Number 60 n October 18, 2012

Current Contraceptive Use in the United States, 2006–2010, and Changes in Patterns of Use Since 1995 by Jo Jones, Ph.D.; William Mosher, Ph.D.; and Kimberly Daniels, Ph.D., Division of Vital Statistics

Abstract Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) coordinates both these Objective—Use of contraception and the effectiveness of the method used to data collection efforts. NSFG data are prevent pregnancy are major factors affecting national pregnancy and birth rates and analyzed in this report in part to the ability of women to plan their pregnancies. This report presents national understand recent changes and group estimates of contraceptive use among women of childbearing age (15–44 years) in differences in birth and pregnancy rates 2006–2010. Selected comparisons are made with 1995 data to describe changes in as documented in recent National Vital contraceptive use and in method choice over time. Statistics Reports. Methods— Data for 2006–2010 were collected through in-person interviews with Changes in contraceptive method 22,682 women and men aged 15–44 years in the household population of the United use are shown by comparing the 1995 States. Interviews were conducted by female interviewers in the homes of sampled and 2006–2010 NSFG surveys. The persons. This report is based primarily on the sample of 12,279 women interviewed in 1995 NSFG was a periodic survey 2006–2010; some tables are supplemented with the sample of 10,847 women interviewed designed to interview a large number of in 1995. women within a short period of time, Results—Sixty-two percent of women of reproductive age are currently using between January and October 1995; the contraception. Of women using a contraceptive method in the month of the interview, the 2006–2010 NSFG was designed to most common methods used are the pill (28%, or 10.6 million women) and female continuously interview smaller numbers sterilization (27%, or 10.2 million women). Use of intrauterine devices as a current of women for a longer period, between method has increased since 1995 (from 0.8% in 1995 to 5.6% in 2006–2010), whereas June 2006 and June 2010 (2,3). These fewer women report that their partners are using condoms as their current, most effective two surveys contain the largest samples contraceptive method. Of women at risk of an unintended pregnancy, 11% report not of women in the NSFG’s history— currently using a method of contraception. 10,847 in 1995 and 12,279 in 2006– Keywords: condoms • pill • unintended pregnancy • National Survey of Family 2010, allowing detailed comparisons Growth that were not possible in previous reports (4,5). Introduction national data that supplement and Reducing the percentage of all complement the National Vital Statistics pregnancies that are unintended has been one of the national health Use of contraception and data on registered births in the United States, by collecting data on the factors promotion (‘‘Healthy People’’) birth and pregnancy rates in objectives since they were first the United States that affect those rates—including sexual activity, marriage, divorce, cohabitation, established in 1980 (6–8). The Healthy The National Survey of Family contraceptive use, and infertility (1). People objectives have placed some Growth (NSFG) is designed to provide The Centers for Disease Control and emphasis as well on reducing disparities

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics Page 2 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012

Table A. Birth rates, percentage of births to unmarried women, and percentage of pregnancies unintended: United States, 1995 and 2008

Total Hispanic Non-Hispanic white1 Non-Hispanic black1 Asian1

1995 2008 1995 2008 1995 2008 1995 2008 1995 2008

Total fertility rate per woman2 ...... 1.98 2.07 2.80 2.71 1.78 1.87 2.19 2.12 1.80 1.80 Birth rate, women aged 15–193 ...... 56 40 99 70 39 27 97 60 26 14 Birth rate, women aged 20–243 ...... 108 102 172 154 90 83 138 132 64 50 Percent of births to unmarried women4 ...... 32 41 41 53 21 29 70 72 16 17 Percent of pregnancies unintended5 ...... 48 49 49 53 42 40 69 67 --­ --­

- - - Data not available. 1Race is categorized using the 1977 Office of Management and Budget standards. Data for Asian includes Pacific Islander and those of Hispanic ethnicity. 2The total fertility rate as presented here is the sum of birth rates for 5-year age groups multiplied by 5 and divided by 1,000. The 1995 data are from Martin et al., 2010, Table 4 (Asian) and Table 8; 2008 data are from Hamilton et al., 2011, Table S-2. 3Birth rates are births per 1,000 women. The 1995 data are from Martin et al., 2010, Table 4 (Asian) and Table 8; 2008 data are from Hamilton et al., 2011, Table S-2. 4The 1995 data are from Ventura et al., 1997, Table 10 (Asian) and Table 11; 2008 data are from Martin et al., 2010, Table 13 (Asian) and Table 14. 5The 1995 data are from Finer and Henshaw, 2006, Table 1 and are based on 1994 data; 2008 data are from Finer and Zolna, 2011, Table 1 and are based on 2006 data.

