

15.7

●6.3

●2.2

‘9.9

8.4

● 16.0

●13.9

7.4

1,E61

1,536

1cm.o

1CKr.o

12.1

25.4

62.2

46.8

25.7

27.8

‘2.7

14.2

15.5

●6.2

7.4

7.4

27
Table9. Number of currently married women 15-44 years of ageand percant distribution by contraceptive atatus, according to poverty level income,

raca, and age: United Statas,1976-Con.

[Statistics are based ona sample of thehousehold population of theconterminous United States. See appendixes for discussion of thesampledeaign,

estimates of sampling variability, and definitions of terms]

Income level, race,l and age

Contraceptive status

Contraceptors INoncontraceptors

Number

d

All

women

in

thousands

150-199 PERCENT POVERTY lNCOME-Con.

Percent distribution

White

1544 years ............................................................ 2,790

1,388

1,393

274

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

25.6

24.0

27.3

38.1

18.9

12.7

25.1

18.9

55.5

63.3

47.6

43.0

8.1

●1.8

14.5

*1 2.6

10.4

14.8

5.9

7.1

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

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

7.4

6.9

+10.5

* 7.3

‘14.2

5.9

Black

15-44 years ............................................................ 15.0

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

3044 years ..............................................d.......................

74s

126

17,958

100.0

100.0

100.0

*7.5

32.3

19.0

50.3

34.4

49.8

42.2

33.3

31.1

“11.8

*13.6

11.9

23.1

*5.5

200 PERCENT OR MORE POVERTY INCOME

All races

1544 years ...................................................... 13.3

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

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

8,013

9,945

16,723

7,443

9.280

945

100.0

100.0

100.0

7.4

28.4

19.7

62.6

39,5

50.0

29.9

32.1

30.3

3.1

19.0

11.8

22.5

6.0

12.7

4.4

7.2

5.8

White

154.4 years ............................................................

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

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

100.0

100.0

100.0

7.7

29.3

10.5

63.1

39.5

48.8

29.2

31.2

40.7

‘3.0

19.0

12.0

22.0

5.3

19.9

4.2

7.0

8.8

81ack

1544 yaars ............................................................

454

490

100.0

100.0

*3.5

17.0

58.5

39.8

37.9

43.2

●5.2

18.3

26.3

14.0

*6.5

10.9

lIncludes white, black, and other races.

28
Table IO. Numlw of currently married women 15-44 years of Weusing contrmeptives other tiansterilization end~rcent ditiribution bymetiodof

contra@ption used, amording topove~level income, race, and age: United States, 1976

[Statistics are bawd onasample oftiehou=hold population oftieconterminous United States. %eappendties for d=cueeimr of thesampIe design,

estimates of sampling vmiab~lty, snd definitions of terms I

Method of contraception

All Pill IUD Dia- Condom Foam Rhythm Withmethuds Douche Other phragm drawal

Number

of wornar

in Income level, raca,l and age

BELOW POVERTY INCOME

All rams

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

Percent distribution

100.0

—

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

I 00.0

100.0

54.0 ●13.1 +1.7 ● 12.0 “4.5 ●5.2 ● 2.0 *3.8

68.1 *I 4.3 ●0.7 ●6.5

32.6 ●11.4 ●3.2 “20.4

● 3.7

●1.6

●7.O

●3.5

●1.9

●6.4

+0.7

●1.3

●3.3

“3.0

*3.6

●2.5

●2.2

●2.9

●1O.O

“11.3

●8.6

●3.9

●1.9

●6.6

● 5.4

“3.0

‘5.0

●1.1

●11.4

●5. 1

+0.7

‘4.0

●1.8

●1.5

●7.1

*3.2

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

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

White

53.8 *12.5 ‘1.5 “13.5

66.8 ●14.1 ‘0.8 ●6.9

30.9 ●9.8 ●2.8 “25.0

53.9 20.1 ‘ 2.8 ●7.5

66.1 ‘21.5 ● 5.9

44.8 * 18.9 *4.9 ● 8.6

51.0 9.6 ●7.3 10.3

64.2 *7.5 ●7.7 ++7.0

29.4 *1 3.0 ●6.7 ‘15.8

51.7 ●9.5 ●6.6 ●11.1

63.9 ●7.5 ●9.1 * 7.9

30.9 +13.1 ● 7.9 16.7

35.0 ‘13.6 ‘0.9 “8.4

50.O +11.7 ● 2.6

18.2 “15.8 ●1.8 ‘14.8

!3.3 12.9 5.4 15.7

56.2 12.4 ●3.8 12.7

25.9 +13.5 ●7.5 19.6

1544 years ..........................

●1.8

*5.7

97.7

●13.5

‘2.8 —

*2.8

● 2.9

*3.3

‘3.1

*3.5

+0.7

●1.3

‘1.3

●1.2

“1.4

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

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

Black

1544 years ..........................

‘6.4

*2.7

* 2.6

*1.3

+11.8

‘1.0

●5.O

●3.7

*6.5

‘1.6

● 5.2

100.0

1Oo.c

1Oo.c

100.0

100.0

100.0

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

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

@

5[

98[

60!

37”

82”

*4.6

* 5.6

-

“4.0

*8.3

●5.1

*4.5

*6.2

‘9.5

‘1.7

●4.8

●3.6

‘6.7

●3.3

“1.9

“5.7

●12.3

100-149 PERCENT

POVERTY INCOME

All races

1544 years .....................

“0.1

●13.5

‘4.8

‘13.1

●9.6

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

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

White

1544 years ..........................

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

30-14 years .....................................

519

3i13

116

100.0

100.0

100.0

Black

1544 years ..........................

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

‘1.3

●18.5

7.2

●6.7

●7.7

● 20.4

●3.4

8.7

“4.3

14.6

‘1.4

● 18.8

●1.8

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

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

61

55

1,690

971

719

150-188 PERCENT

POVERTY INCOME

All races

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

‘0.8

+3.1

15-28years .....................................

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

1Includes white, lj&k, and other rsces.

29
Table 10. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization and percent distribution by method of

contraception used, according to poverty level income, race, and age: United States, 1976 —Con.

I Statistics are based on a samvle of the household Dooulation of tbe conterminous United States. See avoendixes for discussion of the samrie desire.

estim&& ofsampling variability, and definitions of terms] ““

-,

Number

of women

in

thousands

Method of contraception

Income level, raca,l and age All Pill IUD Dia- Condom Foam Rhythm With- Douche

nethods

Other

phragm drawal

150-199 PERCENT

POVERTY lNCOME–Con.

Percent distribution

White

15-44 years .. ... . ... ... ..... .... .... . 1,548

885

663

118

13.2

12.4

‘ 14.3

*6.2

*1.6

*0.7

* 2.9

‘4.2

*1.2

+1.3

*1.O

‘3.1

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

43.3

56.5

25.7

50.9

5.4

‘4.2

●7.1

*1.1

15.7

12.7

19.8

● 14.2

6.0

●5.8

*6.2

18.1

9.4

*4.6

15.9

‘0.6

*4. 1

*1.9

*7.2

‘+1.7

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

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

Black

1544 years ... .... .... . ... . ... .... ...

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

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

75

43

8,947

100.0

100.0

100.0

60.8

‘33.7

45.8

*6.3

●6. 1

13.1

*9.2

* 22.8

15.4

*17.4

*19.1

5.7

*0.9

7.1

● 2.6

4.2

●2.7

*6.9

*0.8

+3.0

6.1

*8.4

‘1.9

200 PERCENT OR MORE

POVERTY INCOME

All races

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

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

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

5,019

3,928

8,358

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

56.6

32.0

45.7

56.4

32.0

54.7

12.3

14.1

13.0

4.2

8.4

6.2

4.4

8.5

●4.7

11.5

20.4

15.5

11.4

20.7

10.5

*1 2.9

● 7.2

5.1

6.4

5.5

5.1

6.0

7.1

*3.8

*11.7

5.3

9.4

7.3

5.4

9.8

+1.3

‘2.8

5.9

4.2

2.9

5.9

*4.6

‘1.4

*9.1

*0.5

●1.1

‘0.7

‘0.5

+1.0

*1.8

‘0.8

*3.1

●1.5

●2.3

*1.9

.—

*1.5

*2.4

‘2.5

.—

*3.3

‘1.3

White

1544 years .... ..... . .. .... .. .. ..... .

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

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

Black

1544 years .... .... ... ... .. .... ......

4,694

3,664

460

12.4

13.7

12.8

15-28 years .....................................

