Use of Services

for Family

Planning and

Infertility:

UnitedStates

Statistics from the National Survey of Family

Growth are presented on the use of family

planning and infertility services by currently

married women. The percent of women who

ever used family planning services, the percent

who used family planning services recently,

the percent of recent userswho used family

planning services at specific places, and the

percent who used infertility services are distributed by race or Hispanic origin, age, and

various socioeconomic variables.

Data From the National Survey of

Family Growth

Series 23, No. 8

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 82-1984

U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services

Public Health Service

Office of Health Research, Statistics, and

Technology

National Center for Health Statistics

Hyattsville, Md.

December 1981
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Handarshot, Gerry E.

Use of services for family planning and infertility, United States.

(Vital and health statistics. Series 23, Data from the national survey

of family growth; no. 8) (DHHS publication; no. IPHS) 82-1984)

Authors: Gerry E. Hendershot, Karl E. Bauman.

Includes bibliographical rafarences.

1. Birth control-Urlited States–Statistics. 2. Birth control

clinics–United Statas-Utilization-Statitiics. 1. Bauman, Karl E.

11. National Center for Health Statistics (U. S.) 111. Title. IV. Series.

V. Series: DHHS publication; no. (PHS) 82-1984.

H0766.5.U5H43 363.9’6’0973 81-9501

ISBN 0-6406 -0222-7 AACR2
National Center for Health Statistics

DOROTHY P. RICE, Director

ROBERT A. ISRAEL, Deputy Director

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

and Epidemiology

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

Cooperative Health Statistics S.vstem

GARRIE J, LOSEE,Associate Director for Data Processing

and Services

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

International Statistics

E. EARL BRYANT, Associate Director for Interview and

Examination Statistics

ROBERT C. HUBER, Associate Director for Management

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

and Methodology

PETER L. HURLEY, Associate Director for Vital and Health

CareStatistics

ALICE HAYWOOD, Information Officer

Division of Vital Statistics

JOHN E. PATTERSON, Director

ALICE M. HETZEL, Deputy Director

WILLIAM F. PRATT, Ph.D., Chief, FamiIy Growth Survey

Branch

MABEL G. SMITH, Chief, Statistical Resources Branch

JOSEPH D. FARRELL, Chie~ Computer Applications Staff
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Principal findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Source and limitations ofthedata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Everuse of family planningservices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Recent useoffamily planningservices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Characteristics ofpotential users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Place of latestvisit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Recommendations atlatestvisit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Useof infertility services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Listofdetailed tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Appendixes

1. Technical notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Il. Definitions ofterms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Ill. Selected sections of the Currently Married Women Questionnaire of the National Survey of Family Growth . . . . . . . 39

List of Figures

1. Percent of nonsterile women who had a family planning visit in the last 3 years, by race or Hispanic origin and age: currentlymarried women 15-44years ofage, United States, 1976.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Percent of nonsterile women with a family planning visit in the last 3 years whose most recent visit was to an organized

medical service, by race or Hispanic origin and age: currently married women 15-44 years of age, United States, 1976. . . 4

3. Percent of nonsterile women receiving a method recommendation at most recent family planning visit to whom sterilizationwas recommended, byrace and place of visit: currently married women 15-44 years ofage, United States, 1976. . . . 5

4. Percent of nonsterile women who had an infertility consultation inthe last3years, by race and parity: currently married

women 15-44 yearsofage,United States, 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

ListofTextTables

A. Percent of nonsterile women who had a family planning visit in the last 3 years, by race or Hispanic origin, age, parity,

poverty level income, labor force status, religion, and geographic region: currently married women 15-44 years of age,

United States, 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

B. Percent of nonsterile women with afamily planning visit in the last 3yearswhose most recent family planning visitwas

to an organized medical service, by race or Hispanic origin, age, parity, poverty level income, labor force status, religion,

and geographic region: currently married women 1544 years ofage, United States, 1976. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

...

Ill
C. Percent distribution of nonsterile women who had a family planning visit in the last 3 years at which a recommendation

was made to start a method of contraception or change methods, by method recommended, according to race and place

of most recent visit: currently married women 15-44 years of age, United States, 1976. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

D. Percent of nonsterile women who had an infertility consultation in the last 3 years, by race, age, parity, and geographic

region: currently married women 15-44 years of age, United States, 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

. .

. . .

0.0

z

*

#

Symbols

Data not available

Category not applicable

Quantity zero

Quantity more than zero but less than

0.05

Quantity more than zero but less than

500

Figure does not meet standards of

reliability or precision

Figure suppressed to comply with

confidentiality requirements

iv
Use of Servicesfor Family

Planning and Infertility

by Gerry E. Hendershot, Ph. D., Division of Vital Statisticsr

and Karl E. Bauman, Ph. D., University of North Carolina

Introduction

The statistics in this report on the use of family

planning and infertility services in the United States

are based on interviews with a national sample of

6,428 currently married women 1544 years of age,

which were conducted by the National Center for

Health Statistics. The statistics are presented in text

tables A-D, figures 14, and detailed tables 1-10.

Appendixes I-III contain descriptions of technical

aspects of the survey, definitions of certain terms, and

reproductions of pertinent sections of the survey

questionnaire. The following section is a discussion of

the principal findings, based primariIy on the text

tables and figures. Later sections of the text present

the source and limitations of the data and more

detailed findings.

Between the mid-1 960’s and 1976 dramatic

changes occurred in the contraceptive practice of

American women. for example, the percent of currently married women using very effective methods

(piil. intrauterine device (IUD), or surgical sterilization) increased from 23.8 percent to 47.7 percent.1

During the same period equally dramatic changes occurred in the provision of family planning services,

for exampIe, the number of patients served annually

in organized family planning programs more than

quadrupled between 1968 and 1976, from under

900,000 to over 4 million.z As either a cause or

effect, the growth in use of family planning services

undoubtedly was associated with the growth in

use of effective contraceptive methods. Today, a full

understanding of contraceptive practice and family

growth in the U.S. population requires knowledge of

how family planning services are used.

Data on the use of family planning services are

produced by three data systems of the National Center for Health Statistics: the National Reporting System for Family Planning Services, the National

Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, and the National

Survey of Family Growth. The National Reporting

System for Family Planning Services is based on a national sample of medical organizations that provide

family planning services;J the National Ambulatory

Medical Care Survey is based on a national sample of

office-based physicians:4 and the National Survey of

Family Growth is based on a national sample of

women in the reproductive years. Whereas the first

two data systems use information from the providers

of family planning services, the National Survey of

Family Growth uses information from recipients of

the services. Because of this difference and differences in collection procedures and definitions of

terms, statistics on family planning visits from the

three data systems may differ.

Two previous reports on family planning services

based on the National Survey of Family Growth have

been published; one is a detailed report on the findings from Cycle I ( 1973),S and the other is a preliminary report on the findings from Cycle H (1976).6

This report presents detailed findings from Cycle II.
Principal findings

Two measures of the use of family planning services are included in this report. The term “ever use”

refers to ever having had a discussion with a health

care provider about family planning methods to delay

or prevent a pregnancy. The term “recent use” refers

to those discussions in the 3 years before interview.

Women who reported recent use were asked where

the latest visit occurred, whether they were advised at

that visit to start or change contraceptive methods,

and if so, which method was recommended.

Most nonsterile married women had talked with

a doctor or other professional about family planning

in the 3 years before their interview in 1976 (58,6

percent (table A)). Recent family planning visits

were more common among white (59.9 percent) than

among black (46.9 percent) or Hispanic women

(51.8 percent).

Also, younger women (15-29 years of age) were

more likely than older women (304.4 years of age) to

have made a recent family planning visit (70.8 percent and 44.5 percent, respectively). This difference

by age existed independently of race or ethnicity;

that is, regardless of race or ethnicity, younger

women were more likely than older women to have

had a recent visit (figure 1).

Among women with a family planning visit in the

3 years before the interview in 1976 (recent visitors),

most made their latest visit to their personal physician; only 15.9 percent made their latest visit to a

family planning clinic or other organized medical

service (table B). Recent visitors who were black or

Hispanic women (37.0 and 32.7 percent), however,

were more likely than white recent visitors (14, 1

percent) to have made their latest visit to an organized medical seryice.

Young visitors, also, were more likely to have

gone to an organized medical service (18.3 percent)

than older women (11.5 percent). The associations of

youth (women, 15-29 years of age) and minority status (black and Hispanic women) with a greater likelihood of using organized medical services for family

planning were cumulative; therefore, the greatest use

of organized medical services by recent visitors was

among young minority women (figure 2).

During their most recent family planning visit (in

the last 3 years), it was recommended to many

women that the y begin using a method of contraception or that they change from one method to another.

The method most often recommended by both personal doctors and organized medical services was the

pill (table C). However, the pill was more likely to be

recommended to women who last visited an organized medical service than to those who last visited

their personal physician. On the other hancl, sterilization was more likely to be recommended to women

who last visited their own physician (figure 3) than to

other visitors, at least partly because they tended to

be older women, for whom sterilization is more likely

to be medically indicated.

Although many women use family planning services to help them prevent unwanted pregnancies,

others use infertility services to help them overcome

reproductive impairments that restrict wanted pregnancies. About 6.9 percent of nonsterile married

women used infertility services in the 3 years before

their interview in 1976 (table D). The percent was

higher for women who were childless or had only one

child in 1976, especially among black women, than

for those who had 2 children or more (figure 4). Proportionately, infertility services were used about the

same by both black and white women.
Table A. Percent of nonsterile women who had a family planning visit

in the last 3 years, by race or Hispanic origin, age, parity, poverty

level income, labor force status, religion, and geographic ragion:

currently married women 15-44 years of aga, United States,

1976

Race or Hispanic origin

All White Black Hiwanic

racesl origin2

All characteristics . . . . . . . ,

Age

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

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

Parity

C-l parity . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2-4 parity . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5parity or more . . . . . . . .

Poverty level income

Below poverty income . . . . .

100-149 percant of poverty

income . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

150-199 percantof poverty

income . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

200 percent and above

Of poverty income . . . . . .

Labor force status

In labor force . . . . . . . . . .

Not in Iabor force . . . . . . .

Religion

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

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

Jewish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other or none . . . . . . . . . .

Geographic ragion

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

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

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

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

58.6

70.8

44.5

63.2

55.1

52.7

56.5

58.2

62.8

60.0

57.9

59.1

58.4

56.9

54.1

69.7

51.9

59.7

57.9

66.8

Percent

59.9

72.3

45.5

54.7

56.0

55.5

62.3

60.4

63.1

61.0

59.4

60.3

60.3

57.5

54.0

72.2

52.6

60.3

60.0

68.8

46.9

57.8

35.4

47.3

48.7

38.3

43.8

41.1

60.2

48.0

46.0

48.4

46.2

47.8

●

59.6

45.5

48.0

46.5

50.0

51.8

62.0

39.6

52.8

48.9

‘65.2

●45.7

●61 .8

‘55.1

51.4

56.1

48.6

57.6

49.7

●

●72.7

40.6

*64.9

47.8

59.3

‘bitem

Black ~~~

Hispanicoriginl 1—[

72.3

80

70

60

50

g

y 40

(it

30

20

10

1

15-29 years

45.5

K

39.6

35.4

30-44 years

Age

1Includes all women who reported any Hispanic origin,

regardless of race or other ethnic origins reported; women

Of Hispanic origin are included in the statistics by race.

Figurel. Percent of nonsterile women whohada family planning visit

in the last 3 years, by race or Hispanic origin and age: currently

married women 15-44 years of age, United States, 1976

llncludeswhit~, bl~ck, and ~~he~ ~~ce$.

2in~ludas ~11 WIOmen reporting any Hi~anic origin, ragardlessof race

or other ethnic origins reported; women of Hispanic origin are

included in statistics by race.

NOTE: Statistics are based on a sample of the household population

of the contarminous United States. See appendixas for discussion of

the sample design, estimetesof sampling variability, and definitions of

terms.

3
Table B. Percent of nonsterile women with a family planning visit in

the last 3 years whose most recent visit was to an organized

medical service, by race or Hispanic origin, age, parity, poverty

level income, labor force status, religion, and geographic region:

currently married woman 15-44 years of age, United States,

1976

Race or Hispanic origin

Characteristic

All White Black Hispanic

races 1 origin 2

All characteristics . . . . . .

Age

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

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

Parity

O-l parity . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2-4 parity . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5parity or more . . . . . . . . .

Poverty level income

Below poverty income . . . .

100-149 percent of poverty

income . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

150-199 percent of poverty

income . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

200 percent and above

of poverty income . . .

Labor force status

In labor force . . . . . . . . . . .

Notin labor force . . . . .

Religion

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

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

Jewish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other or none . . . . . . . . . .

Geographic region

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

North Central . . . . . . . . .