in unintended pregnancy among groups in 1995 to 41% in 2008. There was no they show that the average probability with higher levels and rates (4,9–12); change in the overall percentage of of having an unintended pregnancy in these groups include teenagers, pregnancies that were unintended one year of typical contraceptive use (of unmarried adults, and low-income and (Table A) (17). all methods) in the United States was minority populations. In 1999, family However, these total rates and about 12%. planning, defined as ‘‘the ability to percentages mask differences evident The chance a woman will have an achieve desired birth spacing and family among Hispanic origin and racial groups unintended pregnancy within the first size,’’ was noted as 1 of 10 in both 1995 and 2008 and over time. In year of using a contraceptive method ‘‘achievements in public health’’ in the 1995, Hispanic women had the highest varies significantly by which method 20th century because of its contributions TFR at 2.80 compared with 1.78 for she uses. Hormonal methods (e.g., the pill, and injectable and implantable to the health of infants, children, and non-Hispanic white women. The TFR contraceptives) and the intrauterine women (13). decreased to 2.71 for Hispanic women device (IUD) are more effective at Data on patterns of contraceptive and increased to 1.87 for white women preventing pregnancy than other use can help to understand recent trends by 2008, so although the difference methods. For example, a woman has a 1 and group differentials in birth and between Hispanic women and white in 15 chance of becoming pregnant pregnancy rates. Table A compiles a women persisted, it was smaller in 2008 within a year of typical use if she uses a number of the frequently monitored than it had been in 1995 (14,16). hormonal implant compared with a one birth rates based on the National Vital Differences by Hispanic origin and race in four probability if she relies on Statistics Birth Registration System and are also seen for the other rates and fertility awareness (18,19). Kost et from other published sources for 1995 percentages. Comparing patterns of al. (18) use the term fertility awareness and 2008 (10,11,14–16). These years contraceptive use may help to partially to describe methods women use to correspond to the year the Cycle 5 explain differences in the number of prevent pregnancy by abstaining from NSFG was conducted and the midpoint births by race and Hispanic origin, as sexual intercourse during their fertile of interviewing for the 2006–2010 well as by other sociodemographic period each month. The NSFG has NSFG. characteristics. historically used the term periodic In 2008, the total fertility rate Nearly all (99.1%) sexually abstinence to refer to these methods and (TFR) in the United States (the number experienced women in the United States distinguishes between methods that of births per woman estimated from the have used contraception at some time in identify fertile periods by counting the current set of age-specific birth rates) their lives (1). But women (or their number of days since the start of the was 2.07 children per woman, slightly partners) may not use contraception last menstrual period (calendar rhythm) higher than in 1995 (1.98). The teenage consistently or correctly and from those that use changes in birth rate, 56 births per 1,000 females subsequently become pregnant when not temperature or cervical mucus (natural aged 15–19 in 1995, fell to 40 in 2008 intending to; thus, researchers family planning). and 34 in 2010, while the birth rate of distinguish between perfect and typical Table B also shows that the overall young adult women aged 20–24 use. Estimates of the probability that a rate of contraceptive failure varies by declined more modestly from 108 in woman will become pregnant within the race and ethnicity. About 10% of 1995 to 102 in 2008, and 90 in 2010 first 12 months that a contraceptive non-Hispanic white women become (Table A) (16). In contrast, the method is used are based on typical pregnant within a year of using a percentage of all births that were to use (18). The data in Table B are based contraceptive method compared with unmarried women increased from 32% on a study of the 2002 NSFG data (18); 15% of Hispanic women and 20% of National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012 Page 3

Table B. Probability of a contraceptive failure (pregnancy) within the first 12 months of aged 15–44 years, conducted from June typical use of a contraceptive method, by method and by race 2006 through June 2010. Additional data Probability of 95% confidence from interviews with 10,847 women 1 All women pregnancy interval interviewed in the 1995 NSFG are All methods ...... 12.4 (11.2–13.7) presented in select tables. Injectable ...... 6.7 (4.3–10.4) The interview was voluntary; Pill ...... 8.7 (7.2–10.5) participants were provided information Male condom...... 17.4 (14.8–20.5) Withdrawal ...... 18.4 (13.7–24.2) about the survey before being asked for Fertility awareness ...... 25.3 (16.1–37.5) signed informed consent. The survey was reviewed and approved by NCHS’s All methods by Hispanic origin and race2 Hispanic ...... 15.0 (12.3–18.2) Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Non-Hispanic black ...... 21.3 (17.8–25.2) the University of Michigan’s IRB. The Non-Hispanic white and other ...... 10.1 (8.7–11.7) overall response rate in 2006–2010 was