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

265

195

100.0

100.0

67.1

37.8

*8.6

18.6

*1.4

●9.2

● 0.7

*2.1

1Includes white, black, and other races.

30
Table 11. Number of currently married women 16-44 yeers of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status, according to parity, race, and age:

Unitad States, 1976

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterminous United Stetes. See appendixes for discussion of the sample design,

estimates of sampling variabilityy, and definitions oft ems I

Number

of

women

in

thousends

Contraceptive status

Contracaptors Noncontramptors

Al I

women

Parity, raca,l and age

Noncontra- Pregnantr

Non- Other

Surgical Total captively poet partum,

surgical nonsterile or seeking user

pregnancy

O-1 PARITY

Percent distribution

All races

15-44 years ...................................................... 10,805 100.0 56.1 41.2

T

7.5 25.3

2.7 27.7

21.6 18.4

2.7 8.4

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

30-44 yaws ......................................................................

Whita

8,039

2,766

9,797

100.0

100.0

100.0

1.0

7.5

“2.9

63.6

34.3

57.5

35.4

58.2

39.6

5.0

18.2

● 7.3 ●8.1 I

24.2

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

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

7,342

2,455

766

100.0

100.0

100.0

?1.1

8.2

“0.8

64.8

35.7

43.8

34.1

%.0

55.4

2.7 26.7

21.3 16.7

-,}

11.2 32.7

4.7

18.0

11.5

Black

1544 years ............................................................

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

30.44 years ......................................................................

2-4 PAR ITY

526

242

14,523

4,*3

10,161

13,198

3,829

9,369

1,060

100.0

100.0

1Cso.o

100.0

‘100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

●0.1

*2.1

27.1

20.8

29.8

28.5

22.2

31.0

14.8

55.5

18.5

47.2

!S8.0

43.4

46.6

55.6

42.9

52.0

44.3

79.4

26.7

●3.3 34.5

2a.3 26.9

13.4 5.9

6.5

22.2

6.3

6.5

6.3

5.9

5.7

6.0

12.6

All races

1544 years ......................................................

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

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

Whita

15-44 ymrs ............................................................

23.2

26.8

24.9

4.3 12.3

17.3 3.2

13.4 ~ 5.6

22.1

26.1

33.2

4.0

I

12.4

17.3 2.9

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

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

11.9 8.7

Black

15-29 yeers ......................................................................

3044 yeers ......................................................................

452

608

2,159

100.0

100.0

100.0

10.2

18.2

40.3

58.3

48.8

27.9

33.5

33.0

31.8

8.0 I 11.9 13.6

11.s

12.0

●15.8

11.9

-L14.9 6.3

17.5 ● 2.2

5 PARITY OR MORE

All races

1544 yaars ......................................................

●37.9

40.4

‘29.4

27.9

‘32.6

31.7

● 7.6

I

●9.2

17.8 2.0

15-29 yeaw ......................................................................

30-?4 years ......................................................................

●62

2,097

100.0

100.0

31
Table 11. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status, according to parity, rata, and age:

United Statea, 1976–Con.

[Statistics are baaed on a sample of the household population of the conterminous United States. See appendixes for d~cussion of the sample design,

estimates of sampling variability y, and definitions of terms]

Parity, race,l and age

5 PARITY OR MORE–Con.

White

1544 years ... ... ...... ..... ....... ... . ... .... .. ..... .... ... . ... .... ...

Black

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

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

lIncludes white, black, and other races.

Numtw

of

women

in

thousands

1,800

’47

1,753

342

“15

327

Contraceptive status

=?

Parcant distribution

100.0 II 32.9 I 31.5 I 35.6

100.0 ●43.4 *37.1 *19.5

100.0 32.4 31.3 36.3

77

18.7 ‘2.0 10.6

‘8.5 *7.4 20.8

19.0 ‘1.8 10.4

*I 2.2 I ‘3.7 I 19.7

‘4.5 ●1 5.0

12.5 ●3.2 20.6

32
Table 12. Number of currently married woman 1544 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization and percent distribution by method of

contraception umd, according to parity, ram, and age: United States, 1976

[Statistics are baaed on a sample of the household population of the contermirrous United States. See appendixes for discussion of the sample design,

estimrttea of sampling veriabfity, and defmitiona of terms]

Number

of women

in

thousands

Method of contraception

parity, raca,l and age Die- Condom Foam Rhythm withPhrwm drawal

Douche Other

0-1 PARITY

AH races

1544 years .....................

Percent distribution

6,060 100.0 58.2 10.1T

6.3 11.9

5.6 10.7

10.2 18.2

4.7 5.4 2.9 “0.9 1.5

1.5

‘2.U

1.5

15-28 yeare .....................................

30.44 years .....................................

5,112

848

5,633

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

— 100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

59.9

36.3

56.2

10.4

● 8.9

10.3

4.4

*6.1

4.5

4,8

“8.7

5.3

2.2

●6.9

3.1

“0.6

●2.8

+0.7

White

15-44 yaars .......................... 6.6 I 11.8

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

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

Black

1544 yaars ..........................

4,7%

878

336

291

45

6,848

2,444

4,404

6,142

2,131

4,011

551

255

296

603

●I8

584

59.6

37.6

60.1 —

84.7

‘30.4

38.1

=

53.4

28.6

37.7

—

52.8

29.7

43.9

10.5

●9.1

●8.2

● 7.9

● 10.4

14.7

_

14.9

14.6

14.6

6.0 10.6

●1 0.1 18.1

4.3

●5.6

‘4.9

‘4.6

‘6.5

6.8

7.6

6.4

6.7

7.9

6.0

8.5

●6.4

● 10.4

● 12.2

‘12.6

4.8

●8.3

●5.3

2.2

●7.5

●1.5

●0.5

●1.8

●4.5

1.4

‘2.0

*2.4

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

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

●0.6 i ‘10.8 ● 5.8

●2.O

7.7

“4.0

9.7

8.1

‘4.0

10.2

‘1.7

“0.6

“ 2.6

●13.8

‘14.2

“7.7

5.5

-

‘4.0

6.4

5.4

‘4.1

6.1

“6.1

+1.5

“24.3

●1.9 —

●1.O

● 2.3

●1.4

●0.2

●2.1

7.2

●2.4

●1.9

2.5 —

●1.8

●2.9

2.5

●2.O

●2.8

●2.8

+

●19.1 * 5.4

5.3 17.4

●1.9 11.4

7.3 20.8

24 PARITY

All racas

1544 years .....................

15-28years .....................................

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

White

1544yeara ..........................

T

5.5 18.1

●1.8 11.9

7.4 21.4

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

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

81eck

.

154 years ..........................

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

15.2

14.3

14.9

11.7

17.6

19.5

● 22.0

19.5

●4.5

● 2.6

●6.2

10.3

●7.6

12.5

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

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

5 PARITY OR MORE

All races

1544 years .....................

58.3

31.6

27.7

=

65.8

28.5

94.1

●7.8

“0.8

‘0.9

●7.7

●6.7

‘1.9

●2.O

●loo

“4.5

●2.5

‘4.4

●2.5

‘6.9

●7.1

●14.6

● 7.8

14.8

15.29 years .....................................

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

33
Table 12. Number of currently married women 15-44 years of aga using contraceptives other than sterilization and percent distribution by method of

contraception used, according to parity, race, and age: United States, 1976-Ccm.

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterminoua United Statea. See appendixes for discussion of the sample design,

estimates of sampling variability, end definitions of terms]

Parity, race,l and age

5 PARITY OR MORE–Con.

White

1544 years ..........................

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

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

Black

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

\

Number 1 Method of contraception

of women . ,

in All Pill IUo Dia- COndom Foam Rhythm Withthousands methods

Douche

phragm drawal Other

495 100.0

’13 100.0

482 100.0

108 100.0

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

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

l~cl”des white, black, and either races.

●5 1 100.0

102

I

100.0

Parcent distribution

26.1 18.7 ‘7.6 15.8 ●11.O 16.2 *1.O *1.5 ++1.9

77.7 ‘If.l ●11.1 -

24.7 18.9 %0 15,9 *11.3 16.6 *1.O 41.6 ●2.O

35.3 “23.3 *2.6 * 8.9 *I 7.8 *3, 1 ●3.7 +5.4

38.2 *47.3 ●14.5

35.1 * 22.0 *2.8 *9.4 *18.7 ●3.2 “3.9 ‘4.9

34
Table 13. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status, according to labor

force status, racer and age: United States, 1976

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterminous United States. See appendixes for discussion of the

sample design, estimates of sampling variabdit y, and definitions of terms]

Labor force status, race,l and age

IN LABOR FORCE

AII races

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

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

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

White

1544 years .................................