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

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

15.9

18.3

11.5

17.3

14.0

19.6

30.6

35.5

22.0

10.8

14.8

16.9

16.2

14.4

*7.4

22.5

12.0

13.4

18.0

20.0

Percent

14.1

16.4

9.9

15.5

12.4

* 15.6

25.4

36.2

19.8

9.6

12.6

15.5

13.7

13.2

‘7.4

23.6

10.7

12.1

14.7

19.7

37.0

38.8

34.0

37.4

34.6

48.3

55.6

‘40.5

44.1

27.5

35.7

39.0

39.9

*27.6

‘9.7

29.4

40.2

40.4

* 26.6

32.7

37.4

“23.3

30.2

35.6

‘29.7

*59.6

●51.2

‘38.1

●1 5.6

27.9

36.9

*23.1

37.4

●11.5

*4I .7

*48.9

“25.0

‘32.0

40

30

20

10

0

15-29 years 30-44 years

Age

‘Includes all women who reported any Hispanic origin,

regardless of race or other ethnic origins reported; women

Of Hispanic origin are included in the statistics by race.

Figure2. Percent of nonsterile women with a family planning visit in

the last 3 years whose most recent visit wastoan organized medical service, by race or Hispanic origin and age: currently married

women 15-44 years of age, United States, 1976

I Includes white, black, and other ~~~es,

Zl”cl”des all woman reporting any Hispanic origin, regard lass ofracaor

other ethnic origins reported; women of Hispanic origin are included in

statistics by race.

NOTE: Statistics ara based ona sample of thehousahold population of

the conterminous United States. See appendixes for discussion of the

sempla design, estimates of sampling variability, and definitions of

terms,

4
Table C. Percent distribution of nonsterile women who had a family

planning visit in the last3 yearsat which a recommendation was

made to start a method of contraception or change methods, by

method recommended, according toraceand place of most recent

visit: currently married women 15-44 years of age, United States,

1976

Race and place of most recent visit

Contraceptive White Black

method

recommended

Own Organized Own Organized

physician medical physician medical

service service

Percent distribution

All methods . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Sterilization . . . 30.4 21.3 28.9 *21.1

Pill . . . . . 35.5 45.1 32.2 48.0

IUD”: ::..... 15.2 16.3 *13,8 ●17.4

Traditional

methods . . . . 18.3 14.6 21.9 *12.8

None . . . . . . . ‘ 0.5 “ 2.6 *3.2 ●0.7

NOTE: Statistics are based ona 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.

35 r

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Own

physician

Place of most

‘bitem

81ack [—]

Organized

medical setvice

recent visit

Figure 3. Percent of nonsterile women receiving a method recommendation at most recent visit to whom sterilization was recommended, by race and place of visit: currently married women

15-44 years of aga, United States, 1976

Table D. Percent of nonsterile women who had an infertility consultation in the last 3 years, by race, age, parity, and geographic region:

currently married women 15-44 years of age, United States,

1976

Characteristic

All Race

racesl White Black

Percent

All characteristics . . . . . 6.9 6.7 7.4

Age

15-29 years . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 8.4 8.8

3044years . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 4.7 5.9

Parity

O-l parity . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1 11.6 *I 5.5

2 parity or more . . . . . . 2.6 2.6 *2.3

Geographic region

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 8.8 *3.4

Non-West . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 6.2 7.9

I lnclud~~ ~hit~, bl~~k, and other races.

NOTE: Statistics are based ona sample of thehoueehold population of

the conterminous United States. See append ixesfor discussion of the

sample design, estimates of sampling variability, and definitions Of

terms.

‘bitem

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

+1 5.5

r

11.6

0-1 parity

Black I I

2 parity or more

Parity

Figure4. Percent of nonsterile women who hadan infertility consultation in the last 3 years, by race and parity: currently married

women 1544 years ofage, United States, 1976

5
Source and limitationsof the data

The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG),

Cycle II, was conducted by the National Center for

Health Statistics (NCHS) in 1976. Sampling, data collection, and data processing were carried out by

Westat, Inc., under a contract with NCHS, A total of

8,611 women were interviewed in their homes by

trained female interviewers who used a standard questionnaire. The sample women were scientifically selected to represent all women 15-44 years of age living in households in the conterminous United States

who were ever married or single with children of their

own living in the household; only those currently

married at the time of interview were included in this

report. The statistics in this report are estimates for

that currently married national population, but because they are based on a sample they may differ

somewhat from the true population values because of

sampling error. Also, nonsampling errors may have

been introduced during data collection, processing, or

analysis, although quality control measures were

taken at each stage to minimize error. The sample design, estimating procedures, and variance estimation

used in the survey are discussed briefly in appendix I

and more extensively in a special report on those topics.7 Certain terms used in this report are discussed in

appendix II.

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

0.05 level, by using a two-tailed t-test with 40 degrees

of freedom. Statements about differences that are

qualified in some way (e.g., by the use of 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.

The statistics on the use of family planning and

infertility services are based on a series of questions

reproduced in appendix III. From these questions, it

was determined whether women had ever talked with

a doctor or other trained person about methods to

delay or prevent pregnancy. Women who were not

sterile 3 years before the interview and had such a

conversation in the last 3 years were asked where the

latest visit took place and what recommendations

were made at that visit. All nonsterile women were

asked if they had talked with a doctor olr other

trained person in the last 3 years about increasing

their chances of having a baby.

In this report a talk with a doctor or other trained

person about family planning or infertility services is

classified as a “visit .“ According to the respondents,

many of those visits resulted in a recommendation to

start or change contraceptive methods, which is an

important medical service. It should be noted, however, that the specific services obtained in these visits

may have varied wideIy, from brief discussions with

paraprofessionals to surgical procedures in hospital

operating rooms. Caution should be used, therefore,

in inferring any characteristics of visits beyond those

actually covered in the interview.

Also, information about the place of visit and

method recommendations pertains only to the latest

visit in the last 3 years, not to earlier visits in the last

3 years, nor to latest visits that occurred more than 3

years before the interview. Restrictions on interview

length prevented asking about all visits, and the latest

visit was expected to be most accurately reported and

most relevant to the respondent’s circumstances at

the time of the interview. However, because the visits

for which place and recommendations are known

may not be representative of other visits, caution

should be used in making any generalizations about

all visits.

Data on family planning visits from the NSFG are

not directly comparable to data on family planning

visits from the National Reporting System for Family

Planning Services (NRSFPS) or the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) because they are

from a different source and because visits are defined

differently. The several data sources provide different

but complementary perspectives on family planning

visits.

6
Everuse of family planning services

Use of family planning services in this report is

classified as “ever use” and “recent use.” Ever use is

measured by the percent of women who reported

that they had ever had a discussion with a doctor or

other trained person about methods to delay or prevent a pregnancy. Recent use is measured by the percent of nonsterile women who reported that a doctor

or other trained person had talked with them about a

method for delaying or preventing a pregnancy during

the past 3 years. Because the early 1970’s was a

period of significant change in both the amount and

kind of family planning services provided, recent use

of services is particularly interesting and important.

For that reason it is given greater attention in the discussion that follows.

The first and second columns of tables 1-6 show

the numbers of currently married women and the percent of those women who had ever had a family planning visit, by race or Hispanic origin, age, and various

socioeconomic characteristics. Of the approximately

27.5 million currently married women 15-44 years of

age in 1976, 76.8 percent or 21.1 million had had a

family planning visit at some time in their lives. This

high level of family planning service use is to be expected in a population that relies heavily on methods

of contraception requiring medical intervention, such

as the pill, IUD, and surgical sterilization. 1 Table 1

shows that the majorities of both younger and older

women among white, black, and Hispanic women

reported having had a visit. Tables 2-6 also show that

the majorities of women in nearly every category had

at some time used family planning services. Regardless of life circumstances, most American women

have talked with a doctor or other professional about

methods to delay or prevent a pregnancy.

However, some significant intergroup differences

in ever use of family planning services were found.

White women were more likely than black or Hispanic women to have made a visit at some time in

their lives: 78.1 percent compared with 64.4 and 68.8

percent, respectively. These racial and ethnic origin

differences were found within most categories of age

(table 1) and within most other subcategories considered (tables 2-6).

A difference in ever use associated with women’s

age at the time of interview was also found; younger

women (15-29 years of age) were more likely than

older women (30+4 years of age) to have had a visit.

The difference is substantial and widespread; ever use

was about 13 percentage points higher among

younger (83.8 percent) than among older women

(70.9 percent) and it was found for nearly all subgroups considered in tables 1-6.

If no historical trend in the likelihood of family

planning service use existed, older women would have

higher cumulative rates of use than younger women;

instead, younger women have higher rates, which indicate a recent increase in the probability of services

being used, especially among young women. The recent increase may reflect both the growth in the availability of family planning services2 and the aggregate

shift toward contraceptive methods that require a

physician’s prescription.l Because recent use patterns

are different from earlier patterns, the remaining sections of this report focus on recent use.

7
Recent use of family planning services

Nonsterile women married to nonsterile men are

potential users of family planning services. To further

define recent use, women were considered potential

users if neither they nor their husbands had become

sterile before January 1973. Potential users were

asked if they had talked with a doctor or other

trained person about family planning in the past 3

years. Those who reported such conversations were

considered recent users and were asked additional

questions about their latest family planning visit, such

as where it was made and what contraceptive method

was recommended, if any.

About 58.6 percent of potential users had made a

recent family planning visit. That percent varied depending on certain user characteristics. These characteristics, place of latest visit, and recommendations

made at that visit are discussed in the following

sections.

Characteristics of potential users

Table A shows the percents of potential users

with a recent family planning visit, classified by

selected characteristics. Tables 1-6 show the same

percents in greater detail of age.

Race or Hispanic origin. –Differences in recent

use among race and ethnic groups are similar to those

for ever use. Table A and figure 1 show that white

women were more likely to have made a visit in the 3

years before the interview (59,9 percent) than either

black women (46.9 percent) or women of Hispanic

origin (5 1.8 percent). The difference between black

and Hispanic women is not statistically significant.

The higher incidence of recent visits among white

women compared with black women was found in

every category of every variable considered in table A.

However, in a few categories (150-199 percent of

poverty level income, non-Protestant religion categories, and the Northeast Region), the difference was

too small to be statistically significant. The estimates

for Hispanic women in the subcategories of table A

are based on relatively few sample cases, and sampling

variabilityy is therefore large; for that reason, many of

the differences within subcategories between Hispanic

women and white or black women are not statistically significant.

Because the racial difference in recent use of family planning services is substantial and widespread, it

should be considered in making comparisons among

women classified by other characteristics. To enable

these comparisons, the tables in this report, both text

and detailed tables, show statistics on the use of family planning services separately for white, black, and

Hispanic women.

Age. –The statistics on ever use of family planning

services indicate that young women had been frequent users in recent periods. This fact is confirmed

by table A, which shows that 70.8 percent of potential users 15-29 years of age had talked with a physician or other trained person about family planming in

the 3 years before the interview. That figure compares with only 44.5 percent of potential users aged

30-44 years who had had a recent family planning

visit. Significant age differences of similar magnitude

were found for each racial or ethnic group considered. The difference in recent use between younger

and older women may reflect a difference in their

personal need for services; older women may have felt

themselves to be more adequately protected from the

risk of unplanned pregnancy by the method they

were using (if any) without medical consultation,

while younger women felt less adequately prc)tected.

Or, as previously suggested, younger women may

have been more likely than older women to have had

services available to them, or to have used methods of

contraception that required a recent family planning

visit. Because of the strong association of age with

recent service use, its interaction with other characteristics is discussed later in the report.

Parity .–Among the potential users of family

planning services-that is, women in nonsterile marriages in January 1973 –those of low parity (O-1

8
birth) were more likely to have made a recent visit

than women of medium parity (2-4 births) or high

parity (5 births or more)–the percents were 63.2,

55.1, and 52.7, respectively. Those differences were

largely due to parity differences among white women;

among black and Hispanic women no significant differences were found between panty groups in the rate

of recent family planning visits.

Poverty level inconze. -No significant differences

occurred between poverty level groups in the percent

with a recent visit, neither for all races combined, nor

for any race or ethnic group considered separately.

Labor force status. –Women in the labor force

(those with a job or seeking a job) did not differ significantly from those not in the labor force regarding

the percent with a recent visit for family planning

services. This similarity was found for all races and

for white, black, and Hispanic women considered

separately.

Religion. –Table A shows that potential users of

family planning services who reported their religious

associations as “Other or none” were more likely than

Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish women to have

made a recent visit. The differences were fairly large,

with women in the “Other or none” category having

had 69.7 percent with a visit in the 3 years before

interview, compared with 58.4 percent among Protestant women, the religious group with the next highest

proportion. No significant differences were found in

the percent with a recent family planning visit

between Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish women.

Geographic region. -Among all races combined

and among white women, recent visits were most

likely in the West (66.8 percent) and least likely in

the Northeast Region (5 1.9 percent). The two other

regions–the North Central and South–had percents

about midway between those extremes (59.7 and

57.9, respectively) and did not differ significantly

from one another regarding recent family planning

visits.

Age and other characteristics. –As previously

noted, table A shows that younger women (15-29

years of age) were more likely than older women (30-

44 years of age) to have made a family planning visit

in the 3 years before the interview. Table A also

shows that recent visit rates varied with parity, religion, and geographic region. Because the age composition of the population also varies with parity, religion, and geographic region and age is related to

recent visits, it is possible that differences in age

composition may explain, at least partly, the relationships between recent use of family planning services

and these characteristics. This can be examined by

comparing recent visit rates among groups classified

simultaneously by age and parity, religion, or geographic region. These classifications are found in

tables 2, 5, and 6 and are discussed in the following

paragraphs.