1Probabilities and confidence intervals taken from Kost et al., 2008, Table 2. 77%—the response rate for women was 2Probabilities and confidence intervals taken from Kost et al., 2008, Table 3. 78% (3); in 1995, the response rate was NOTE: Based on 2002 National Survey of Family Growth data. 79% (2). To protect the respondent’s privacy, only one person was interviewed in each selected household. The interviews were conducted in non-Hispanic black women. Some of This report presents a broad person by female interviewers who these differences reflect differences in overview of current contraceptive use received thorough training on the method choice and use. across the ages in which virtually all survey; responses were entered directly births occur. Final data for births into laptop computers. Approach occurring in 2008 show that, of the total The interview collected information number of births (4.248 million), 99.7% The purpose of this report is to on a woman’s births and pregnancies, occurred to women between the ages of provide data on trends and patterns of marriages and cohabitations, sterilization 15–44 years—4.234 million births. The contraceptive use in the United States, operations, contraceptive use, infertility, remaining 0.3% occurred to females to further understanding of trends and use of medical care related to birth aged 14 years and under (5,764 births) differentials across age and racial and control, prenatal care, and social and or to women aged 45 years and over ethnic groups in birth and pregnancy demographic characteristics. In addition (7,650 births) (15). This report focuses rates, the percentage of births that are to this information, the survey collected on current contraceptive use to augment unintended, and various health issues a rich array of data on contraceptive research on the relationship of related to contraception. In doing so, use, including use of contraception at contraceptive use with unintended this report devotes some attention to two first intercourse, ever use of specific pregnancy in the United States (17). themes. contraceptives at any time prior to the Separate reports will examine interview, current use of contraception, 1) Examining selected characteristics contraceptive use at first premarital and reasons for stopping use of various of women that are known to be intercourse, ever use of contraception, methods. closely associated with and discontinuation of contraceptive The 2006–2010 NSFG was based contraceptive use (e.g., marital and methods. on a new design and fieldwork plan. cohabitation status, education, The sample is a nationally representative income, and parity). Some of these Methods multistage area probability sample factors, such as cohabitation and drawn from 110 areas across the income, are not available on birth Source of the data country. Interviewing occurred over certificate data. 4 years and was conducted in 2) The rise since 1995 in the This report is primarily based on approximately one-quarter of the proportions of women who rely on the 2006–2010 NSFG, augmented by selected primary sampling units each long-acting, reversible contraceptive the 1995 NSFG. The NSFG is jointly year. The sample is designed to produce methods—such as implants, planned and funded by NCHS and national, not state, estimates. Although injectables, the contraceptive patch, several other programs of the U.S. the sample design is new, the the contraceptive ring, and the IUD. Department of Health and Human interviewing procedures are very similar These methods were introduced or Services (see Acknowledgments). Data to what was done in previous, periodic significantly modified since the were also collected from 10,403 men in surveys. 1990s, and they are associated with 2006–2010, but are not analyzed in this As in any survey, a certain degree lower rates of unintended report. of nonsampling error may have occurred pregnancies compared with most The 2006–2010 NSFG includes data in the NSFG—including possible errors other methods. from the 12,279 interviews with women of memory, possible misunderstanding Page 4 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012 of what is being asked, and possible than one method are classified by the at preventing pregnancy (e.g., an IUD or reluctance to report the information most effective method to prevent sterilization). If they are using male or being asked for. Extensive efforts to pregnancy they were using, because female sterilization, they could be minimize such errors were made in the method choice has the most effect on considered either as ‘‘at risk and using a design and conduct of the survey, and their risk of unintended pregnancy. method’’ (and in the denominator) or as extensive consistency checking, both Methods for ranking are based on ‘‘not at risk’’ (and excluded from during the interview and after the data research showing the failure rate for the analysis). Women who are using a were received from the interviewer was method as it is used by representative method but have not had intercourse in implemented to detect such errors and to samples of the population (i.e., the month of interview could also be correct them when possible (20,21). ‘‘typical’’ use as discussed above). Much considered as ‘‘not at risk’’ and Further details on this topic and all of this research is based on past cycles excluded. This, however, would exclude aspects of the survey can be found in of the NSFG (18,19,25). More women interviewed early in a month earlier reports (2,20,21). information on ranking methods can be who are sexually active but have not, as found elsewhere (1). yet, had intercourse that month. It would Measurement of also exclude women who have taken contraceptive use Measurement of race and steps to protect themselves from Measuring contraceptive use during Hispanic origin pregnancy in anticipation of sexual heterosexual intercourse is one of the debut or activity as some methods (e.g., central