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

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

Black

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

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

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

NOT IN LABOR FORCE

All races

1544 years............................

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

30-44 yaars............................................

White

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

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

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

Black

1544 years .................................

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

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

Number

of

women

in

thousands

13,488

6,021

7,466

11,914

5,357

6,557

1.349

563

786

13,957

6,431

7,527

12,839

5,649

6,990

819

428

391

Contraceptive status

II COntraceptors I Noncontraceptors

,

All Noncontra- Pregnantt

women Non- Othar

Surgicel Total ceptively post partum,

surgical nonsterile or seeking

user

pregnancy

Percent distribution

1Oo.c

1Oo.c

Icso.c

1Oo.c

1Oo.c

1Oo.c

1Oo.c

1Oo.c

100.C

1Oo.c

1Oo.c

100.C

100.C

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

n

18.8 51.1 30.1

6.9 66.5 26.6

28.4 38.7 32.9

19.5 I 51.8 28.7

I I

7.2 67.4 25.3

29.5 39.0 31.5

tt

13.2 47.4 39.3

●4.4 60.1 35.6

19.6 38.3 42.1

19.1 1 47.3 33.6

9.6 56.1 34.3

27.1 40.0 32.9

*

6.7 49.6 43.7

17.2 36.4 46.4

11.8 ! 11.0

3.4 18.0

18.7 5A

11.8 10.2

I

3.2 17.2

18.8 4.5

11.8 I 15.0

●5.5 21.3

16.4 10.5

11.01 15.4

I

*3.1 26.1

17.7 6.3

11.1!

15.0

3.1 I 25.9

L

17.8 6.0

11.5 18.8

7.2

5.2

8.9

6.7

4.9

8.3

12.5

*8.7

15,2

8.0

6.0

9.7

7.4

5.4

9.2

‘14.7

10.9

18.9

1Includes white, black, and other races.

35
Table 14. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization and percent distribution by

method of contraception used, according to labor force status, race, and age: United States, 1976

[Statistics are based on e sample of the household copulation of the conterrninous United States. See appendixes for discussion of the sample

design, estimates of sampling variability, and detlmitions of terms]

Number

If women

in

housands

6,891 —

4,005

2,886

6,168

Method of contraception

Labor force status, race,l

and age Pill

I

IUD I

Dia- Condom I

Foam IRhythm I

With- Douche

phragm drawal Other All

methods

IN LA80R FORCE

Percent distribution

All races

15-44 years ..... 100.0

—

100.0

100.0

100.0

49.4

.

59.5

35.3

49.0

12.0

_

11.4

12.8

12.2

*1 .4 T

5.9 15.3

4.8 10.4

7.3 21.9

5.1 6.2 3.5

4.7 4.9 2.1

5.6 8.0 5.3

*1.3

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

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

*0.7

*2.1

●1.O

‘0.5

*1.6

●4.9

*2.9

*7.1

●1.6

●0.7

* 2.6

+1.3

*1.3

*1.7

+

6.1 15.7

5.3 10.7

7.2 22.7

White

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

-l+4.8 6.5 3.4

4.5 5.0 2.1

5.3 8.7 5.2

*1.3

*1.2

*1.5

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

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

3,613

2,555

639

100.0

100.0

100.0

58.8

35.3

52.9

11.9

12.7

11.0

Black

15-44 years .......... *3.7 10.3 7.5 ●2.1 *4.9

1 1

*2.8

*6.2 *1.6 ●2.3

*8.9 *2.7 ●7.7

7.2 7.7 4.8

6.3 *4.1 *3.3

8.3 12.0 6.6

7.0 7.8 4.9

6.5 4.0 3.4

7.5 12.1 6.6

9.9 “4.8 *2.2

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

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

339

301

6,590

100.0

100.0

100.0

67.7

36.3

41.9

-

56.0

25.4

42.3

*7.5

14.9

13.7

12.3

15.4

13.3 +

*0.5 *8.8

*7.2 *1 2.0

5.9 14.4

*3.9 11.5

8.2 17.9

6.1 14.6

* 2.4

*3.2

NOT IN

LABOR FORCE

All races

*2.7 —

1544 years .....

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

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

3,562

3,028

6,072

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

*1.9

*3.7

White

1544 years .......... 2.8

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

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

3,279

2,793

354

212

142

56.3

25.9

40.5

12.0

14.9

17.9

4.0 11.3

8.6 18.3

*0.3

2.4

+7.7

2.0

3.7

Black

●4.I I 9.6 *3.3

*1 .1

*6.6

1544 years ..........

fi13.7

‘24.1 -Y-l-E *6.6

*9.4

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

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

100.0

100.0

51.7

~23.9

Ilnclude,q ~hitp,, black, ad other races.

36
Table 15. Numbsrof currently married women 1644 years of ageand~rcant distribution bycontraceptive atatus, ecmrding coeducation, raca, and

age: lJnitad States, 1976

[Statiitica are based ona sample of thehousehold population of theconterrninous United States. SeeappendiXes fordiStionof thesampledeaigsr,

estimates of sampling variability, and definitions of terms ]

COntramptive status

C2mtrasaptors I Nonrxmtreceptors

Numlxr

of

women

in

thousands

All

,vrrrnen

Education, raca,l and aw Pregnant, Other

post pertum,

nonor seeking

user

pregnancy

LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL

All races

1544 years ......................................................

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

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

White

154years ............................................................

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

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

Black

1544 years............................................................

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

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

HIGH SCHOOL

All races

1544 years ......................................................

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

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

White

1544 yaars............................................................

15-29 yeers ......................................................................

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

Black

1544 years............................................................

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

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

MORE THAN HIGH SCHOOL

All races

1544 years ......................................................

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

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

l~~ludes white, b]a~k, and other races.

6,272 100.0 38.4 39.9 15.0 13.7 11.2

8.4

13.0

9.9

7.2

11.7

22.0

21.7

2,4S5

3,7B7

5,442

100.0

100.0

100.0

10.B

28.9

22.4

49.3

31.2

39.5

40.0

38.9

36.1

+4.1

22.2

15.2

27.4

4.8

13.0

26.7

3.9

15.6

2.164

3,258

691

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

11.1

30.0

17.9

●8.6

22.7

19.0

51.0

31.8

30.2

37.9

38.2

51.9

—

56.4

49.5

32.0

=

31.1

32.8

31.4

“4.0

22.6

14.3

●6.5

18.3

11.5

3.5

18.5

11.6

236

455

12,970

35.0

27.8

49.0

60.2

39.2

48.8

31.7

7.2

13.5

21.9

6.0

13.0

1B.2

24.0

7.1

5.6

8.3

6.9

6,062

6,908

11,841

100.0

100.0

100.0

8.7

26.0

19.8

100.0

100.0

100.0

9.1

28.8

11.0

60.3

38.0

50.1

30.6

32.2

38.0

3.4

18.5

11.8

21.7

5.5

18.0

5.4

8.1

9.2

5,501

6.441

889

469

421

8,196

100.0

100.0

100.0

● 5.2

17.5

15.4

61.3

37.4

57.7

33.5

45.1

26.9

=

25.4

28.3

●5.3

19.2

8.6

● 2.3

14.2 -?

21,4

14.2

12.6

19.2

6.6

6.8

11.8

5.8

3.8

7.5

3,903

4,285

100.0

100.0

5.6

24.3

68.0

47.4

37
Table 15. Number of currently married women 15-44 years of age and percent distribution by c.mtraceptive stgtus, according tOaducatiOn, raca, and

age: United States, 1976 —COn.

[Statistics are basedon a sample of the household population of the ccmterminous United States. See appendixesfm discussion of the sample design,

estimates of sampling variability y, and definitions of terms]

Education, race,l and age

MORE THAN HIGH SCHOOL-COn.

Whita

1544years ............................................................

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

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

Black

1544 yaars ............................................................

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

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

lIn~]~des white, black, and Other ra~~.