Age and parity. –when women of all ages were

considered together (table A), it was found that

women of low parity (O-1 birth) were more likely

than women of higher parity (2 births or more) to

have made a recent family planning visit. However,

when younger and older women were considered

separately (table 2), that pattern was not found; low

parity was not associated with higher rates of recent

visits among either younger or older women; in fact,

recent use increased with increasing parity among the

older women. Thus the previously noted association

between low parity and high rates of recent family

planning visits is explained by the fact that low parity

women were disproportionately young and young

women were more likely to have made a recent visit.

Age and religion. –Women who reported no religion or a religion other than Protestant, Catholic, or

Jewish were younger than women who were Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish. Their youth, however, can

explain only a small part of the higher incidence of

recent family planning visits among these women.

When younger women were considered separately, for

instance, the percents with a visit in the last 3 years

among Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish women were

68.6, 74.0, and 65.4, respectively; and the percent

with a visit among those whose religion was classified

as “Other or none” was 78.2 (table 5). These differences between the Other or none category and the

remaining categories are smaller than the parallel differences for women of all ages combined (table A).

Because these differences involve more variable estimates, not all are statistically significant, but were in

the same direction. Differences in age composition

alone do not account for the higher rate of recent

family planning service use among women whose religion was not Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, but was

another religion or no religion.

Age and geographic region .—When younger

women were considered separately, the previously

noted differences in the incidence of recent family

planning visits between geographic regions were

smaller and were not statistically significant. The difference in percents between the West and Northeast

Regions in table 6 was 14.9 percentage points among

all ages combined (66.8 and 51.9 percent, respectively), but it was only 5.9 percentage points among

women aged 15-29 years (73.9 and 68.0 percent,

respectively). A.rnong older women, however, the difference between the West and Northeast Regions was

slightly larger than the difference for all ages combined. The high rate of family planning service use in

the West was attributable both to the greater likelihood of women of all ages in that region to make visits and to the younger age composition of potential

users when compared to the Northeast Region.

To summarize. a younger age composition

accounts for the relatively higl rate of recent use of

family planning services among women of low parity,

9
but age composition only partially accounts for differences in use among women of different religions

and geographic regions. Note that these comparisons

involve only relationships among three variables at a

time–use of family planning services, age, and a selected characteristic (parity, religion, or geographic

region). A full explanation of the relationship

between any two variables (such as that between residence in the West Region and a high rate of recent

use) would require the simultaneous consideration of

many variables within an explicit theoretical model.

Such an attempt would be beyond the scope and purpose of this report.

Place of latest visit

Women who reported that they had made a family planning visit in the 3 years before the interview

were asked several questions about their most recent

visit, including the place of that visit. A large majority

of recent users of family planning services (84,1 percent) had their latest visit with their own physician

and a minority (15.9 percent) had the latest family

planning visit at an organized medical service, usually

a general health clinic or a specialized family planning

clinic. The percents of recent visitors whose latest

visit was to each of these places (own doctor and organized medical service) are shown in tables 1-6 for

women classified by race, age, and several selected

characteristics. Table B shows, by race and selected

characteristics, the percent of women whose most

recent visit (in the 3 years before the interview) was

to an organized medical service. Organized medical

services, which have been the principal means through

which publicly sponsored or funded family planning

programs have operated in recent years, are the focus

of the following discussion of associations between

place of latest visit and selected characteristics of recent visitors.

Note that the statistics on place of visit reported

here refer only to the latest visit in the 3 years before

the interview. Latest visits may differ significantly

from all visits and from all recent visits regarding their

place and other characteristics. If, for instance,

women’s choice of family planning service providers

was related to their age, they might tend to go to

organized medical services for their early visits and to

their own physician for their later visits (or vice versa);

in that case, the place of the latest visit (own physician) would provide an incomplete description of the

place characteristic of all visits. The magnitude and

direction of these differences between the latest and

previous visits is not known; therefore, these data on

latest visits should be used cautiously in making inferences about other visits, even in the last 3 years.

Race or Hispanic origin .-Among women with a

recent family planning visit, black and Hispanic

women were more likely than white women to have

made their latest visit to an organized medical service

(37.0 and 32.7 percent for black and Hispanic

women, compared with only 14.1 percent for white

women). This difference in the use of organized medical services between black and white women was

found in all but one of the subgroups considered (although it was not statistically significant in two

others). The exception was women who reported

their religious association as “Other or none. ” The

difference among these women was opposite, but

not statistically significant.

Age. –Recent visitors 15-29 years of age were

more likely than recent visitors 3044 years of age to

have made their latest family planning visit to an

organized medical service (18.3 percent for the

younger women compared with 11.5 percent for the

older women). The age difference was found. for all

three race and origin groups, but was statistically

significant only for white women.

The fact that younger visitors were more likely

than older visitors to use organized medical services

for family planning may reflect an emergent trend

toward greater use of clinics by all women, or it may

reflect a tendency for women in each generation to

go to clinics when they are younger and to their own

physicians when they are older, or both.

Parity. –No statistically significant differences

were found between parity groups regarding organized medical services as the place of the latest visit.

Poverty level irzcorne.-Table B shows that recent

visitors whose income was below or near the poverty

line (less than 200 percent of poverty level income)

were more likely than recent visitors with higher income to have made their latest visit to an organized

medical service; the highest percent, 35,5, was for

women with income at 100-149 percent of the povert y level and the lowest percent, 10.8, was for

women with income at 200 percent or more of the

poverty level income. The difference by income level

was found for all races combined, and for white,

black, and Hispanic women considered separately, although it was not statistically significant for the latter

group.

Labor force stares. -The percent of recent visitors

whose latest visit was to an organized medical service

did not differ significantly between women in the

labor force and women not in the labor force.

Religion. –Among recent visitors of all races combined, and among white visitors, those in the religion

category “Other or none” were more likely than Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish visitors to have made

their most recent visit to an organized medical service. Differences between religious denominations

among black and Hispanic visitors were not statistically significant.

Geographic region. –The percent of recent visitors

whose latest visit was to an organized medical service

was higher in the West and South Regions (20.0 and

10
18.0, respectively) than in the Northeast and North

Central Regions (12.0 and 13.4, respectively), as

shown in table B. Among white visitors the same

regional differences occurred, except that the differences between the South Region and the Northeast

and the North Central Regions were not statistically

significant. Among black and Hispanic visitors regional differences in the percent of latest visits made

to organized medical services were not statistically

significant.

Age and other characteristics. –It was previously

noted that the percent of recent visitors whose latest

family planning visit was made to an organized medical service differed significantly between younger and

older women. The place of visit differences noted

subsequently between women classified by poverty

level income, religion, and geographic region may be

accounted for partly by differences in the age compositions of those groups. The relationship of place of

visit to income, religion, and geographic region, excluding some of the effects of age composition, can

be found by examining those relationships within

groups of visitors classified by age (see tables 3, 5,

and 6).

Age and porerty level income. –Table 3 shows

that among both younger visitors (15-29 years of age)

and older visitors (30=44 years of age), poor and

nearly poor women (those with income less than 200

percent of the poverty level) were more likely than

women with greater income to have made their latest

family planning visit to an organized medical service.

Although the estimates for these more detailed categories are less reliable and differences among them are

not statistically significant, differences in age composition do not account for differences between income

groups regarding the place of the latest family planning visit.

Age and religion. –Table 5 shows that among visitors 15-29 years of age, women in the religion category “other or none” were more likely than Catholic

women and somewhat more likely than Protestant

women to have made their latest family planning visit

to an organized medical service and the difference

was larger than that for visitors of all ages 15-44 years

combined. The same difference was found for visitors

30-44 years of age, although it was smaller than the

difference among younger women and not statistically significant. Thus the differences in the place of

the latest visit between religious groups may have

been present for recent visitors of each age, but were

greater for young visitors.

Age and geographic region. –As previously noted

recent visitors in the South and West Regions were

more likely than those in the Northeast and North

Central Regions to have made their latest visit to an

organized medical service. These differences were also

found for younger and older women considered separately (table 6), although the differences were not statistically significant for older women because of the

greater sampling variability of the estimates.

To summarize, the evidence suggests that differences in age composition do not account for the observed differences in the use of organized medical

family planning services between income, religious,

and regional groups. Although the size and statistical

significance of differences vary, regardless of age,

poor and nearly poor visitors, visitors in the religious

category “Other or none,” and visitors in the South

and West Regions were more likely than visitors with

higher income, visitors who were Protestant or

Catholic, and visitors in the Northeast or North

Central Regions, to have made their latest family

planning visit to an organized medical service.

Recommendations at latest visit

In this section the recommendations made by the

physician or other trained person at the latest family

planning visit to recent visitors whose latest visit was

to their own doctor are compared with the recommendations made to women whose latest visit was to

an organized medical service. This discussion is based

on detailed tables 7-9, text table C, and figure 3.

Recommendations to start or change a method. –

As shown in table 7, both personal physicians and

organized medical services recommended to about

one-half of the visitors that they start using a contraceptive method (for the first time) or that they

change methods (46.8 percent and 51.3 percent,

respectively). However, visitors to organized medical

services were more liiely to have been advised to start

a contraceptive method (27.1 percent) than visitors

to personal physicians ( 18.7 percent). (Note that recommendations may have varied considerably in forcefulness and may have been prompted by the visitor’s

own request [see appendix 11].)

Some caution is advised in interpreting the latter

difference, both because it is not large, and because

the distinction between starting and changing may

have been ambiguous to some respondents who were

resuming contraceptive practice with a different

method after a period of nonuse, even though interviewers were trained to anticipate and correct that

ambiguity.

With those cautions in mind, the higher relative

frequency of recommendations to start using a contraceptive method by organized medical services than

by personal physicians may be interpreted as reflecting the tendency, suggested earlier, for organized

medical services to be more popular among women

beginning contraception for the first time than among

women already practicing contraception. That interpretation is supported by the observations (also from

table 7) that among both younger and older women,

and in all three racial and ethnic groups considered,

recommendations to start using a contraceptive

11
method were more common by organized medical

services than by personal physicians, although for

some of these more detailed categories the variability

of the estimates made the differences statistically

nonsignificant. This tendency and the relatively larger

number of young beginners among clinic visitors,

account for the more frequent start recommendations

by organized medical services than by private

physicians.

Methods recommended. –Table C shows percent

distributions of recent visitors by the method recommended at the latest visit, according to

race and place of the latest visit. Only women who, at

their latest family planning visit, received a recommendation to start or change a contraceptive method

were included in these data. Table C was excerpted

from table 8 to facilitate comparisons of the recommendations made by the major service providers (i.e.,

personal physicians and organized medical services).

Figure 3 shows the percent to whom sterilization was

recommended, by race and type of provider.

The pill was the method most often recommended by both personal physicians and organized

medical services, although it was recommended more

often by the latter than the former. Sterilization was

the second leading recommendation by both service

providers, but it was more likely to be recommended

by personal physicians than by organized medical

services (table 8).

As shown in table C, these patterns of recommendations–the relative popularity of methods and

the differences between providers–were found for

both white and black visitors alike. No significant difference was found between the recommendations

made to black and white visitors once the place of

last visit was taken into account. These overall differences between the recommendations made to black

and white visitors arose because black women more

often visited an organized medical service, where the

pill was the clear leader, and white women more often visited their personal physician, where sterilization was a very close second to the pill.

For both black and white recent visitors, sterilization was more often recommended by personal

physicians than by organized medical services at the

last visit (figure 3), although the difference was not

significant for black women. That finding may be explained largely by the age composition of visitors to

the two service providers. Although visitors to organized medical services were predominantly younger

women (15-29 years of age), visitors to personal physicians were more equally divided between the

younger and older (30-44 years of age) women. Because sterilization is more likely to be medically

indicated for the older patient, private physicians,

who saw relatively more of the older patients, were

more likely to recommend it.

This explanation is supported by comparisons

within age groups of the percent to whom ~sterilization was recommended at the latest visit by personal

physicians and organized medical services (table 8).

When younger and older women were considered

separately, no significant differences were found

between personal physicians and organized medical

services in the percent of recent visitors to whom

sterilization was recommended at the latest visit.

Methods used at interview. –Table 9, which includes only women with a family planning visit in the

3 years before the interview, shows the percent who

were practicing contraception at the time of tlhe interview, and the percent distribution of current contraceptors by method of contraception. These statistics

are shown separately for visitors whose latest visit was

to their own doctor and those whose latest visit was

to an organized medical service. Although these data

describe some aspects of the statistical relationship

between the service provider and the pattern, of current contraceptive use, caution must be used in

inferring any causal relationship between them (or

lack thereof’), because many factors other than the

provider of their latest family planning service may

affect women’s subsequent practice of family

planning.