Number

of

in

7,364

3,522

3,842

588

287

301

All

women

Contraceptive status

Parcent distribution

100.0 16.2 58.0 25.9 6.4 12.0

100.0 5.8 69.9 24.2 *2.2 18.6

100.0 25.7 47.0 27.3 14.1 6.0

100.0 9.0 58.0 33.0 8.5 15.1

100.0 *3.O 63.1 33.9 ‘4.9 21.8

100.0 14.7 53.1 32.2 11.9 8.6

5.4

3.4

7.2

9.4

7.2

11.4

38
Tabla 16. Numbarof currently married women 1544 years of ageusing contracaptiws otharthan sterilization and percent distribution bymathodof

contraception used, according toeduaation, race, andaga: United States, 1976

[Statistics are beaedonammple of thehouaehold populationof tieconterfious Ufited States. Weappend&~ for&cwion of thesampledesi~,

estimates of ssmpling veriabtity, end detlmitions of terms]

Number Method of contraception

of women

in

thousand!

Education, ram,l and age

Condom Foam Rhythm Withdrawal Douche Other

All I

Pill I

IUDI

Diamethods phregm

LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL

All races

1544 years ....................

Percent distribution

2,40f 1043.0 50.0 13.! +3.1 12.1 5.i 5.5 5.[ ●3.3 ●1.6

15-28years ....................................

3044 yeara ....................................

1,225

1,182

2,1 w

100.0

100.0

100.0

67.0

32.3

50.8

Il.!

15.:

13.C

“1.9

*4.3

●3.2

●7.3

17.1

12.6

●4.7

● 5.6

●4.4

●2.5

8.6

6.0

●2.7

9.6

● 0.9

●1.5

7.4

●3.(

8.[

5.5

● 2.S

9.1

● 2.i

● 0.7

“6.0

●2.6

●5.3

11.0

●9.7

●11.8

●1.4

—

●1.O

●1.8

●1.2

‘0.8

●1.7

●4.2

●1.4

●1.8

●1.5

●1.5

●1.5

●3.3

‘1.0

●4.8

●1.9

-

●1.1

‘3.1

●1.9

● 0.9

●3.2

‘2.9

Whita

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

15-28years ....................................

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

1,113

1,037

209

100.0

100.0

100.0

67.8

32.7

42.6

1O.e

15.5

20.6

●1.9

‘4.4

●3.O

● 8.C

17.5

10.1

+4.4

●4.3

●6.4

*1O.5

6.7

=

●5.8

8.0

6.5

5.7

7.6

10.2

Black

1544 years ..........................

16-2Syears.....................................

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

83

126

6.351

100.0

100.0

100.0

57.1

33.1

47.7

●24.1

● 18.4

12.1

●1.5

‘4.0

4.2

●2.6

6.4

4.4

=1.0

● 16.0

I 5.0 —

10.1

21.6

15.5

10.2

22.5

8,9

●5.5

.,

4.1

-

●3.2

5.4

4.3

3.4

5.5

●2.6

HIGH SCHOOL

All races

1544 years .....................

15-2syears.....................................

30-44 yaws .....................................

White

16-44 years ..........................

3,651

2,701

5,825

100.0

100.0

100.0

59.9

28.8

46.7

12.4

11.7

12.0

‘4.0

12.0

7.6

3.9

12.4

●5.O

15-28 years .....................................

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

3,317

2,508

445

100.0

100.0

100.0

58.6

28.5

53.6

12.6

11.2

10.6

2.9

6.4

●1.9

81ack

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

15-28 years .....................................

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

288

157

4,726

2,692

2,034

1CQ.o

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

63.8

35.1

41.7

-

50.7

28.7

●6.6

● 17.9

13.5

=

11.3

16.5

● 8.9

● 8.9

16.0

13.7

19.2

●7.2

‘15.7

5.8

=

5.3

6.4

● 5.6

●4.o

7.0

6.2

8.1

“0.8

“6.0

3.4

●2.1

5.0

●3.8

●4.8

“0.7

“0.4

●1.O

●3.3

● 2.3

2.5

●2.3

‘2.7

●5.3

9.5

7.9

11.5

MORE THAN HIGH SCHOOL

All rams

1544 years .....................

15-28yeara .....................................

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

39
Table 16, Number of currently married women 15-44 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization and percent distribution by method of

contraception used, according to education, race, and age: United States, 1976-Ccm.

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterminoua United States. See appendixes for diacuaaion of the sample design,

estimates of sampling variability-, and definitions of terme]

Education, race,l and age

MORE THAN

HIGH SCHOOL–Con.

White

1544 years .... .... .... ... .... .......

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

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

Black

1544 yeara .. ... .... ....... ....... ...

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

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

Number

of women

in

thousands

4,268

2,463

1,805

340

180

160

Method of contraception

All Pill IUD Dia- Condom Foam Rhythm With- Douche Other

methods phragm drawal

Percent distribution

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

It41.8 13.7 9.9

50.0 11.7 8.4

30.6 16.5 12.0

15.9

13.5

19.2

‘11.5

+13.5

●9.4

5.7

5.5

6.0

“7.1

‘5.1

“ 9.3

7.0

6.3

8.1

*1.9

*1.4

● 2.4

3.1

+1.9

●4.6

●6.6

●4.8

‘8.6

T

“0.3 *2.5

●0.2 *2.5

‘0.5 *2.5

-1- ●5. I *2.8

*2.8

* 7.7 *5.9

1f.ncludes white, black, and other races.

40
Table 17. Numlxrof currently married women 15-44 years of aseand IMrcent distribution bycontrawptiva status, according toreligion, raca, and We: United States,

1976

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterndnous United States. see appendixes for discussion of the sample design, estimate. of sampling

variabiKty, and definitions of terms]

Religion,l raca,2 and age

Contraceptive status

Number

of

women

in

:housands

17,354

7,632

9,722

15,358

II CO”tracepmrs I Noncontracaptors

All Noncont raPragnant,

vomen Surgical Non- Other

Total ceptively post partum,

surgical nonsterile or seeking “=r

pregnancy

PROTESTANT

Percent distribution

All rECOS

1544 years ................................................................................. 100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

21.7

9.5

31.3

22.8

48.1

58.5

36.2

46.0

32.3

=

32.0

32.5

31.1

12.5

3.9

19.3

12.6

13.0

22.9

5.3

12.6

6.6

5.3

7.9

6.0

4.7

6.9

12.9

9.9

15.3

9.1

White

1544 years ............................. .......................... ...............................

6,760

8,608

1,908

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

10.0

32.9

13.7

5.9

19.6

13.1

59.0

35.9

45.4

55.5

37.3

53.5

31.1

31.2

41.0

—

38.6

42.8

33.4

‘3.7

19.5

11.9

5.1

17.3

10.6

22.6

4.7

16.2

23.6

10.3

13.7

Black

15-44 yaars .. ....................................................................................

845

1,063

7,792

CATHOLIC

All races

1544 years .................................................................................

3,638

4,154

7,336

3,405

3,931

165

1m.o

103.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

5.2

m.1

13.6

5.4

m.7

“4.4

84.9

43.5

53.8

65.7

43.6

47.5

23.9

38.4

32.5

—

28.9

36.7

48.1

‘ 2.9

17.3

10.5

‘2.8

17.2

“13.1

21.4

6.8

12.9

m.6

6.2

15.3

5.5

12.3

9.1

5.5

12.3

19.7

White

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

Black

1544 years ........ ........ .... ...................... ............................................

63

63

706

222

464

1,053

617

436

1CO.O

100.0

100.0

1MO

100.0

1000

100.0

100.0

49.0

46.0

58.1

58.0

59.5

61.8

71.0

48.9

46.9

47.2

2%.9

=

37.3

25.0

24.1

ZF

33.3

‘12.5

●13.6

“11.0

“2.4

14.9

“3.6

“8.8

“23.9

“6.8

“12.2

“X).2

●4.4

10.B

● 12.5

“26.8

“5.8

‘5.8

%.6

“9.6

“2.1

‘6.6

“12.1

“4.7

15.4

14.1

●11.4

17.8

JEWISH

~lhi~e

1544years ............................................................................. .. ..

NO RELIGION

.

White

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

●12.2

98.8

“5.3

“15,B

lDue to limitations of sample size, women with reliaious preferences other than Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or no religion are not shown separately in thir table. They

are, however, included in the totals shown in other tables.

21ncludes white, black, and other races.

41
Table 18. Number of currently married women 1544 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization and percent distribution by method of contraception used,

according to religion, race, and agw United States, 1976

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterminous United State? See appendixes for discussion of the sample design, estimates of sampling

variability, and definitions of terms]

Number Method of contraception

3f women

in

thousands

Religlon,l race,z and age

Al I

Pill IUD Dia- Condom Foam Rhythm With- Douche Other tethods phragm drawal

PROTESTANT

All races

1544 years ................................................

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

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

White

15. yeae .....................................................

Percent distribution

7.981 100.0 I 49.4 12.4 I 4.7 14.4 6.1 5.2 3.7 “2.1 ●2.1

_

4,466

3,515

7,077

3,967

3,090

665

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

61.3

34.4

49.5

.

60.9

34.s

49.2

12.1

12.7

12.3

3.1

6.7

4.7

3.3

6.6

‘4.2

10.7

19.0

14.8

4.3

8.4

6.1

4.0

6.7

5.5

●1.8

6.1

3.5

“1.0

3.5

“1.6

“1.8

●2.4

●1.9

12.3

12.3

13.6

10.8

20.0

10.8

4.4

8.2

6.7

4.3

7.1

“1.5

1.7

5.9

‘4.2

“0.6

2.9

6.7

1.7

2.2

●3.1

+0.7

*2.4

11.1

_

5.9

17.9

11.2

‘3.0

●5.7

5.1

“5.1

● 8.6

“0.5

‘2.0

●4.4

2.4

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

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

CATHOLIC

All races

1544 years ................................................

466

397

4,162

100.0

100.0

100.0

63.2

32.7

41.7

.

55.6

23.5

41.5

10.8

16.6

12.1

.

11.1

13.3

12.2

“1.5

* 7.5

5.0

_

●3.4

7.1

5.1

10.3

11.3

15.8

_

11.3

21.7

15.9

●3.4

10.6

6.4

.

6.7

6.0

6.0

_ _

‘0.4

“0.6

‘0.5

‘0.4

“0.6

●1.1

“1.3

“3.6

2.5

●1.3

“3.9

‘2.9

2,360

1,802

3,945

100.0

100.0

100.0

●4.3

6.1

5.3

2,236

1,708

78

100.0

100.0

100.0

55.3

23.5

54.5

11.2

13.4

●17.1

●3.5

7.2

‘1.6

11.4

21.8

●3.4

6.7

5.0

“1 2.2

5.7

18.4

●5.3

●4.5

6.3

“1.8

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

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

JEWISH

White

1544years ................................................

41

38

&7

100.0

100.0

100.0

79.3

‘27.9

‘1 8.9

.

31.1

‘1 3.4

50.3

-

49.6

5! .7

●4.9

“30.2

24.1

‘3.2

“1 7.9

● 4.6

●2.1

24.1

●4.5

‘6.2

●5.3

●1.6

● 2.0

‘5.5

‘2.0

“4.0

‘1.4

“25.3

“2,8

●2.3

_ _ _

‘8.1

“4.1

● 2.5

●4.6

●1.5

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

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

ND RELIGION

White

1544 years ............................... .................

128

288

651

—

438

213

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

“9.0

30.8

‘1 3.8

_

“14.6

‘ 12.0

● 23.8

“15.3

19.3

_

17.1

‘ ●23.9

●19.3

“26.3

●5.3

‘4.2

‘2.1

‘3.3

●7,9

‘ 3.3 “0.8

_ _

+1.0

● 2.4

‘7.3

●1.3

●4.9 “0.s

‘5.7

●4.5

‘0.7 ●2.3

lDue tolimitations ofsample size, women tithreligious preferences other than Protestant, Qtholic, Jetish, ornoreligion arenotshom sepmately inthistabie. ~ey

are, however, included inthe totals shown in Othertables.

21nc[udes white, black, and other races.

42
Table 19. Number of widowed, divorced, and separated women 1544 years of age and percent distribution by contraceptive status,

according torace and age: United States, 1976

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterminous United States. See appendixes for discussion of the

sample design, estimates of sampliig variabtit y, and definitions of terms]

Race and age

All racesl

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

Black

1544 years .................................

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

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

Number

of

women

in

thousends

4,359

1,681

2,678

3,134

1,259

1,876

1,145

374

770

Contraceptive status

Contraceptors Noncontraceptors

Percent distribution

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

13.7

9.8

16.2

13.1

9.2

15.7

15.2

10.6

17.4

40.0

55.4

30.1

41.4

59.6

28.8

38.1

47.0

33.8

Pregnant, Other

post partum,

nonor weking

user

pregnancy

4146.3 13.9 I *1.7 I 30.6

A

34.7 *5.6 *4.1 25.0

53.7 19.3 *0.2 34.2

45.6 13.6 *1.3 30.7

31.2 *5.4

55.5 19.2

*3.2 22.6

*0.I 36.3

4146.7 15.4 *2.9 28.5

I I

42.4 *5.7 ●7.7 29.0

48.8 20.1 ●0.5 28.2

l~~l~des white, black, and other races.

43
Table 20. Number of widowed, divorced, and separated women 15-44 years of age using contraceptives other than sterilization and percent

distribution by method of contraception used, according to race and age: United States, 1976

I Statistics are based on a samrde of the household uorxdation of the conterminous United States. See auuendixes for d~cuaaion of the aamnle

design, estisn&e; of sempliig variability, and definitions of terms]’ -

–=

—

Number Method of contraception

of women

in

thousands

1.715

Race and age

All Pill IUD Oia- Condom Foam Rhythm Withmethods phragm drawal Douche Other

All racesl

1544 years .....

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

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

White

1544 years ..........

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

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

Black

1544 yaars ..........

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

3044 veals ........ ...........

100.0 60.8 20.1 *3.O *4.1 I *3.O *2.6 * 0.9 *2.3 *3.2

928

787

1,268

100.0

100.0

100.0

70.9

49.0

63.0

—

71.9

50.4

53.4

16.4

24.4

19.2

“2.5

*3.5

*2.9

● 2.6

●3.4

●3.2

‘4.2 I

*1.2

‘4.0 ‘5.2

*0.1

*5.5

*2.9

*7.2

*1.7

●1.3

“0.4

*0.4

$+0.7

* 2.4

*1.2

*3.6

*1.9

‘0.7

*3.7

*3.3

●2.2

*4.4

*3.1

*2.8

*3.4

+ *3.8

*4.2 *2.4

*4.8 ●0.6

●3.4 *4.8

●3.8 *5.1

746

521

436

176

260

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

16.0

23.7

23.3

65.7

45.1

—

●19.O

26.2

*2.3

*3.8

*1.9 I

*3.6

*5.1 *6.1

“0.5

* 2.4

*3.9

●1.4

*3.1

●3.4 *6.4

lln~ludes white, bl~~k, and other ~~~es,

Table 21. Number of never-married women 15+44 years of age with offspring in the household and percent distribution by

contraceptive status, according to age: United States, 1976

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterminous United States. See appendwea for discussion of the

sample design, estimates of sampling variabilityy, and definitions of terms]

Contraceptive status

Number

of

women

in

thousands

1.071

II Contracaptors I Noncontraceptors

1

Al I

women Surgical

{

Age

NonNoncontraTotal

surgical

ceptively

sterile

Pregnant,

post partum,

or seeking

pregnancy

Other

nonuser

I II

Percent distribution

1544 years ............................

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

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

100.0II *4.7 I 57.0 I 38.3 1! *3.2 i *7.3 I 27.8

870

200

100.0 *3.2 I

61.3 35.5 I*2.4 *8.2 24.9

100.0 *11.3 38.2 50.5 *6.8 *3.5 40.2

44
Table 22. Number of nevar-married women 15.44 years of age using contraceptives other than stabilization with offspring in the household

and percent distribution by method of contraception used, according to age: United States, 1976

[Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of the conterminous United States. See appendixes for discussion of the sample

design, estimates of sampling veriabdity, and definitions of terms]

Number I Method of contraception

Age of woman

in All Pill IUD Dia- Condom Foam Rhythm Withthousands

Doucha Other

methods phragm drawal

I I

Percent distritnstion

1544 years ..... 610 100.0 64.1 21.0 ●1.8 ●4.1 ● 2.0 ●1.2 ●0.3 *4.3 *1.2

15-29 years ..................... 634 100.0 69.1 19.1 ●1.4 *1.7 ●1.9 ●1.O *0.1 *4.2 ●1.4

3044 years ..................... *76 100.0 ●28.9 ‘34.6 *4.2 ‘20.6 * 2.4 * 2.9 ●1.6 ‘4.8

45
APPENDIXES

CONTENTS

I. Technical Notes ..............................................................................................................................

Background ..........................................................................................................................

Statistical Design ..................................................................................................................

Measurement Process ...........................................................................................................

Data Reduction ...................................................................................................................

Reliability of Estimates ........................................................................................................

Nonsarnpling Error ..............................................................................................................