Most recent users of family planning services were

practicing contraception at the time of the interview,

regardless of the place of the latest visit: 78.2 percent

among those who last visited their own physician and

75.8 percent among those who last visited an organized medical service (table 9). Also, visitors to both

service providers had similar distributions of contraceptors by the method used at interview; the pill was

the clear leader and the most effective methlods as a

group (pill, IUD, and sterilization) accounted for

more than 70 percent of the users. The statistically

significant differences between visitors to personal

physicians and to organized medical services were

in the percents who had been sterilized by the time

of the interview, or who were using an IUD1.Those

who had most recently visited their own physician

were more likely to have been sterilized (18.2 percent) than those who had most recently visited an

organized medical service (12.9 percent), and were

less likely to be using an IUD (9.8 and 14.4 percent,

respectively). As noted previously, private physicians

were more likely than organized medical services to

see older women, for whom sterilization is more

likely to be medically indicated; when younger and

older women were considered separately in table 9,

the difference in sterilization between service providers is smaller and statistically nonsignificant,

although the trend flows in the same direction.

12
Use of infertility services

The term “family planning” usually refers to the

use of some form of contraception to space or limit

childbearing and this definition has been used in this

report. However, the general goal of most programs

that provide family planning services is to enable

couples to have the number of children that they desire. For most couples, achieving that objective

involves preventing unwanted or untimely births;

hence the association of family planning with contraception. However, for some couples, achieving desired

fertility involves overcoming an impairment to their

fecundity (difficulty in conceiving or in continuing a

pregnancy to full term). A recent report found that

1.46 million nonsterile couples who wanted more

children reported a fecundity impairment.8 The medical services needed by these couples are called infertility services, and are often provided by their personal physicians, but are also provided by family

planning clinics and other organized medical services.

Statistics on the use of these infertility services are

presented and discussed in this section.

To determine the use of infertility services,

women who were in nonsterile marriages in January

1973 were asked if they had talked with a medical

doctor or other trained person about increasing their

chances of having a baby in the 3 years before the interview. Nonsterile means the woman did not report a

sterilizing operation, accident, or other condition that

would make conception impossible (see appendix II).

It is possible that some nonsterile couples were sterile without being aware of it. The percent of currently married, nonsterile women who reported

such a conversation (i.e., who used infertility services

in the 3-year period) is shown in table 10, classified

by race or ethnic origin and selected socioeconomic

characteristics. Table D and figure 4 summarize some

of the more important and interesting data from

table 10.

About 6.9 percent of nonsterile, currently married women 1534 years of age used infertility services in the 3 years before the interview in 1976.

Although that number is small compared with the

percent who used family planning services, it is not

negligible. “~he figures for white and black women

differed by less than a percentage point (6.7 and 7.4

percent, respectively), a statistically nonsignificant

difference. Although the differences in the use of infertility services between black and white women

were larger in some categories of age, parity, and geographic region, in most cases they were not large

enough to be statistically significant. It is noteworthy

that among childless women (Oparity), black women

were nearly twice as likely as white women to have

had an infertility consultation (26.2 and 13.2 percent, respectively).

A significant difference was found, however, between women 15-29 years of age and women 30-44

years of age: the younger women were more likely to

have consulted a doctor or other trained person about

increasing their chances of having a baby (8.5 percent) than the older women were (5.0 percent). The

age difference may have arisen from several causes,

including the possibility that older women already

had received infertility services before the 3-year

period they were asked about. The age difference was

also found for white and black women considered

separately, although the difference for black women

was not statistically significant.

Parity was also associated with recent use of

infertility services; women with low parity (O-1 birth)

were more likely to have had an infertility consultation (12. 1 percent) than women of higher parity (2

births or more) (2.6 percent). That difference was

found for all races combined, and for white and black

women separately. Although no direct evidence can

support it, the interpretation of the parity difference

is straightforward. Couples with a fecundity impairment are more likely than others to be childless, and

subfecund couples with no children are expected to

be more likely than others to seek infertility services.

Table D also shows that the percent of women

with a recent infertility visit was somewhat higher in

13
the West Region (8.6 percent) than in the remainder in the West Region were somewhat more likely than

of the Nation (6.5 percent), but that difference was women elsewhere to have had a recent infertilityy connot statistically significant. For white women consid- sultation. However, the data suggest that black

ered separately, however, the difference was statisti- women in the West Region were less likely to have

tally significant at the 10-percent level; white women had a visit than black women outside that region.

14
References

1National Center for Health Statistics: Contraceptive utilization in the United States: 1973 and 1976, by K. Ford. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, No. 36. DHEW

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

Md., Aug. 18, 1978.

2Torres, A.: Organized family planning services in the United

States, 1968-1976. Fare. Plann. Perspecr. 10(2): 83-88, Mar./

Apr. 1978.

3National Center for Health Statistics: Background and development of the National Reporting System for Family Planning

Services, by B. J. Haupt. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 1-

No. 13. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 78-1313. Public Health Service.

Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Apr. 1978.

4 Nation~ Center for Health Statistics: Office visits fOr famflY

planning, National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, United

States, 1977, by B. K. Cypress. Advance Data from Vital and

Health Statistics, No. 49. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 79-1250.

Public Health Service. Hyattsville, Md., Apr. 16, 1979.

5National Center for Health Statistics: Utilization of family

planning services by currently married women 15-44 years

of age, United States, 1973, by F. Notzon. Vital and HeaJtJz

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

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

Office, Nov. 1977.

6Nationa] Center for He~th Statistics: Use of famflY Planning

services by currently married women 1544 years of age:

United States, 1973 and 1976, by G. E. Hendershot. Advance

Data from Vital and Health Statistics, No. 45. DHEW Mb. No.

(PHS) 79-1250. Public Health Service. Hyattsville, Md., Feb. 7,

1979.

7National Center for Health Statistics: National Survey

of Family Growth, Cycle II: Sample design, estimation procedures, and variance estimation, by W. R. Grady. Vital and

Health Statistics. Series 2-No. 87. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 81-

1361. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government

Printing Office.

8National Center for Health Statistics: Reproductive impairments among currently married couples: United States, 1976,

by W. D. Mosher. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, No. 55. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS) 80-1250. Public Health

Service. Hyattsville, Md., Jan. 24, 1980.

9National Center for Health Statistics: National 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.

10Nation~ Center for Health Statistics: Statistics needed for

national policles related to fertility, by The United States

National Committee on Vital and Health 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.

11U.S. Bureau of the Census: Money income in 1975 of

families and persons in the United States. Currwnt Population

Rcporrs. Series P-60, No. 106. U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1977.

table A-3.

15
List of detailed tables

1. Number of women and percent who ever had a family planning visit, number of nonsterile women and percent who had

a family planning visit in the last 3 years, and percent distribution by place of most recent visit in the last 3 years, according to race or Hispanic origin and age: currently married

women 1544 years of age, United States, 1976. . . . . .

2. Number of women and percent who ever had a family planning visit, number of nonsterile women and percent who had

a family planning visit in the last 3 years, and percent distribution by place of most recent visit in the last 3 years, according to parity, race or Hispanic origin, and age: currently

married women 15-44 years of age, United States, 1976. . .

3. Number of women and percent who ever had a family planning visit, number of nonsterile women and percent who had

a family planning visit in the last 3 years, and percent distribution by place of most recent visit in the last 3 years, according to poverty level income, race or Hispanic origin, and

age: currently married women 1544 years of age, United

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

4. Number of women and percent who ever had a family planning visit, number of nonsterile women and percent who had

a family planning visit in the last 3 years, and percent distribution by place of most recent visit in the last 3 years, according to labor force status, race or Hispanic origin, and age:

currently married women 15-44 years of age, United States,

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

5. Numbarof women and percent whoever had a family planning visit, number of nonsterile women and percent who had

a family planning visit in the last 3 years, and percent distribution by place of most recent visit in the last 3 years, according toreligion, race or Hispanic origin, and age: currently

married women 1544 years of age, United States, 1976. . . .

6.

17

7.

18

8.

20

9.

22

10.

23

Number of women and percent who ever had a family planning visit, number of nonsterile women and percent who had

a family planning visit in the last 3 years, and percent distribution by place of most recent visit in the last 3 years, according to geographic region, race or Hispanic origin, and

age: currently married women 15-44 years of age, United

States, 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Number of nonsterile women who had a family planning

visit in the last 3 years and percent distribution by recommendation received, according to place of most recent visit,

race or Hispanic origin, and age: currently married wl~men

15-44 years ofage, United States, 1976 . . . . . . . . . . 27

Number of nonsterile women whohada family planning visit

in the last 3 years and who received a recommendation to

start a method of contraception orchange methods, and percent distribution by method recommended, according to

place of most recent visit, race or Hispanic origin, ancl age:

currently married women 15-44 years of age, United States,

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Number of nonsterile women whohada family planningv isit

in the last 3 years, percent currently using contraception, and

percent distribution bycontraceptive method currently used,

according to place of most recent visit, race or Hispanic

origin, and age: currently married women 15-44 years of age,

United States, 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Number of nonsterile women and percent who used infertility services in the last 3 yaars, by race or Hispanic origin, age,

parity, labor force status, religion, and geographic region:

currently married women 15-44 years of age, United States,

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

16
Tablel. Number of women and percent whoever had a family planning visit, number of nonsterile women andpercent whohada family planning

visit in the last 3 years, and percent distribution by place of most recent visit in the last 3 years, according to race or Hispanic origin and age:

currently married women 15-44 years of age, United States, 1976

Race or origin, and age

Visitedin thelast3 years

Number Percent Number of

of women of women nonsterile Place of most recen t visit

in who ever women in

thousands visited thousands Total Own Organized

Total physician medical

service

All racesq

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

Black

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

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

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

Hispanic origin2

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

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

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

—

Percent

27,488 76.8 22,923 -RF

12,463 83.8 12,126 70.8

15,024 70.9 10,798 44.5

24,795 78.1 20,553 59.9

11,218 85.1 10,921 72.3

13,577 72.3 9,632 45.5

2,169 64.4 1,896 46.9

993 73.7 862 57.8

1,177 56.5 933 35.4

1,699 68.8 1,519 51.8

834 71.6 822 62.0

865 66.0 697 39.6

Percent distribution

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

84.1 15.9

81.7 18.3

88.5 11.5

85.9 14.1

83.6 16.4

90.1 9.9

63.0 37.0

61.2 38.8

66.0 34.0

67.3 32.7

62.6 37.4

76.7 ‘23.3

llncludes wh)te, black, and other races.

Zlncludes all women reporting any Hispanic origin, regardless of race or other ethnic origins reported; women of Hispanic origin ereincluded in the

stetisticsby race.

NOTE: Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of theconterminous United States. Seeappendixes for discussion of thesemple

design, estimates of Sampling variability, and definitions of terms.

17
Table2, Number of women and percent whoever had a family planning visit, number of nonsterile women andpercent whohada family planning

visit in the last 3 years, and percent distribution by place of most recent visit in the last 3years, according toparity, race or Hispanic origin, and

age: currently married women 15-44 years of age, United States, 1976

Parity, race or origin, and age

Visited in thelast3 years

Number Percent Number of

Place of most recent visit of women of women nonsterile

in who ever women in

thousands visited thousands Total Own Organized

Total physician medical

service

O-1 parity

All racesl

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

Black

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

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

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

Hispanic origin2

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

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

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

2-4 parity

All racesl

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

Black

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

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

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

Hispanic origin2

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

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

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

5 parity or more

All racesl

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

See f@xnotesat endof table,

10,805

8,039

2,766

9,797

7,342

2,455

768

526

242

622

456

165

14,523

4,363

10,161

13,198

3,829

9,369

1,060

452

608

917

371

546

2,159

62

2,097

1,800

47

1.753

76.2

83.3

55.4

77.9

84.6

57.8

58.9

70.5

33.8

63.3

68.6

48,5

78.1

85.1

75.0

78.9

86.4

75.8

70.4

76.8

65<7

71.9

74.7

70.0

71.1

65.5

71.3

73.9

* 57.8

74.3

10,163

7,919

2,244

9,209

7,233

1,976

719

515

204

592

456

136

11,380

4,151

7,230

10,205

3,646

6,558

936

433

503

802

359

443

1,380

56

1,324

1,139

41

1,098

Percent Percent distribution

63.2 100.0

70.5 100.0

37.4 100.0

64.7 100.0

71.7 100.0

38.8 100.0

47.3 100.0

55.9 100.0

25.6 100.0

52.8 100.0

60.1 100.0

28.6 100.0

55.1 100.0

71.7 100.0

45.3 100.0

56.0 100.0

73.6 100.0

45.9 100.0

48.7 100.0

59.2 100.0

39.5 100.0

48.9 100.0

64.3 100,0

36.1 100.0

52.7 100.0

65.0 100.0

52.1 100.0

55.6 100.0

●58.4 100.0

55.5 100.0

82.7

81.9

88.3

84.5

83.7

89.4

62.6

61.7

67.9

69.8

67.7

*85.O

86.0

81.8

89.9

87.6

83.7

91.1

65.4

61.3

70.9

64.4

56.3

77.4

80.4

*46.7

82.3

84.4

*45.7

86.0

17.3

!8.1

11.7

15.5

16.3

10.6

37.4

38.3

32.1

30.2

32.3

15.0

14.0

18.2

10.1

12.4

16.3

8.9

34,6

38.7

29.1

35.6

43.7

22.6

19.6

‘53.3

17.7

*15.6

‘54.3

14.0

18
Table 2. Number of women and percent who ever had a family planning visit, numker of nonsterile women and percent who had a family planning

visit in the last 3 years, and percent distribution by place of most recent visit in the last 3 years, according to parity, race or Hispanic origin, and

age: currently married women 15-44 years of age, United States, 1976–Ccm.