II. Definitions of Terms ......................................................................................................................

Contraceptive Status ..................................................................................................................

Sterile ...................................................................................................................................

Nonconkacepton .................................................................................................................

Contraceptors .......................................................................................................................

111. Selected Sections of the Currently Married Women Questionnaire of the Natiorud Survey of Family Growth ...................................................................................................................................

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES

L Parameters used to compute estimated standard errors and relative starrdard errors of numbers

and percents of women, by marital status and race: 1976 National Survey of Family Growth ....

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

III. Approximate standard errors expressed in percentage points for estimated percents of currently

married women of all races combined: 1976 National Survey of Family Growth ........................

47

47

47

48

48

49

52

54

54

54

54

55

57

49

50

51

46
APPENDIX I

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

women. A detaded 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. 14 The present report

is based on Cycle 11 of the NSFG. A detailed

description of the methods and procedures of

Cycle H can be found in “National Survey of

Family Growth, Cycle 11: Sample Design, Estimation Procedures, and Variance Estimation,”

Series 2, No. 87 of Vital and Health Statktics.3

This appendix presents a summary discussion of

the more important technical aspects of Cycle

H.

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 15-44 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

NOTE: A list of references foIlows the text.

contraception and the planning status ot’ 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 characteristics. Although the time required to complete the

interviews varied considerably, the average Cycle

II 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 first 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 defiied 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 never-married 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

47
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 PSU, segment,

household, and sample person within the

household.

Nonresponse adjustment. –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.

Posts trat<$ication by marital status, age,

and race~—The estimates were ratio ~djusted 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 1971-

March 1976. The numbers of nevermarried 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 15-44 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 vm-iance 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 field

work. 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 III.

The complete schedule for currently married

women was reprinted elsewhere.1s 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 first few

questionnaires coded by each coder were

checked completely; after an acceptable level of

quality was reached, verification of coding was

performed on a systematic sample of each

coder’s questionnaires. The data were edited by

computer to identify inconsistencies between responses, as well as code numbers that were not

NOTE: A list of references follows the text.

48
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 “Definitions 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 wouId 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 would be less than twice the standard error. The relative standard error of an

estimate is obtained by dividing the standard error of the estimate by the estimate itself, and is

expressed as a percent of the estimate. Numbers

and percents that have a relative standard error

that is more than 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 reIiable,

unbiased estimates of sampling errors. Its application to the NSFG has been described

elsewhere .3*14

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

12SE(iV’) = (A + B/iV’)M

where iV’ is the number of women and A and B

are the parameters whose estimates determine

the shape of the curve. Separate cunres 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.

NOTE: A list of references follows the text.

Table 1. Parameters used to compute estimated standard errors

and relative standard errors of numbers and percents of

women, by marital status and mea: 1976 National Survey

of Family Growth

I

Parameter

Marital status and race

A B

I

Currently married

I I

-mAll races ........................ .

Bleak ......................................

White and other

Ever married

I I

All races ..

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..m.

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

White and other

49
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:

RSENC = (A + B/N’)%

SEN/ = (.4 + B/iV’)% X IV’

RSEP, = (B/P’ X ( 100- P’)/X’)%

SEP8 = (B X P’ X (100 - P’)/X’)%

where

N’ = number of women

P’ = percent

X’ = number of women in the denominator of the percent

SE = standard error

RSE = relative standard error

Tables II and III show some illustrative

standard errors of aggregates and percents of

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

then

ad = J(P{ )2 ● (RSEPi )2 + (PL)2 ● (RSEPL)2

where P: is the estimated percent for one group

and P; is the estimated percent for the other

group, and RSEPJ and RSEPi are the relative

standard errors oflP~ and P;, respectively. This

formula will represent the actual standard error

quite accurately for the difference between separate and uncorrelated characteristics although it

Table 11. Approximate relative standard errors and standard

errors for estimated numbers of currently married women

of all races combined: 1976 National Survey of Family

Growth

Relative

Size of estimate

Standard

standard

error

error

50,000.................................................

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

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

l.ooo.ooo ............................................

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

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

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

lo.ooo.ooo ..........................................

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

36.7

25.9

11.5

8.1

4.5

3.4

2.8

2.2

1.2

18,000

26,000

58,000

81,000

136,000

171,000

195,000

221,000

246,000

is only a rough approximation in most other

cases.

A statistically significant difference among

comparable proportions or other statistics from

two or more subgroups is sufficiently large when

a difference of that size or larger wound 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 would

test for significance at the O.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

50
Table I I 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

Eqimated percent

Base of percent 2 or 5 or 7 or lOor 150r 20 or 30 or 40 or so

98 95 93 90 85 80 70 60

I

Standard error expressed in percentage points

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

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

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

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

5,000.000 .................................................................................

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

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

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

3.6

1.6

1.2

0.7

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

5.7

2.5

1.8

1.0

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.4

6.6

3.0

2.1

1.2

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.5

7.8

3.5

2.5

1.4

1.1

0.9

0.8

0.6

9.3

4.2

2.9

1.7

1.3

1.1

0.9

0.7

10.4

4.7

3.3

1.9

1.5

1.2

1.0

0.7

11.9

5.3

3.8

2.2

1.7

1.4

1.2

0.8

12.7

5.7

4.0

2.3

1.8

1.5

1.3

0.9

13.0

5.8

4.1

2.4

1.8

1.6

1.3

0.9

Example of use of table 11A If 30 percent of currently married women in a specific category used the oral contraceptive pill and the

base of that percent was 10,000,000, then the 30-percent column and the 10,000,000 row would indicate that 1 standard error is 1.2

percentage points and 2 standard errors are twice that, or 2.4 percentage points. Therefore, the chances are about 95 out of 100 that the

true percent in the population was between 27.6 and 32.4 percent (30.0 percent * 2.4 percent). ThE is calfed a 95-percent confidence

interval. In addition, the relative standard error of that 30-percent estimate is 1.2 percent divided by 30 percent or 4.0 percent.

such as “greater,” “less,” “lager,” and “smaller”

indicate that the observed differences are statistically significant at the 0.05 level, by using a

two-tailed t-test with 40 degTees 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 significant at the 0.10 level but not

the 0.05 level.

When a substantial difference observed is

found not to be statistically significant, one

should not conclude that no difference exists,

but simply that such a difference cannot be

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

half-sample 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=

l/(29.0)2 ● RSE~2901 + (21.6)2 ● RSE~21 ~,

.

By using the parameters from table I in the

formula for the RSE of a percent,

7021.1665 . (100- 29.0)

‘SE(29.0) = 29.0 24,795,000

= 0.026

and

2798.6440 . (100 - 21.6)

‘SE(2 1.6) =

21.6 2,169,000

= 0.068

Thus

29.0 -21.6

t=

~(29.0)2(0.026)2 + (21.6)2(0.068)2

= 4.48

51
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.

Nonsampiing Error

Although sampling error affects the precision or reliability of survey estimates, nonsampling 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 subsample 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 nonresponse. —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

should

52

enumeration of the households that

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 Iisters 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 procedure.

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, O.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 probIems (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 nonresponse. –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 H, 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 respondents 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 aJ1 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.

000

53
APPENDIX II

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

CONTRACEPTIVE E STATUS

As noted previously, data on contraceptive

status in this report differ slightly from those in

Advance Data Nos. 36 and 40.IY2 The data in

this report were revised in 2 ways: the amount

of missing data on contraceptive status was reduced (from 307 to 14 sample cases) by further

analysis of cases with missing data; and priority

was given to the woman’s sterilization when

both husband and wife had been surgically sterilized (on this latter point, see Advance Data No.

55, page 1016).

Sterile

Sten”Ze.–A woman (or couple) was classified

as “sterile” if she reported that it was impossible

for her to have a baby.

Nonsurgical. –A woman (or couple) was classifed as “nonsurgically sterile” if she reported

that it was impossible for her to have a baby for

any reason other than a surgical sterilization.

Reported nonsurgical reasons for sterility included menopause and sterility because of accident, illness, or congenital causes.

SurgkaL –A woman (or couple) was classified as “surgically sterile” if she or her husband

was completely sterile because of an operation.