Visited in the last 3 yeers

Parity, race or origin, and age

Number Percent Number of

of women of women nonsterile Place of most recent visit

in who ever women in

thousands visited thousands Total Own Organized

Total physician medical

service

5 parity or more–Con.

Black Percent Percent distribution

15-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 57.8 240 38.3 100.0 51.7 48.3

15-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 89.9 15 ‘64.5 100.0 ‘48.8 *51 .2

30-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 56.4 226 35.2 100.0 52.2 47.8

Hispanic origin2

15-44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 71.9 125 ‘65.2 100.0 *70.3 “29.7

15-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ●1OO.O 6 ●71 .4 100.0 ●62.7 *37.3

3M4years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 70.8 119 64.8 100.0 ●70.7 ‘29.2

1 Includes white, black, and other races.

21nclude~ all woman raPorting any Hispanic origin, regardless of race or othar ethnic origins reported; women of Hispanic origin are included in the

statistics by race.

NOTE: Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of theconterminous United States. Seeappendixes for discussion of the.sample

design, estimatas of sampling variability, and definitions of terms.

19
Table3. Number of women and percent who ever had a family plannlng visit, number of nonsterile women andpercent whohada family planning

visit in the last 3 years, and percent distribution by place of most recent visit in the last 3 years, according to poverty level income, race or

Hispanic origin and age: currently married women 15-44 years of age, United States, 1976

Visited in thelast3 years

Number Percent Number of

Place of most recen t visit

Poverty level income, race or origin, and age of women of women nonsterile

in who ever women in

thousands visited thousands Total Own Organized

Total physician medical

service

Below poverty income

All racesl

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

Black

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

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

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

Hispanic origin2

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

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

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

100-149 percent of poverty income

All racesl

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

Black

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

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

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

Hispanic origin2

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

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

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

150-199 percent of poverty income

All racesl

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

See footnotes at end of table.

1,418

738

680

1,117

611

506

252

99

153

176

79

97

2,030

1.026

1,004

1,748

880

868

226

105

121

220

133

87

3,098

1,561

1,538

2,790

1,398

1,393

70.7

78.6

62.1

74.2

80.4

66.8

55.6

61.9

51.5

65.2

73.5

58.4

72.9

82.1

63.3

73.5

83.2

63.6

66.6

70.5

63.2

71.1

70.2

72.6

80.7

85.7

75.7

81.2

86.5

75.9

1,246

714

533

990

594

397

221

97

125

163

74

88

1,755

993

762

1,502

851

651

198

101

98

213

133

80

2,678

1,521

1,157

2,415

1,362

1,053

Percent

58.5

72.8

38.3

62.3

77.0

39.9

43.8

51.6

*36.7

+45.7

*6 I .3

‘32.5

58.2

68.9

44.3

60.4

70.4

47.3

41.1

*57.9

*23.8

*6 I .8

*62.1

*6 I .3

62.8

73.3

48,6

63.1

73.9

48.6

Percent distribution

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100,0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

69.4

69.2

70.1

74.6

73.4

78.3

44.4

50.0

*37.1

‘40.4

‘42.0

*37.2

64.5

60.1

72.8

63.8

58.4

73.7

59.5

“62.1

* 53.4

*48.8

*45.9

“53.7

78.0

75.3

83.4

80.2

77.5

85.8

30.6

30.8

*29,9

25.4

26.6

‘21.7

55.6

50.0

*62.9

‘59.6

* 58.0

*62.8

35.5

39.9

27.2

36.2

41.6

26.3

“40.5

‘*37.9

“46.6

‘“51,2

*54.1

‘46.3

22.0

24.7

16,6

19.8

22.5

14.2

20
Table3. Number of women and percent who ever had a family planning visit, number of nonsterile women andpercent whohada family planning

visit in the last 3 years, and percent distribution by place of most recent visit in the last 3 years, according to poverty level income, race or

Hispanic origin, and age: currently married women 15-44 years ofage, United States, 1976-Con.

Visited in thelast3 years

Number Percent Number of Place of most recent visit

Poverty level income, race or origin, and age

of women of women nonsterile

in who ever women in Total

thousands visited thousands Own Organized

Total physician medical

service

150-199 percent of poverty income–Con.

Black

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

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

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

Hispanic origin 2

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

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

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

200 percent and above of poverty income

All racesl

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

Black

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

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

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

Hispanic origin2

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

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

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

274

148

126

219

122

97

17,958

8,013

93945

16,723

7,443

9,280

945

454

490

772

364

408

76.3

82.1

69.6

72.3

86.2

54.9

79.0

86.3

73.1

80.0

87.1

74.2

66.9

77.1

57.5

70.5

74.4

67.0

Percent Percent distribution

228

144

84

208

120

89

14,836

7,804

7,032

13,732

7,251

6,482

839

441

397

669

359

310

60.2

70.4

*42.8

‘58.1

*67.5

‘40.8

60.0

72.3

46.2

61.0

73.1

47.2

48.0

58.5

36.3

51.4

65.7

34.3

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

55.9

57.7

*50.7

●61.9

*49.3

*84.8

89.2

87.2

92.8

90.4

88.8

93.3

72.5

66.1

84.1

84.4

79.7

95.0

44.1

42.3

*49.3

●38.1

‘50.7

*5.2

10.8

12.8

7.2

9.6

11.2

6.7

27.5

33.9

* 15.9

●15.6

‘20.3

‘5.0

llnc{”d~$~hi~~, black,~nd~~h~r r~~e~.

zlnclude~ all ~omen rePorting ~n~ Hi$~ani~ Origin, regardle~$ of race Or other ethnic origins reported; women of Hispanic origin are includad in

statistics by race.

NOTE: Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of theconterminous United Statm. Seeappendixes fordiscuss!onof the sample

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

21
Table4, Number of women and percent whoever had a family planning visit, number of nonsterile women andpercent whohada famiiy planning

visit in the last 3 years, and percent distribution by place of most recent visit in the last 3years, according tolabor force status, race or Hispanic

origin, and age: currently married women 1544yearso fage,UnitedStates, 1976

Visitedirr thelast3year~

Number Percent Number of

Place of most recent visit

Labor force status, race or origin, and age

of women of women nonsterile

in who ever women in

thousands visited thousands Total Own Organized

Total physician medical

service

In labor force

All races’

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

Black

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

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

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

Hispanic originz

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

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

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

Not in labor force

All racesl

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

Black

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

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

3044years . . . . . . . . . . ..v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hispanic origin2

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

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

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

13,488

6,021

7,468

11,914

5,357

6,557

1,349

563

786

705

347

358

13,957

6,431

7.527

12,839

5,849

6,990

819

428

391

994

487

507

77.2

86.0

70.0

78.9

87.3

71.9

66.0

77.1

58,0

72.5

81.2

64.1

76.4

81.8

71.7

77.5

83.1

72.7

61.7

69.1

53.7

66.1

64.7

67.4

11,084

5,864

5,219

9,726

5,215

4,510

1,170

549

621

643

347

296

11,804

6,249

5,555

I 0,792

5,694

5,098

725

413

312

877

475

401

Percent

57.9

71.9

41.9

59,4

73,3

43.0

46.0

59.9

33.6

56.1

71.8

*37.4

59.1

69.9

46.8

60.3

71.4

47.7

48,4

55.1

39.1

48.6

54.8

41.1

Percent distribution

100.0

100,0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100,0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

85.2

84.1

87.4

87.4

86,2

89.8

64.3

63.5

65.6

72.1

68.7

‘80.2

83.1

79.3

89.4

64.5

81.0

90.3

61.0

58.0

66.7

63.1

56.5

74.3

14.8

15.9

12.6

12,6

13.8

10.2

35.7

36.5

34.4

27.9

*31 .3

*I 9.8

16.9

20.7

10.6

15.5

19.0

9,7

39.0

42.0

33.3

36.9

43.5

*25.7

I 1 ~~lu,jes ~hit~, black, and other races.

zln~fudesall ~omen reporting any Hispanic origin, regardless of race or other ethnic origins reported; women Of Hispanic originate included in the

statistics by race. \.

NOTE: Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of thecontarminous United States. Seeappendixes fordiscussion of the samPle

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

22
Table5. Number of women and percent whoever had a family planning visit, number of nonsterile women andpercent whohada family planning

visit inthelast3 years, and percent distribution by place of most recent visit in the last 3years, according toreligion, race or Hispanic origin, and

age: currently married women 15-44 years ofage, United States, 1976

Religion, race or origin, and age

Visited in the last 3 years

Number Percent Number of

of women

Place of most recen t visit of women nonsterile

in who ever women in

thousands visited thousands Total Own Organized

Total physician medical

service

Protestant

All racesl

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

Black

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

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

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

Hispanic origin2

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

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

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

Catholic

All racesl

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

Black

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

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

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

Hispanic origin2

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

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

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

Jewish

All racesl

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

See footnotes atend of tabla.

17,354

7,632

9,722

15,366

6,760

8,608

1,908

845

1,063

340

215

125

7,792

3,638

4,154

7,336

3,405

3,931

165

83

83

1,269

578

690

707

222

485

706

222

484

77.9

83.4

73.6

79.7

84.8

75.6

64.3

72.9

57.4

65.8

66.7

64.3

72.9

83.7

63.3

73.4

84.5

63.7

62.3

72.3

52.2

69.5

73.5

88.1

77.2

83.6

74.3

77.2

83.6

74.3

13,905

7,389

6,516

12,183

6,545

5,639

1,645

817

828

294

210

83

6,871

3,580

3,291

6,447

3,353

3,093

158

81

76

1,152

572

581

642

216

426

641

216

425

Percent Percent distribution

58.4

68.6

46.7

60.3

70.2

48.5

48.2

56.2

36.0

57.6

59.8

51.9

58.9

74.0

38.0

57.5

74.8

38.2

47.8

62.0

‘ 32.6

49.7

63.2

36.3

54.1

65.4

48.3

54.0

65.4

48.1

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100,0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

83.8

81.4

88.0

86.3

83.9

90.2

60.1

56.3

66.3

76.9

76.9

76.8

85.6

83.8

89.5

%.8

85.2

90.4

72.4

81.0

●58.1

62.6

56.5

73.9

92.6

91.0

93.6

92.6

91.0

93,6

16.2

18.6

12.0

13.7

16.1

9.8

39.9

43.7

33.7

‘23.1

‘23.1

‘23.2

14.4

16.2

10.5

13,2

14.8

9.6

●27.6

● 19.0

*4 I .9

37.4

43,5

●26.1

●7.4

“9.0

‘6.4

*7.4

*9.O

*6.4

23
Table5. Number of women and percent whoever had afamlly planning visit, number of nonsterile women andpercent whohada family planning

visit in thelast3 years, and percent distribution by place of most recent visit in the last 3years, according to religion, race or Hispanic originr and

age: currently married women 15-44 years of age, United States, 1976-Con.

Religion, race or origin, and age

Visited in thelast3 years

Number Percent Number of

Place of most recent visit of women of women nonsterile

in who ever women in

thousands Total visited thousands Own Organized

Total physician medical

service

Other or none

All races’1 Percent

15-44 years.......,...,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,582 83.3 1,454 69.7

15-29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960 87.6 929 78.2

30-44years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622 76.6 526 54.8

White

15-44years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,336 86.5 1,234 72.2

15-29years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820 90.2 795 80.9

30-44years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516 80.5 439 56.4

Black

15-44years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 72.7 88 59.6

15-29years, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 84.8 63 72.7

30-44years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 43.7 25 “26.2

Hispanic originz

15-44years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 66.1 63 “72,7

15-29years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 69.9 40 ‘57.4

30-44years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 62.1 23 100.0

Percent distribution

100.0

100.0

100.()

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

77.5 22.5

73.8 26.2

86.1 13.9

76.4 23.6

73.2 26.8

84.2 *1 5.8

90.3 *9.7

91.2 *8.8

*84.2 *15.8

*88.5 *11.5

*77.2 ‘22.8

100.0

Ilncludes white, black, and other races.

21ncludes all women reporting any Hispanic origin, regardless of race or other ethnic origins reported; women Of l-ikpanicork! inareinclLlded in the

statistics by race.

NOTE: Statistics are basedon a sample of the household population of theconterminous United States, Seeappendixes for discussion of the sample

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

24
Table6. Number of women and percent who ever had a family planning visit, numbarof nonsterile women andpercent whohada family planning

visit in the last 3 years, and percent distribution by place of most recent visit in the last 3years, according togeographic region, race or Hispanic

origin, and age: currently married women 15-44 years of age, United States, 1976

Visitedin the Iast3 years

Number Percent Number of

of women

Place of most recent visit

Geographic region, race or origin, and age

of women nonsterile

in who ever women in

thousands visited thousands Total Own Organized

Total physician medical

service

Northeast

All racesl

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

Black

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

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

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

Hispanicoriginz

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

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

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

North Central

All racesl

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

Black

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

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

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

Hispanic originz

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

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

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

South

All racesl

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

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

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

White

15-14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

See footnotes at end of tabla.

5,561

2,197

3,363

5,100

1,99B

3,102

342

121

220

306

108

197

7,893

3,662

4,231

7,479

3,463

4,076

304

118

186

150

96

54

9,213

4,400

4,813

7,838

3,720

4,118

70.4

80.0

64.1

71.9

82.0

65.4

58.0

79.1

46.2

53.1

57.0

50.8

77.9

85.6

71.1

78.5

86.3

71.6

65.1

71.2

61.2

83.3

84.6

81.0

76.4

83.2

70.1

78.4

85.2

72.3

5,031

2,168

2,863

4,624

1,971

2,652

291

119

172

279

107

172

6,424

3,579

2,845

6,054

3,396

2,658

270

112

158

138

86

42

7,611

4,250

3,361

6,405

3,591

2,814

Percent Percent distribution

51.9 100.0

68.0 100.0

39.6 100.0

52.6 100.0

69.7 100.0

39.8 100.0

45.5 100.0

64.3 100.0

32.2 100.0

40.6 100.0

●47.8 100.0

‘36.0 100.0

59.7 100.0

72.4 100.0

43.3 100.0

60.3 100.0

72.9 100.0

43.7 100.0

48.0 100.0

57.8 100.0

40.6 100.0

●64.9 100.0

‘74.6 100.0

●42.7 100.0

57.9 100.0

69.5 100.0

42.8 100.0

60.0 100,0

72.0 100.0

44.4 100.0

88.0

86.7

89.7

89.3

88.4

90.6

70.6

71.7

68.9

*58.3

‘30.0

“ 82.6

86.6

84.2

91.8

87.9

85.7

92.8

59.8

48.1

72.7

●51 .1

*59.O

82.0

79.9

86.6

85.3

83.4

89.2

12.0

13.3

10.3

10.7

11.6

9.4

29.4

*28.3

*31.1

●4I .7

“70.0

●17.4

13.4

15.8

8.2

12.1

14.3

7.2

40.2

51.9

*27.3

●4B.9

*4 I .0

“100.0

18.0

20.1

13.4

14.7

16.6

10.8

25
Table6. Number of women and percent whoever had a family planning visit, number of nonsterile women andpercent whohada family planning

visit in the last 3 years, and percent distribution by place of most recant visit in the last 3yearsr according togeographic region, race or Hispanic

origin, and age: currently married women 15-44 years of age, Unned States, 1976—Con.

Visited in the last 3 years

Number Percent Number of

Place of most recent visit

Geographic region, race or origin, and age

of women of women nonsterile

in who ever women in

thousands visited thousands Total Own Organized

Total physician medical

$ervjce

South–Con.

Black

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

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

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

Hispanic origin2

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

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

30-44y~ars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West

All racesl

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

61ack

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

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

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

Hispanic originz

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

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

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

1,281

645

637

678

325

354

4,821

2,204

2,617

4,378

2,037

2,341

242

108

134

564

304

260

64.6

72.4

56.7

68.7

71.8

65.9

83.0

85.9

80.6

84.3

86.2

82.7

71.3

77.8

66.0

73.4

72.4

74.6

1,120

624

497

611

320

291

3.857

2,129

1,728

3,470

1,962

1,508

215

108

106

491

299

192

Percent

46.5

55.8

34.5

47.8

60.3

33.8

66.8

73.9

57.9

68.8

74.5

61.2

50.0

62.1

37.4

59.3

65.0

50.5

Percent distribution

100,0

100,0

100.0

100.0

100,0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100,0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

59.6 40.4

56.2 43.8

66.4 33.6

75.0 * 25.0

68.0 “32.0

90.7 *9.3

80.0

76.2

85.9

80.3

75.8

87.4

73.4

86.6

50.6

68.0

67.1

‘69.8

20.0

23.8

14.1

19.7

24.2

12.6

*26.6

*13.4

49.4

‘32.0

* 32.9

‘30.2

1 Includes white, black, and other races.

21nclu~e~ all ~~men reporting any Hi~pa”i~ ~rigi”, rega~dle~s of race or ~Ther ethnic origi”~ reported; ~~men of l+i~panic~rigin are i~~lud(~d i“the

statistics by race.

NOTE: Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of theconterminous United States. Seeappendlxes fordiscusslon of the sample

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

26
Table7. Number of nonsterile women who had a family planning visit in the last 3yearsand percent distribution by recommendation received,

according to place of most recent visit, race or Hispanic origin, and age: currently married women 15-44 years of age, United States, 1976

Number of Recommendation

nonsterile

women in No

Total

Start Change

thousands recommendation

method method

Place of most recent visit, race or origin, and age

Own physician

All racesl

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

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

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

W bite

Percent distribution

1!3-44 years

15-29 years

3044 years

10,648

6,664

3,984

100.0

100.0

100.0

53.2

56.3

48.0

18.7

20.6

15.5

18.2

20.4

14.6

21.3

22.7

19.0

22.7

23.8

‘20.8

27.1

29.5

20.1

26.0

28.6

17.9

30.4

31.4

28.5

41.1

●45.7

●26.3

28.1

23.1

36.5

28.3

23.3

36.8

29.4

23.6

38.7

30.3

27.0

●35.8

24.2

21.0

33.7

25.2

22.3

34.1

24.0

18.9

34.2

‘19.3

“1 8.2

*23.1

15-44 years

15-29 years

30-44 years

9,986

6,276

3,709

100.0

100.0

100.0

53.5

56.3

48.6

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

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

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

Black

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

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

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

Hispanic origin2

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

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

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

15-44 years

15-29 yaars

30-44 years

521

320

201

100.0

100.0

100.0

49.3

53.7

42.3

1544years

15-29 years

30-44 years

505

313

192

100.0

100.0

100.0

47.0

49.2

●43.4

Organized medical service

All racesl

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

Black

. ..<.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

Hispanic origin2

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

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

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

15-44 years

15-29 years

30-44 years

2,011

1,494

519

100.0

100.0

100.0

48.7

49.5

46.2

15-44 years

15-29 years

30-44 years

1,640

1,236

409

100.0

100.0

100.0

48.8

49.1

48.0

154$4 years

15-29 years

3044 years

307

202

103

100.0

100.0

100.0

45.6

49.7

37.4

15-44 years

15-29 years

30-44 years

246

187

58

100.0

100.0

100.0

39.6

*36.2

●50.6

11nclud,as ~hi~e, bl~ck, and ~~h~~ r~ce~.

zlnclude~ ~11~omen ~ePorting ~nY Hispanic ~rigin, regardle~~ of race or other ethnic origins reported; women of Hispanic origin are included in the

statistics by race.

NOTE: 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.

27
Table 8. Number of nonsterile women who had a family planning visit in the last 3 years and who received a recommendation to start a method of

contraception or change methods, and percent distribution by method recommended, according to place of most recent visit, race or Hispanic

origin, and age: currently married women 15-44 years of age, United States, 1976

Number of Contraceptive method recommended

Place of most recent visit, race or origin, and age nonsterile

women in

Total Sterilization Pill thousands IUD ‘~~~~~~~’ None

Own physician

All racesl

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

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

3044y ears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

White

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

15-29years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..C . . . . ,.

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

BIac k

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

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

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

Hispanic origin2

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

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

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

Organized medical service

All racesl

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

Black

1544years, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

Hispanic origin2

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

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

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

4,976

2,913

2,063

4,637

2,739

1,898

264

148

116

267

159

108

1,032

754

278

840

628

212

166

102

65

148

120

29

Percent distribution

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100,0

100.0

100.0

100.0

30.0

15.8

50.2

30.4

15.9

51.4

28.9

*16.5

45.6

*27.7

*11.6

*5 I .2

20.8

10.8

47.6

21.3

* 10.6

52.8

*21.1

*14.5

*31.4

“20.4

*4.6

‘83.7

35.4 15.5

47.4 16.7

18.3 13.8

35.5 15.2

47.3 16.9

18.5 12.9

32.2 *13.8

44.3 *12.2

*16.O ‘16.0

“31 .8 *19.2

*5 I .3 ‘22.0

*3.3 *15.1

46.2 16.1

52.7 18.1

28.5 *11.O

45.1 16,3

52.5 18.3

*23.2 ‘1 0.4

48.0 *1 7.4

50.3 *20.1

*44.5 *13.2

*56.7 ++17.9

*68.O *2 I .2

*11.7 *4. 6

18.5

19.2

17.4

18.3

19.3

16.9

21.9

‘21.4

“22.5

*2 I .3

*15.1

‘30.4

14,7

16.2

* 10.6

14.6

15.8

+11.1

*12.8

++15.1

*9.2

*5.O

*6.2

‘0.6

*0.9

*0.3

‘0.5

*0.7

‘0.3

*3.2

*5.6

* 2,3

*2.2

*2.3

*2.6

*2.7

‘2.5

‘0.7

+1.7

1 Includes white, black, and other races.

Zl”cludes aII women reporting a“y Hispanic origin, regardless of race or other ethnic origins raported; women of Hispanic origin are included in the

statistics by race.

NOTE: Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of theconterminous United States. Seeappendixes fordiscussion of the sample

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

28
Table9. Number of nonsterile women who had a family planning visit in the last 3 years, percent currently using contraception, and percent

distribution by contraceptive method currently used, according to place of most recent visit, race or Hispanic origin, ana age: currently married

women 15-44 years of age, United States, 1976

Contraceptors

Number of

Place of most recen t visit, nonsterile Percent Method of contraception

race or origin. and age women in currently

thousands using All Sterilization Pill IUD Traditional

con tracep tion methods mr=vhods

Own physician

All racesl

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

Black

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

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

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

Hispanic origin2

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

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

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

Organized medical services

All races 1

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

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

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

White

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

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

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

15-44years . . . . .

15-29years . . . . .

30-44years . . . . .

15-44years . . . . .

15-29years . . . . .

Black

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

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

. ...<.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Iispanic origin2

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

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

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

Percent distribution

i 0,648

6,664

3,984

9,986

6,276

3,709

521

320

201

505

313

192

2,011

1,494

519

1,640

1,236

409

307

202

103

246

187

58

78.2

76.0

82.0

78.5

76.2

82.5

73.5

73.6

73.2

72.5

79.8

60.9

75.8

75.1

78.0

77.8

77.0

80.2

69.5

70.1

68.2

71.7

68.3

82.1

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

18.2

10.3

30.5

18.8

10.6

31.6

12.5

‘7.6

‘ 20.1

* 12.5

●9.3

* 19.2

12.9

8.4

25.4

13.6

9.2

26.3

●9.O

●5.2

● 16.6

‘20.8

●8.6

●52.3

43.4

53.0

28.4

43.2

52.7

28.2

46.3

52.3

36.9

42.1

52.0

*2 I .6

47.9

54.8

29.0

47.4

54.8

26.4

53.0

58.8

“41 .4

●45.3

‘52.3

*27.1

9.8

9.1

11.0

9.6

9.1

10.4

10.6

“6.0

●17.9

‘19.2

*16.7

●24.3

14.4

12.6

19.3

14.8

12.6

21.1

*11,5

●1O.8

●12.7

●11.3

●13.O

*6.9

28.6

27.6

30.1

28.4

27.6

29.8

30.6

34.1

25.1

*26.2

“22.0

*34.9

24.8

24,2

26.3

24.2

23.4

26.2

26.5

●25.2

●29.3

‘22.6

●26.1

*13.7

llncl”deswhit~, black,~ndoth~~r’~ces.

21nclude~ all ~~men reporting any Hispanic origin, regardless of race or other ethnic origins reported; women of Hispanic originate included in the

statistics by race.

NOTE: Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of theconterminous United States. Seeappendixes for discussion of the sample

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

29
Table IO, Number of nonsterile women andpercent whoused infertility services lnthelast 3years, byraceor Hispanic origin, age, parity, lakr force

status, religion, and geographic region: currently married women 15-44 years of age, United States, 1976

Characteristic A II White Black Hispanic A II

races 1

White Black Hispanic

origin 2 racesq origin 2

Number of woman in thousands Percent who used infertility services

All characteristics . . , . . . . . . . . . 1,896 1,519 6.9 6.7 7.4 6.8

Age

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

30-44 vears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parity

Oparity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

lparity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2parity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3parity ormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Labor force status

In laborforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not in laborforce . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Religion

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

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

Jewish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Geographic region

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

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

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

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

22,923

12,126

10,798

4,872

5,291

6,587

6,174

11,084

11,804

13,905

6,871

642

1,454

5,031

6,424

7,611

3,857

20,553

10,921

9,632

4,535

4,674

5,940

5,404

9,726

10,792

12,183

6,447

641

1,234

4,624

6,054

6,405

3,470

962

933

822

697

8.5

5.0

8.4

4,7

8.8

5.9

*8.1

* 5.4

219

500

519

658

227

366

14.1

10.3

3,8

1.4

13.2

10.1

3.9

1.1

26.2

11.0

●2.3

“2.3

11.5

‘11.6

*7.7

*0.3

443

484

1,170

725

643

877

7.4

6.4

7.3

6.1

8.2

6.1

5.8

+7.5

1,645

158

88

294

1,152

6.8

7.0

8.0

7.3

6.8

6.7

8.0

5.2

6.4

*6.5

“27.3

‘4.4

*7.9

63

291

270

1,120

215

279

138

611

491

6.7

5.8

7.1

8.6

5.7

5.9

6.9

8.8

*1 2.1

*3.9

7.7

‘ 3.4

*1 5.3

*4.3

‘5.0

*5.1

Ilncludes white, black, and other races.