Because surgical sterilizations are frequently

obtained exclusively or partly as methods of

contraception, that is, because of their complete

effectiveness against conception rather than for

therapeutic reasons, they have been further clasNOTE: A list of references follows the text.

sifled as “contraceptive” and “noncontraceptive” operations. In Cycle I, a surgical sterilization 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 ?“ Because

the avoidance of another pregnancy could itself

be for therapeutic reasons, the question was

reworded in Cycle II to “Was one reason for the

operation because you had all the children you

wanted?” This change in wording was expected

to yield a lower percent of operations reported

for contraceptive reasons than would have been

reported previously. As a result, the percents of

couples with contraceptive and noncontraceptive sterilization shown in this report are not

completely comparable between the two surveys. Also, evidence suggests that surgical sterilizations classified as “noncontraceptive” may include some operations that actually were partly

contraceptive in intent. The percent of opera-

.

tions classified as “contracep~ive” in Cycle II

should therefore

estimate.

be regard~d as a minimum

Noncontraceptors

Pregnant. –A woman (or couple) was classified as “pregnant” If“ she replied affirmatively to

the question “Are you pregnant now?” or for

those in doubt, “Do you think you probably are

pregnant or not?” A woman who reported that

the onset of her last menstrual period was within

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

Seeking pregnancy.–A woman (or couple)

was classified as “seeking pregnancy” if she re54
ported she was not using a contraceptive method

at the time of interview because she wanted

to become pregnant. Never-married mothers

(tables 21-22) and widowed, divorced, and separated women (tabIes 19-20) were not asked if

they were trying to become pregnant.

Post partwn. –A woman (or couple) was

classified as “post partum” if she reported that

she was not currently using a contraceptive

method, was not seeking a pregnancy, a.hd her

last pregnancy had terminated within 2 months

before her interview date.

Other rzonusers.-Women (or coupIes) who

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

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

women are those who were indifferent to the

chances of pregnancy, had a very low risk of

pregnancy because of a fecundity impairment,

or objected to contraceptive methods for personal or religious reasons. Among those

widowed, divorced, or separated, infrequent

intercourse or complete abstinence probably

accounts for a significant proportion of nonusers. Women who used the douche following

intercourse, but who did not report this as a

method of contraception, were also classified

here, although douching has a very modest contraceptive ef feet when performed very soon

after intercourse.

Contracaptors

SurgicaL-Surgical contraceptors are women

(or their husbands) who obtained a surgical sterilization at least partly because they had all the

children the y wanted.

Nonsure”cal. –Nonsurgical contraceptors, or

contraceptive method users, are women (or couples) who reported using a contraceptive method

other than surgical sterilization at the interview

date. Nonsurgical contraceptors are classified according to the specific method used.

Methods used by extremely small proportions of the population such as jelly, cream suppositories, or abstinence, not in combination

with any other methods, were grouped in the

category “other.” Where more than one method

was reported in current use, the method generally considered the most effective was used for

classification purposes.

Ag.4. –Age was classified by the age of the

respondent at her last birthday before the interview date.

Race. –Classification by race was based on

interviewer observation and was reported as

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

the woman interviewed.

Hispanic orz”@”n.-A respondent was classified

as being of Hispanic origin if she reported her

origin or descent as Mexicano, Chicano, Mexican

American, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or other

Spanish regardless of whether she also

mentioned any other origin.

In tables where data are presented for

women according to race and Hispanic origin,

those of Hispanic origin are included in the statistics for white and black women if they were

identified as such by the interviewer.

Man”tal status. –Persons were classified by

marital status as “married,” “wjdowed,” “divorced,” “separated,” or “never married .“ Married persons included those who reported themselves as married or as informally married (living

with a partner or common-law spouse). Persons

who were temporarily separated for reasons

other than marital discord such as vacation, illness, or Armed Forces were classified as

“married. ”

Household populatz”on. -The household population consists of persons living in households.

A household is a person or a group of persons,

where no more than five persons are unrelated

to the head of the household, who occupy a

room or group of rooms intended as separate

living quarters; that is, the occupants do not live

and eat with any other persons in the structure.

Either direct access from the outside of the

buiIding or through a common hail, or compIete

kitchen facilities for the exclusive use of the

occupants of the household must be present.

Re@”on of residence. –Data are classified by

region of residence into the four major Census

regions: Northeast, North Central, South, and

West. Sample size greatly restricts the possibility

of meaningful analyses by social characteristics

among smaller geographic divisions. The areas

55
comprising these four major geographic regions

are:

Geographic region and

division

Northeast

New England ...........

Middle Atlantic .......

North Central

East North Central..

West North Central..

South

South Atlantic .........

East South Central ..

West South Central..

West

ing

Mountain .................

Pacific ......................

States included

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut

New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania

Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin

Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota,

South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas

Delaware, Maryland,

District of Columbia,

Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,

Georgia, Florida

Kentucky, Tennessee,

Alabama, Mississippi

Arkansas, Louisiana,

Oklahoma, Texas

Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado,

New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada

Washington, Oregon,

Alaska, California,

Hawaii

Education. –Education was classified accordto the highest grade or year of regular school

or college that was completed. Determination of

the highest year of regular school or college

completed by the respondent was based on responses to a series of questions concerning (a)

the last grade or year of school attended, (b)

whether that grade was completed, (c) whether

any other vocational or nonacademic schooling

was obtained, and (d) whether such other

schooling was included in the years of regular

school or college reported in (a).

Religion. –Women were classified by religion

in response to the question, “Are you Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish, or something

else ?“ In addition to the three major religious

groupings, two other categories–other and

none—were used. Because the category of Protestant includes numerous individual denominations, these respondents were further asked to

identify the denomination to which they belonged. Those who answered “other” to the

original question and named a Protestant denomination were included with 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, therefore they were

combined in larger categories.

Rzn”ty.–Parity refers to the number of live

births the respondent had.

Labor force status. –A woman was categorized as being “in the labor force” if she was

working full time; part time; had a job, but was

not at work because of temporary illness, vacation, or a strike; or if she was unemployed, laid

off, or looking for work.

Poverty level income. –The poverty index

ratio was calculated by dividing the total family

income by the weighted average threshold income of nonfarm families with the head of

household under 65 years of age based on the

poverty levels shown in U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population Reports, Series P-60,

No. 106, “Money Income in 1975 of Families

and Persons in the United States,” table A-3.17

This definition accounts for the sex of the family head and the number of persons in the family. Total family income includes income from

all sources for all members of the respondent’s

family.

Poverty level income was not ascertained for

1,348 of 8,611 sampled women (16 percent),

including 23 percent of sampled black women

and 12 percent of sampled white women, Therefore, special care should be taken in interpreting

small differences by poverty level income.

NOTE: A list of references follows the text.

56
APPENDIX Ill

SELECTED SECTIONS OF THE CURRENTLY

QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE NATIONAL SURVEY

OPEN INTERVAL

MARRIED WOMEN

OF FAMILY GROWTH

cOHTI HUE DICK & &

80X23, IF CURRENTLY PREGNANT, Go To C:43, OTHERWISE, cow INUE,

I

C-34. Since Your (last) PremancY, have there been Wriods of one ronth or

mare ii which YOU were not” having intercmrse~ such as after your

m..ncmw ended . when one of vou was awav or sick, or for am other

-maim)? -

C-35, mat mmths and years were tiose?

PmBE : mat other mantis?

C-36. please look a9aim at tbe card. since

have YOU ~V~X used WY mt.h.d f.= o.e

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l (C-35)

t,

No. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2(c-S6)

your [last] pre9nancy/.Tanuary, 1973 ),

mmh or m=. to del.y or prev.nt a prmpancy?

ucR!Ol Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l(C-37)S*

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2 f--4JJ

BEGIN DECK @7

C-37, Starting with the earliest method you .W1 EWW 8 2nd MZ’KODI lrd PEt3KJD I IA3T_~D-’

umd during this period, please tell

;_. __. T_ ---3-

m .11 the raethods yo” used for cm. I I

nwnth or mre In the order you used ,, s’ 1,, ,,1,11.11s X7

them PmBE: lihat other methcds?

ENTER IN 02nER IN ANSW211 3,R+

MMII ‘M;rn

(ASK C-38 THROUGH C-42 SEQUENTIALLY FOR

EActiP!27tioD,)

& * -E+-- +

C-38. 1. what manth and sear did You

s, ,, S**. ~, 71 ~, 7, IS 16 171, ,~. ,*1C $:

start to “s(! (Mt’rll-?rl?

I I I I

BOX24, IF THE FkTHOD Is 5TERILIUTION (’J’ OR ‘K’ ABOVE) L% To 80X 26.

OTH~RHISE, CONTINUE.