21ncluda~ all women reporting anv Hi$panic ~rigin, regardl~~~ of race or other ~thnic ~~igin~ ~epo~t~d; ~~~~n of Hispanic~~igin are included inth~

statistics by race.

NOTE: Statistics are based on a sample of the household population of theconterminous United States. Seeappendixes for discussion of the sample

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

30
Appendixes

Contents

1. Technical notes

Background .

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

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

Statistical design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Measurement process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Data reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reiiabiiity ofestimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nonsampling error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Il. Definitions ofterms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ill. Selected sections ofthe Currently Married Women Questionnaireof the National Survey of Family Growth. . . . . . . . . .

List of appendix tables

1.

II.

Ill.

Parameters used to compute estimated standard errors and relative standard errors of numbers and percents of women,

by marital status andrace: 1976 National Survey ofFamilyGrowth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Approximate relative standard errors and standard errors for estimated numbers of currently married women of all races

combined: 1976 National Survey of Family Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Approximate standard errors expressed in percentage points for estimated percents of currently married women of al I

races combined: 1976National Survey ofFamilyGrowth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32

32

32

33

33

33

36

37

39

34

34

35

31
Appendix L Technical notes

Background

This report is one of a series based on the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), conducted

by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).

The NSFG was designed to provide data on fertility,

family planning, and aspects of maternal and child

health that are closely related to childbearing.

The NSFG is a periodic survey based on personal

interviews with a nationwide sample of women. Detailed descriptions of the methods and procedures

used in Cycle I and Cycle II of the NSFG have been

published in previous reports .7,g This appendix presents a summary discussion of the more important

technical aspects of Cycle II.

Fieldwork for Cycle II was carried out under a

contract with NCHS by Westat, Inc., between January and September of 1976, The sample is representative of women 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 contraception

and the planning status of each pregnancy, their use

of maternal care and family planning services, fecundity impairments and their expectations about future

births, and a wide range of social and economic characteristics, Although the time required to complete

the interviews varied considerably, the average Cycle

11interview 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

NOTE: A list of references follows the text

32

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 uniits (PSU’s).

A PSU consisted of a county, a small group of contiguous counties, or a standard metropolitan statistical area as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census

in 1970. The second and third stages of sampling

were used to select 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 the household, was listed as

being in the household, an extended interview was

conducted. If more than one woman in the household

met the eligibility criteria, one of the women was randomly selected for an extended interview.

The statistics in this report are estimates for the

national population and were computed by multiplying each sample case by the number of women she

represented in the population. The multipliers, or

final weights, ranged from 647 to 43,024 and averaged 3,822. They were derived by using three basic

steps:

. Injlation 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 gratification b.v marital status, age, and

race.–The estimates were ratio adjusted within

each of 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 never-married women with coresident

offspring were inflated by the first and second

steps only.

The effect of the ratio-estimating process was to

make the sample more closely representative of the

population of women 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 variance of

the estimates for most statistics.

AII 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 in another NCHS report.lo Two different

forms of the questionnaire were used, one for interviewing currently married women and the other for

interviewing widowed, divorced, separated, or nevermarried women with coresident offspring. The two

forms differed mainly in wording when reference was

NOTE: A list of references follows the text.

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 dons on a systematic sample of each

coder’s questionnaires. The data were edited by computer to identify inconsistencies between responses,

as well as code numbers that were not allowed in the

coding scheme; these errors were corrected.

Missing data on age and race were imputed because they were used in the nonresponse adjustments

and for poststratification. Unlike Cycle I, however,

other missing data items were not imputed to expedite release of the data. Therefore, percents and other

statistics in Cycle H were based on cases with known

data. For most variables, the level of missing data was

much Iess 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 variabIes for which missing data may

pose a problem for analysis (e.g., poverty level income), this fact is noted in the text.

Reliability of estimates

Because the statistics presented in this report are

based on a sample, they may differ somewhat from

the figures that would have been obtained if a complete census had been taken using the same questionnaires, instructions, interviewing personnel, and field

procedures. This chance difference between sample

results and a complete count is referred to as sampIing 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 sampIe 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, con33
ventional formulas for calculating sampling errors are

inapplicable. Standard errors were, therefore, estimated empirically, by using a technique known as

balanced half-sample replication. This technique produces highly reliable, unbiased estimates of sampling

errors. Its application to the NSFG has been

described elsewhere.7!9

Because it would be prohibitively expensive to

estimate, and cumbersome to publish, a standard

error for each percent or other statistic by this technique, standard errors were computed for selected

statistics and population subgroups that were chosen

to represent a wide variety of demographic characteristics and a wide variation in the size of the estimates themselves. Curves were then fitted to the relative standard error estimates (ratio of the standard

error to the estimate itself) for numbers of women

according to the model

RSE(JV’)= (A + B/lV’)x

where N- is the number of women and A and B are

the parameters whose estimates determine the shape

of the curve. Separate curves were fitted for women

of all races combined, for black women, and for

women of races other than black, because different

sampling rates were used for black and other women.

The estimates of A and B are shown in table I.

To calculate the estimated standard error or relative standard error of an aggregate or percent, the

appropriate estimates of A and B are used in the

equations:

RSE~# = (A + B/N’)fi

SE~, = (A +B/N’)% X N’

RSEP, = (B/P’ X (100 - P’)/X’)%

SEPJ= @ 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 women

compared with black women, is approximately the

NOTE: A list of references follows the text.

34

Table 1. Parameters used to compute estimated standard errors and

relative standard errors of numbers and percents of women, by

marital status and race: 1976 National Survey of Family Growth

Parameter

Marital status and race

A B

Currently married

All races . . . . . . . . . . . . -0.0001858989 6751.0619

Whit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -0.0002056235 7021.1665

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -0.0006310400 2798.6440

Ever married

All races . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0001700390 6486.5185

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0000422037 7111.5185

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -0.0004520643 2848.2362

Table II. Approximate wlativestandarderrors and standard errors for

estimated numbers of currently married women of all races

combined: 1976 National Survey of Family Growth

Size of estimate

Re/a tive Standard

standard

error

error

50,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

square root of the sum of ‘“ -.. , .

ard errors of the statistics

calculated by the formula,

if

tne squares o~ the stanUconsidered separately, or

then

- P;

where P; is the estimated percent for one group, and

P! is the estimated percent for the other group, and

RSEPi and RSEP2 are the relative standarcl errors of

P; and P;, respectively. This formula will represent

the actual standard error quite accurately fiorthe difference between separate and uncorrelated characteristics, although it 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 would be expected by chance in

less than 5 percent of repeated samples of the same

size and type if no true difference existed in the
Table 1Il. Approximate standard errors expressed in percentage points for estimated percents of currently married women of all races combined:

1976 National Survey of Family Growth

Estimated percent

Base of percent 2 or 5 or 7 or 10 or 15 or 20 or 30 or 40 or

98 95 93 90 85 80 70 60

50

Standard error expressed in percentage points

100,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 5.7 6.6 7.8 9.3 10.4 11.9 12.7 13.0

500,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.2 4.7 5.3 5.7 5.8

1,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 1.8 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.8 4.0 4.1

3,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.4

5,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.8

7,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.6

10,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.3

20,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9

Example of use of table Ill: If 30 percent of currently married women in a specific cetegory used the oral contraceptive pill and the base of that

percent was 10,000,000, then the30-pert.ent column and the 10,000,000 row would incidate that 1 standard error is 1.2 percentage points and 2

standerd errors are twice that, or 2.4 percentage points. Therefore, the chences are about 95 out of 100 that the true percent in the population was

betwaen 27.5 and32.4percent (30.0 percant *2.4 percent). This iscalled a95-percent confidence interval. I n addition, the relativa standard error of

that 30-percent estimate is 1.2 parcent divided by30percent, or4.O percent.

populations sampled. Such adifference would bestatistically significant at the 0.05 level. By this criterion, ifthe observed difference oralarger one could

be expected bychance in more than5 percent ofrepeated 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 bestatistically 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 0.01

(1-percent) level, but if one can accept a 10-percent

chance of concluding a difference exists when there

actually is none in the population, a test of significance at the 0.10 level would be appropriate.

The term “similar” means that any observed difference between two estimates being compared is not

statistically significant, but terms such as “greater,”

“less,” “larger,” and “smaller” indicate that the

observed differences are statistically significant at the

0.05 level, by using a two-tailed t-test with 40 degrees

of freedom. Statements about differences that are

qualified in some way (e.g., by the use of the phrases

“the data suggest” or “some evidence”) indicate that

the difference is significant at the 0.10 level, but not

at the 0.05 level.

When a substantial difference observed is found

not to be statistically significant, one should not conclude that no difference exists, but simply that such

a difference cannot be established with 95-percent

confidence from this sample. Lack of comment in the

text about any two statistics does not mean that the

difference was tested and found not to be significant.

The number of replicates in the balanced halfsample replication design (40 for Cycle II) can reasonably be used as an estimate of the number of degrees

of freedom, although the exact value of the degrees

of freedom is unmown. 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 had been surgically

sterilized, compared with 21.6 percent of 2,169,000

currently married black women. To test this racial

difference at the 0.05 level of significance, compute

29.0 -21.6

t

=

/(29.0)2 . RSE2 + (21 .6)2 . RSE~216j

(29.0)

By using the parameters from table I in the formula

for the RSE of a percent,

‘SE(29.0) =

7021.1665 (100 - 29.0)

29.0 “ 24,795,000

= 0.026

and

‘SE(21 .6)

‘~

= 0.068

Thus

29.0 -21.6

t=

/(29.0)2 (0.026)2 + (21 .6)2 (0.068)2

= 4.48

35
The two-tailed 0.95 critical value (1 - ~) for a t statistic with 40 degrees of freedom is 2.02. Therefore,

the difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Nonsarnpling error

Although sampling error affects the precision or

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 and missed households;

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 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

enumeration of the households that should have been

listed. In the NSFG, listing completeness and accuracy was tested indirectly in two ways. First, an independent relisting of about 20 percent of the segments

was performed, and any differences between the two

lists were pointed out to listers by supervisory staff

and reconciled. Secondly, 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 multipleDU structure, the entire structure was checked for

missed DU’S. About 700 dwelling units, or about 3

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 dwelling units to

be screened, 5,490 were found to be 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 the household

members listed, 0.4 percent with language problems,

1.7 percent where no one could be found at home,

and 1.7 percent for other reasons such as being refused access to the unit and 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 (0.6 percent), no contact after repeated calls (1.8 percent), or other problems (3.6

percent).

The nonresponse adjustment for interview nonresponse described earlier imputes the characteristics

of responding women of the same age group, race,

marital status, and geographic area to nonresponding

women.

Item 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 not recorded by the interviewer, or where the

answer was not codable. Nonresponse to individual

questions was very low in Cycle II, as in Cycle L

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; 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 sources and amount of income.

Unlike Cycle II 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 11to facilitate faster release of data and data tapes from the NSFG. Assignment of missing data codes and editing of selected

variables has been performed by NSFG staff when

deemed necessary or desirable for analysis, as explained in the appropriate section of the definitions.

As with all survey data, responses to the NSFG

are subject to possible deliberate misreporting by the

respondent. Such misreporting cannot be detected

directly, but it can be detected indirectly by the extensive computer “cleaning” and editing procedures

used in the NSFG.

36
Appendix Il. Definitions of terms

Familv planning visit. –Women were considered

to have made a family planning visit if they reported

they had ever talked with a doctor or other trained

person about a method of delaying or preventing

pregnancy. These women are also referred to as family planning visitors and as users of family planning

services. Family planning visits, as defined, did not

necessarily include the prescription for a contraceptive method, or any other specific medical service.

Recent family planning visit. –A recent visit was

one that was made in the last 3 years before the interview. It was assumed that women who were sterile

or married to sterile husbands 3 years before the interview had no need of family planning services,

therefore, they were not asked about recent visits.

Place of most recent family planning visit. -

Women with a family planning visit in the last 3 years

were asked where the last (most recent) visit took

place. The term “own physician” includes visits of

the respondent with her private phys{cian, whether in

the physician’s office or in a hospital; it includes

group practices and prepaid medical organizations.

The term “organized medical services” includes visits

to all other places: general clinics, family planning

clinics, hospitals, or elsewhere. The category “own

physician” is also referred to as personal physician

and private physician. The category “organized medical services” is also referred to as clinics. The information needed to classify place of last visit was not

ascertained for 3.2 percent of the respondents.

Methods recommended. –Recent family planning

visitors were asked if a doctor or other trained person

at the last visit recommended that they change contraceptive methods or start using a method. If such a

recommendation was made, it was classified according to the specific method recommended. Sterilization, oral contraceptives, and the intrauterine device

are presented separately and are sometimes referred

to as the more effective methods. All other methods

were combined in the category “traditional methods.” The information needed to classify methods

recommended was not ascertained for 3.4 percent of

the respondents.

Methods currently used. –Women who reported

they (or their husbands) had been sterilized for contraceptive reasons, and women who reported they

were using some method of contraception at the time

of interview, were classified according to the specific

method used, including contraceptive sterilization.

Nonsterile. –For this report, women were considered to be sterile if they reported it was impossible

for them and their husbands to conceive as a result of

an operation, accident, or illness that occurred before

January 1973. All other women were considered to

be nonsterile at the beginning of the period for which

their use of family planning services was reported.

Although nonsterile, some of these women had a degree of reproductive impairment.

Infertility services. –Women were considered to

have used infertility services if they reported that in

the 3 years before the interview they had talked with

a doctor or other trained person about increasing

their chances of having a baby.

Age. –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 black, white,

or other. Race refers to the race of the woman

interviewed.

Hispanic origin. –A respondent was classified as

“being of Hispanic ongin” if she reported her origin

or descent as Mexicano, Chicano, Mexican American,

Puerto Rican, Cuban, or other Spanish regardless of

whether she also mentioned any other origin.

In tables where data are presented for women

according to race and Hispanic origin, women of Hispanic origin are included in the statistics for white

and black women if they were identified as such by

the interviewer.

Marital status. –Persons are classified by marital

status as “married ,“ “widowed ,“ “divorced ,“ “sepa37
rated,” or “never married.” Married persons include

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. ”

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-3.11 This

definition takes into account 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. The information needed to classify poverty level was not ascertained for 15.7 percent of the respondents. Because

of this relatively high level of missing data, caution is

recommended in interpreting the statistics on poverty

level.

Household population. –The household population consists of persons living in households. A household is a person or a group of persons where no more

than five are unrelated to the head of the household,

who occupy a room or group of rooms intended as

separate living quarters; that is, the occupants do not

live and eat with any other persons in the structure.

Either direct access from the outside of the building

or through a common hall, or complete kitchen facilities for the exclusive use of the occupants of the

household must be present.

Parity.–Parity refers to the number of live births

a woman has had. A woman with no live births is

classified in obstetrical and demographic terminology

as “nulliparous” or of “zero parity”; a woman with

one live birth is classified as “primaparous” or of

“first parity,” and so forth. A woman’s parity in

these surveys is determined from the questions:

“Have you given birth to a baby at any time?” and,

if yes, “Altogether, how many babies have you given

birth to, including any who died very young?” The

accuracy of this information is further verified by obtaining detailed data about each pregnancy and additional information on those pregnancies ending in live

birth. A complete pregnancy history was the primary

focus of the survey and information on the number

of live births and number of pregnancies was obtained

for 100 percent of the respondents.

Religion. –Women were classified by religion in

response to the question: “Are you Protestant,

NOTE: A list of references follows the text.

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 then 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 have been combined in larger

categories.

Labor force status. –A woman is categorized as

“being in the labor force” if she was working full or

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.

Region 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 comprising th~ese four

major geographic regions are:

Geographic region

and division States included

Northeast

New England . . . . . . .

Middle Atlantic . . . . .

North Central

East North Cantral . . .

West North Central. . .

South

South Atlantic . . . . . .

East South Central . . .

West South Central. . .

West

Mountain . . . . . . . . . .

Pacific . . . . . . . . . . .

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,

Massachusetts, Rhode Island,

Connecticut

New York, New Jersey, Permsylvania

Ohio, Indiana, I Ilinois, Michigan,

Wisconsin

Minnesota, lowa, Missouri, North

Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska,

Kansas

Delaware, Maryland, District of

Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia,

North Carolina, South Carc)lina,

Georgia, Florida

Kentuckyr Tennessee, Alabama,

Mississippi

Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma,

Texas

Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colo- ‘

rado, New Mexico, Arizona, lJtah,

Nevada

Washington, Oregon, Alaska, California, Hawaii

38
Appendix Ill. Selected sectionsof

the Currently Married Women

Questionnaire of the National

Survey of Family Growth

CONTINUE DECK 17

Box 41, ]F R OR HUSBAND STERILE BEFORE JANUARY, 1973 (SEE D-4), GO TO E+I,

OTHERWISE, CONTINUE.

I

E-9 , During the Past three years, has a doctor or other trained vrson

prescribed, or talked with you about a method for delayzng or

pzeve”tu.g a pregnancy?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (E-12) *,

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2(E-IOJ

E-10. Have YOU ever had a discussion “i’ch a doctor or other trained

person about methods to delay or prevent a pregnancy?

Y= S. . . . . . . . . . . . ..l [E-111.*

No . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2 (E-28)

E-n, when WaS the V=Y fire tme YOU had a d,scus.mn with a doctor or ,, ,, ,, ,,

other trained person about ,nethods

todelay or prevent a pregnancy?

+.-fE-18’~ MONT YSAR

D.K. or Den Vtrem-mber . . . 9898 (Probe)

PROBE: Well, how old were you at that time?

(,-,’, m

~...”...”.. ..

D.K. or 20n’t remmher . . . . 9S (C-18)

E-12. The last t,me YOU talked with a doctor or trained wrson about a

nb?th.ad,did he or she recomne”d that you change mxlmds Qr that

you start using a method?

No recomndatzm. . . . . . . 1 (E-15)

Recommendation to

Start ● ImthOd. . . . . . . . 2 [E-lsJ ,,

Seconmmndatio. to

change method . . . . . . . . 3 (E-12A)

E-12A, mat method were You usin9 at the t,=the zeco=ndation to

change meth.aas was ma.fe7

(USE METHOD CODES FROM &- 13)

!WTM2D CODE ‘E-”) mm

E-13, what method was recommended? icODc AZ m A2 ENTIONED) .

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

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

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

Jelly, cream, supwsitory. . . . . .

Diaphragm ~ Jelly. . . . . . . . .

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

lUD, Coil, LooP . . . . . . . . . . .

Ab.xtion. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Operation: Female sterilization . .

Operation: Male Sterilization . . .

COnclOm, Ru&ex, . . . . . . . . . .

Rhytlm or safe period by twnparatur.

tiythm or safe pericd by cal*ndar. .

Iiithd=awal or ca itus interrupts . .

~stinence (non-intgz.our.e tO

avoid pregnancy ).... . . . . . .

. . . . . . . A

. . . . . . . B

. . . . . . . c

. . . . . . . D

. . . . . . . E

. . . . . . . F

. . . . . . . G

. . . . . . . H

. . . . . . . J

. . . . . . . K

. . . . . . . L s,,,

. . . . . . . x

. . . . . . . N m . . . . . . . P

. . . . . . . R

Other (SPECIFY) s

E-14. Did h. or ~he di=usm p~=ible side ●ffects or problem with YOU

or your husband?

Yes . . . . . . ..- . . ...1

m . . . . . . . . . . . ...2

,*

39
E-15,

CONTINUE DECK 17

Where was it that you talked with a doctor or other trained person

about a method for delaying or preventing a pregnancy?

(PROBE TO FIND OUT IF A “CLINIC” OR “OFFICE” WAS EXCLUSIVELY

FOR FAMILY PLANWING . IF SO, CODE “3.“ OTHERWISE, CODE ‘Il.

OR “2.”]

own doctor *s office/group of doctors . . . . . . . 1 (E-17)

General medical clinic, hospital out-patient

clinic or public health clinic . . . . . , . . . 2 (E-17)

Family planning cllnic or counseling office. . . . 3 (E-17) 3Y

While hospital in-patient. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 (E-16)

Somewhere else (SPECIFY) 5 (E-17)

E-16. ~ge~;Jse~g; Your re9ular doctor, a doctor assigned to you, 01

RegUlar doctor . . . . . . . . 1

Assigned doctor. . . . . . . . 2

someone else (SPECIFY)

3

E-17, when was the very first time YOU had a discussion with a doctor or

other trained person about methods to delay or prevent a

pregnancy? .1 42 *3 b+

/

MONTH/YEAR

D.K. or Donft remember . . . 9898 (Probe)

PROBE : Well, how old were you at that time? 4$ 66

m

AGE

D.K. or Don’t remember . . . . 98

E-18, In the Past three Years, have YOU talked with a medical doctor

or to any other trained person about increasing your chances

of having a baby?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (E-19)

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (E-20) 47

E-19, ~b~b;d you last go for help to ancrease your chances of having

48 43 50 51

&

E-20. In the past three years, have you used a calendar or temperature

method of rhythm to increase your chances of becoming pregnant?

That is, in order to know the days when you are most likely to

become pregnant.

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (E-21) ,2

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (E-22)

E-21, In which months were you trying to become pregnant this way?

(ENTER OATES ON APPROPRIATE LINES.) PROBE : What other nunths?

STARTED (IF) STOPPED

““T ‘1” A &

SECOND TIME

k+ MONT YEAR

CHECK IF 3 OR MORE TIMES

o

53 s+ S5 56 ,7 s, s, ‘0

HHI III

al 62 69 6* 65 66 $7 cm

IHI III

c1

40
BEGIN DECK 18

E-22, :a;&SPa5f th..=eyears, have you used the pill for medical

x

-- not for delaying or preventing pregnancy?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (E-23) 13

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (Section F)

E-zs, can you tell me when you started using the Pill thi;#B; and when

YOU stopped? (ENTER DATES ON APPRoPRIATE LIWES .) : What other times?

FISST TIMS

.= ‘z]

‘EcOND “ME immAi74

CHECK IF 3 OR MORE TIMES

o 1

lb 15 16 17 la 19 2s 21

1111

(Section F) 22 *, 24 25 *6

27 20 2$

IH II

El

E-24, Have you g had a discussion with a doctor or other trained

person about methods to delay or prevent a pregnancy?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (E-25) *,

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (Section F)--

E-25. When was the very first time you had a discussion with a doctor or

other trained person about methods

32 91 Sk ,5

to delay or prevent a pregnancy?

w=#%k ~ ~ --- “(s’”’’O”’) =

D.K. or Don-t remember . . . 9898 (Probe)

PROBE : well, how old were you at that time? 36 17

AGE m

D.K. or Don’t remember . . . . 98

41
.,

..

-.

Vital and Health Statistics series descriptions

SERIES 1.

SE RI ES2.

SERIES 3.

SE RI ES4.

SERIES 10.

SERIES 11

SERIES 13.

Programs and Collection Procedural–Reports describing

the general programs of the National Center for Health

statistics and its offices and divisions and the data COI.

Iection methods used. They also include definitions and

other mater-ml necessary for understanding the data.

Data Evaluation and Methods Research .–Stu dies of new

statistical methodology including experimental tests of

new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection

methods, new analytical techniques, objective evaluations

of reliability of collected data, and contributions to statistical theory.

Analytical and Epidemiological Studies. –Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies based on vital

and health statistics, carrying the analysis further than

the expository types of reports in the other series.

Documents and Committee Reports. – Final reports of

major committees concerned with vital and health statistics and documents such as recommended m~el vital

registration laws and revised birth and death certificates.

Data From the National Health Interview Survey .–Stattstics on Illness, accidental injuries, disability, use of hospital, medical, dental, and other services, and other

health-related topics, all based on data collected in the

continuing national household interwew survey.

Data From tha National Health Examination Survey and

the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.–

Data from direct examination, testing, and measurement

of national samples of the civilian noninstitutlonalized

population provide the basis for ( 1) estimates of the

medically defined prevalence of specific disqases in the

United States and the distributions of the population

with respect to physical, physiological, and psychological characteristics and (2) analysis of relationships

among the various measurements without reference to

an explicit finite universe of persons.

Data From the Institutionalized Population Suweys. –Discontinued in 1975. Reports from these surveys are included in Series 13.

Data on Health Resources Utilization. –Statistics on the

utilization of health manpower and facilities providing

SERIES 14.

SERIES 15.

SERIES 20.

SERIES 21.

SERIES 22.

SERIES 23.

long-term care, ambulatory care, hospital care, and family

planning sewices.

Data on Health Resources: Manpower and Facilities.–

Statistics on the numbers, geographic distribution. and

characteristics of health resources includlng physicians,

dentists, nurses, other health occupations, hospitals,

nursing homes, and outpatient facilities.

Data From Special Surveys.-Statistlcs on health and

health-related topics collected m special surveys that

are not a part of the continuing data systems of the

National Center for Health Statistics.

Data on Mortality .–Various statistics on mortal Ity other

than as included in regular annual or monthly reports.

Special analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables; geographic and time series analyses;

and statistics on characteristics of deaths not available

from the vital records based on sample surveys of those

records.

Data on Natality. Marriage, and Divorce. -Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce other than as

included in regular annual or monthly reports. SPecial

analyses by demographic variables; geographic and time

series analyses; studies of fertility; and statistics nn

characteristics of births not available from the vital

records based on sample suweys of those records.

Data From the National Mortality and Natality Surveys.–

Discontinued in 1975. Reports from thesesample surveys

based on wtal records are included in Series 20 and 21,

respect ively.

Data From the National Survey of Family Growth. –

Statistics on fertility, family formation and dissolution,

family planning, and related maternal and infant health

topics derived from a periodic survey 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

NaIional Cenler for Health Statistics

Public Health Service

Hyattsville, Md. 20782