C-39, mile you were usin9 {Mr7x0n1 cfuring

this time, were there tires when you

skipped USIIMJ any BEthod at al 1? t,

. I

,+ ,, ,,

Yes . . . . . . L (c-d;) 1 {C-(2J 1 (c-*D) 1 rc-do)

No . . . . . 2 [B.z 2G 2 (8.s 2:/ 2 (B.= .?s) 2 fa.z 2s)

C-40, w@d YOU w YOU 6kiPWd.siw w

n’ethods often, sozcetims, or only

mm m twice? I I I I

i

Oft.zn.. . . 1 1 1 1

Somtilres. . 2 ~z

z ,, ~ 2* 2

,,

OnceiTwice. j3 13 13 13

20X 25, IF LwJ ME7NOD, ASK C-41. OTHERHtSE, C-42,

C-41, -. YOU and your husband sti 11

Using (.YETBOPI ?

,, ,’ ,, ,.

Yes. . . . .

i

1 (;-43)

I

1 (C-431 1 {C-4.3> 1 [.?-4s)

No . . . . . 2 (C-42 J 2 (c-4:) 2 (C-42) 2 (C-42) I

C+, ~ what mnth and year did You

stop USi”g (W2EOD1 ?

+ -ii6A-- m./4R. +

s, s,,. ,7 7, 7. ?9 09 21., ,,, s ,s,, ,, **

I I I I

80X 26. Go To NEXT 14ETHOD(C-38), IF MY, OTHERWISE, G2 To C-43, I

57
SECTION D

8EG1N DECK 15_

we rue talking with women about children they may have in the future, as well a; ~~ ~t

they already have. (IF ‘R” HAS ALREADY MENTIONED STERILITY, MENOPAUSE, E7!C.:

have already covered 8ome of these next guestions, but I‘d better go thrQU9h them with You

to be sure that I record the answers correctly. )

D-1, It is physically impossible for some Possible . . . . . . . . . ..l (D-6)

couples to have children. As far as

you know, is it oseible or i.m osaible

+6V3 -%----

Impossible. . . . . . . . . . 2 (D-2) “

for you and your us an to conce ve

a (nether] baby, that is, to get Donvt Rnow, Not Sure. . . . . 8 (D-6)

nreqnant (acrain)2

D-2 , What is the reason that you are unable to have a (nether) baby? (P&CORO VERPAT2M ON

LINES AT LEFT, CODE ALL THAT APPLY, TSEN FOILOW SKIP INSTRUCTIONFOR SMALLEST COOE

NUMBER . IF P.WSPONSE INDICATES A PROBLSW OTHER TRAN STER2LITY, CHANGE D-1 TO

“POSSIBLE”AND GO TO D-6.)

‘)3” has. had sterilizing m

operatzon. . . . . . . , . .01 (D-3)

Impossible for “R” due

to accident or ~llness . ..02 (D-3)

“g” sterile for other

reasons . . . . . . . . . . .03 (D-3)

“&” has reached menopause ..04 (D-1 4)

Husband has had

~izing operation. . ..05 (D-3)

Impossible for husband

due to acciden~lness .06 (D-3)

Husband sterile for

~reasons. . . . . . . .07 (D-3)

Cou le unable to conceive,

h know reason. . . . . .0S (Probe)

PROBE : HOW many years altogether have you gone without using any birth

control method and still not become pregnant? (RECORDVERBATIM

ON LINES AT LEFT AND BNTER NUMBER OF YEARS.)

NO.OP YRS. ‘BO= 27A) m

Box 27A, ~, SAY: I know ,thatYou‘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,

J-F MORE WN 3 YEAM, CODE 6 IN D-3 AND CONTINUE,

D-3, D-4 , D-5.

(ASK QUESTION ONLY IF CHOOSE APPROPRIATE QUESTION: Was ~ reason for

D-2 IS FEMALE OPESdTION; (A) When was the operation done? the operation

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

Ofl‘

CHECK TRE APPROPRIATE CIRCLE IN D-3 AND PROBE TO FIND OUT IF SHE

~oved (“R’! IS ~ THAT SRB IS STERILE.

~ sterile) . . .

If she is sure, circle Code ‘6

- tube tied

- other reasons” in D-3 and follow

o~ the appropriate skip instruction for that category.

or removed (”R“ If she is not sure, record her answer verbatim and skip to D-S.

~ sterile) . . .

~ ovaries Yes . . . 1 (D-76)

removed. . . . . . 1 (D-4A)

MONTH // YEAR (D-5) No. . . . 2 (D-14)

Both tubes tied Yes . . . 1 (D-78)

=emoved . . . . 2 (D-4.4) /

MONTH / YEAR (D-S) No. . . . 2 (D-14)

Hysterectomy Yes . . . I (D-76)

(Removal of /

uterus) . . . . . . 3 (D-4A) MONTH / YEAR (D-S) No. . . . 2 (D-14)

Vasectomy Yes . . . 1 (D-76)

(cuttingmale /

sperm ductB) . . . 4 (D-4A) NONTH / YEAR (D-5) No. . . . 2 fD-1#)

Other operation or Yes . . .

type unkmwn . . . 5 (D-4A)

1 (D-76)

/

MONTE / YEAR (D-S) No . . . . 2 (D-14)

Accident, illness or

other reasons. . . 6 (D-4B) /

MONTH / YEAR (D-14)

‘0 •1 “-’”EUE12’EI

58
Sen”es 1.

Series 2.

Series 3.

Series 4.

VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS Series

programsand CoUectwn l%ocedures. –Reports which describe the general programs of the National

Center for Health Statistics and its offices and divisions and data collection methods used and include

definitions and other material necessary for understanding the data.

Data Evaksats”on an’d 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. 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.

Docume@s 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

&d death certificates. .

Series 10. Data From the Health Interview Survey, –Statistics on ilhiess, accidental injuries, dkabilityp use of

hospital, medical, dental, and other services, and other health-related topics, all based on data collected

in a continuing national household istternew suwey.

Series 11. Data Fmm the Health Examination Survey and the Health and Nutn”tion Exatnination Survey. -Data

from direct examination, testing, and measurement of national samples of the civilian noninstitutionalized population provide the basis for two types of reports: (1) estimates of the medically defined .

prevalence of specific diseases in the United States and the distributions of the population with respect

to physical, phyaioktgical, and psycholog&al characteristics and (2) analysis of relationships among the

various measurements without reference to an explicit finite universe of persons.

Series 12. Data From the institutionalized Population Surveys. –Discontinued effective 1975. Future reports from

these surveys will 6e in Series 13,

Series 13. Data on Health Resortrces Utilization. –Statistics on the utilization of health manpower and facilities

providing long-term care, ambulatory care, hospital care, and family planning services.

Series 14. Data on Heafth Resources: Manpower and Facilities. –Statistics on the numbers, geographic distribution, and characteristics of health resources including physicians, dentists, nurses, other health

occupation~ hospitals, nursing bornes, and outpatient facilities.

Series 20. Data on MortaZ&y.–Various statistics on mortality other than as included in regular annual or monthly

reports. Special anaiyaes by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables; geographic and time

series analyses; and statistics on characteristics of deaths not available from the vital records based on

sample susweysof those records.

Series 21. Data on Natality, Mamiage, and Divorce. –Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce other

than as included in regular annual or monthly reports. Special analyses by demographic variabIes;

., geographic and time series analyses; studies of fertility; and statistics on characteristics of births not

available from the vital records based on sample surveys of those records.

Sen”es22. Data From the National Mortality and Natality Survey s.–Discontinued effective 1975. Future reports

from these sample surveys based on vital records will be included in Series 20 and 21, respectively.

Series 23. Data From the National Survey of Family Go wth. –Statistics on fertility, family formation and dis-

*

“~, solution, family planning, and related maternal and infant health topics derived from a biennial survey

~f of a nationwide probability sample of ever-married women 15-44 years of age.

For a list of titles of reports published in these series, write to: Scientific and Technical Information Branch

National Center for Health Statistics

Public Health Service

Hyattsville, Md. 20782
NCHS

‘JS DEPARTMENT OF HEAL rl+ AND H!) MA NSER\,’i, FS

P“bl, c HP.(II, S,,,,.,

Of f,ce of HPdlth Re,e<,rd S,,, !SIC, ,,, ! Tc,, .rv,l,, g,

?&mm Center for Hall, Strew 5

3700 E,,l We,! H,qhww

Hy,, tsv,l!e Wryla,,d 20787

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. S30C

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

US OEPARTMENTOF HHS

HHS 396

THIRD CLASS

F. ,,ut,l, ea., or,, ,,, ,hr, v,,, —1! ,.<,

/’-