goals of the NSFG, because it is The Office of Management and the pill) are not 100% effective a key factor affecting birth and Budget (OMB) provides standards for immediately depending on where a pregnancy rates and family formation. the reporting of race and ethnicity in woman is in her cycle when she starts The questions on contraception include: government reports. These standards are using it (22). The measure, as defined periodically revised. Race classification above, is a conservative estimate of the + Whether she or a partner has ever in Table A is based on 1977 OMB proportion of women who are at risk of used each of 22 methods of standards (26) because that is how race a pregnancy because it includes the contraception at any time in her life. is presented in the reports from which largest possible number of women at + Whether she or her partner used any these figures were drawn (14–16). Race risk in the denominator. of these methods the first time she classification in the other tables is based had intercourse with a male. on the 1997 OMB standards (27). Statistical analysis + What method or methods she is currently using. Measurement of ‘‘at risk’’ of Statistics for this report were + Whether she has stopped using a unintended pregnancy produced using SAS™ software, Version method because of dissatisfaction 9.3 (http://www.sas.com). The sampling with the method, and what her Consistent with previous reports errors were produced with SUDAAN™ reasons were for that dissatisfaction. (1,5), women are considered to be ‘‘at software, which is designed to handle risk’’ of an unintended pregnancy if the complex sample design used by the The specific contraceptive methods 1) they are using a method of NSFG (http://www.rti.org/sudaan). All discussed below are defined and contraception during the month of estimates in this report were weighted to described in many other sources, interview, or 2) they are not using a reflect the reproductive-age female including some for health care method of contraception in the month of household population of the United professionals (22) and others for patients interview, but have had sexual States across the years 2006–2010. (23,24). intercourse in the prior 3 months. Women aged 15–44 years living on Women who are 1) pregnant, seeking to military bases or in institutions were not Measuring current use when two become pregnant, or postpartum; included in the survey. Given the sample or more methods are used 2) sterile for noncontracepting reasons; design of the 2006–2010 NSFG, The principal purpose of the or 3) not using contraception, but have standard errors of some statistics may be classification scheme used in this report not had sexual intercourse since larger than those for 1995, despite the is to measure the extent to which menarche or in the 3 months before the larger number of women who were women are protected from unintended interview are not considered to be at interviewed in 2006–2010. For a more pregnancy by the contraceptive methods risk of an unintended pregnancy. (See detailed discussion of standard errors in they are currently using. In 2006–2010, the ‘‘Technical Notes’’ Definition of the 2006–2010 NSFG see (20). 8.6% of women who were using terms for more detail.) When percentages between groups contraception used multiple Measuring who is at risk of a were compared, significance was contraceptive methods during the same pregnancy is neither simple nor determined by using two-tailed t-tests at month (analysis not shown), similar to straightforward. Women using this the 5% level. No adjustments were earlier findings (1). In this report, those definition of at risk can be using a made for multiple comparisons. Terms women who were currently using more method that is virtually 100% effective such as ‘‘greater than’’ and ‘‘less than’’ National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012 Page 5 indicate that a statistically significant difference was found. Terms such as Not using All other reasons Using contraception, for nonuse contraception, ‘‘similar’’ or ‘‘no difference’’ indicate 38% Female 62% that the statistics being compared were sterilization not significantly different. Lack of 10% comment regarding the difference 17% No sex ever/ between any two statistics does not last 3 months mean that the difference was tested and 19% found not to be significant. The data 17% Pill presented in this report are bivariate associations that may be explained by 9% other factors not controlled for in the 10% Pregnant/post 18% tables or included in the report. partum/seeking In the description of the results Condom below, when the percentage being cited is below 10%, the text will cite the All other percentage to 1 decimal point. To make contraceptive methods reading easier and to remind the reader SOURCES: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010, and Table 1 of this report. that the results are based on samples and subject to sampling error, Figure 1. Percent distribution of women aged 15–44 years, by whether they are using percentages above 10 will generally be contraception and by reasons for nonuse and methods used: United States, 2006–2010 shown rounded to the nearest whole percentage. In this report, percentages are not shown if the sample unintended pregnancy by age. Overall in women used a contraceptive method denominator is less than 100 cases, or 2006–2010, 62% of women aged 15–44 during the month of interview. the numerator is less than 5 cases. When were using a method of contraception in + White women are more likely to use a percentage or other statistic is not the month of interview and 38% were the pill (21%) as their current method shown for this reason, the table contains not (Table 1, Figure 1). The percentage of contraception than Asian (12%), an asterisk (*) signifying that the using and the type of method used vary Hispanic (12%), or black women ‘‘statistic does not meet standards of significantly by age. (9.9%). reliability or precision.’’ For most + A larger percentage of U.S.-born statistics presented in this report, the + About 31% of all teenagers 15–19 Hispanic women (26%) are not using numerators and denominators are much years were using a method of contraception because they have larger. contraception at the time of the never had intercourse, or they have interview; 59% of women in this age not had intercourse in the 3 months group had never had intercourse, or Results before the survey compared with had not had intercourse in the prior 3 foreign-born Hispanic women (14%) months. Current contraceptive use or white women (18%). + The percentage of women currently At any specific point in time, using contraception increases The characteristics of women women of childbearing age are using or monotonically with age, so that by associated with the current use of not using contraception depending on aged 40–44 years, 75% of women contraception differ if one looks at all whether they are sexually active and were using contraception. women or restricts analysis to women their current plans, intentions, and + Consistent with earlier findings, the who are at risk of an unintended expectations for future births. These pill is more often used by younger pregnancy (Table 3). Further, the plans may be influenced by a number of women, whereas female or male characteristics of women at risk of an factors, including: whether they are sterilization is used more frequently unintended pregnancy who are using a sterile, infertile, or subfecund; their by older women (1,4,5). contraceptive method may differ from perceived ability to become pregnant; those who are not. Among women at and their age, race and ethnicity, marital A larger percentage of white women risk of an unintended pregnancy, 89% status, income, religion, and past fertility (66%) were using a method of are using and 11% are not using (1,4,5,28). Table 1 examines all women contraception in the month of interview contraception (Table 3). The following by whether they are currently using compared with Hispanic (60%) or black discussion focuses on the subset of contraception, the contraceptive method (54%) women (Table 2). women who are most at risk of an chosen among users, and categories of + Similar percentages of foreign-born unintended pregnancy—those who have nonuse among nonusers in order to (62%) and U.S.-born (57%) Hispanic had sexual intercourse in the last 3 describe differentials in the risk of Page 6 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012 months but are currently not using contraceptive method is influenced by failure rates than the condom when they contraception. her past fertility, her future fertility are used for contraception (Table B). intentions, her previous experience with + The percentage of women not using various methods, and the availability of Age and marital or cohabiting contraception declines with age. methods. For example, if a woman has status About one in five (18%) women aged had all the children she desires, she may Previous research has shown that a 15–19 years at risk of an unintended choose sterilization as her contraceptive woman’s choice of contraceptive method pregnancy is currently not using method, whereas if a woman wants to varies by age, marital status, educational contraception compared with 9.7% of delay a pregnancy, she may choose a attainment, Hispanic origin and race, women aged 25–44 years. reversible method such as one of the and other sociodemographic + Never-married women are more likely new methods that have become characteristics (1,5). Overall, between to not be currently using available since 1995. These include 1995 and 2006–2010 there were few contraception (17%) compared with other hormonal methods such as the changes in the use of female or male women who are married (7.5%) or contraceptive patch, the contraceptive sterilization by age or marital status cohabiting (9.8%). ring, a newer type of implant, and a (Table 4). There were changes, though, + Fourteen percent of women with no more recently developed IUD (22– in the current use of other contraceptive births and 17% of women with one 24,29). methods by these characteristics. birth were not using contraception, Tables 4–9 document changes in Although women of all ages were less twice as many as women who have contraceptive method use over time by likely to be using the condom as their had two births (7.1%). comparing contracepting women most effective method of contraception, + Intentions for additional births are interviewed in 1995 with those the decrease in condom use was largest associated with contraceptive use. A interviewed in 2006–2010. In addition, among teenagers. Condom use, as the higher percentage of women who they compare methods of current most effective method of contraception, intended more children either now or contraception among women decreased by almost one-half among at some point in the future were not interviewed in 2006–2010 by selected women aged 15–19 years—from 36% of using a contraceptive method (15%) characteristics. Tables 4–8 show teenagers in 1995 to 20% of teenagers compared with those who did not contraceptive use by selected in 2006–2010. The use of other intend to have additional children demographic characteristics of the hormonal methods increased in all age (8.6%). women, and Table 9 examines groups, but was greater among women + A significantly higher percentage of contraceptive use and method choice by under age 30 years. The increase in IUD black women are not using a method two economic indicators and a measure usage occurred mainly among women of contraception (17%) compared of the residential context—measures that aged 25–39 years. with white (9.5%), Asian (10%), and can facilitate or hinder women’s access Formerly married women are, on Hispanic women (10%). to and choice of contraception. For each average, older than never-married of these tables, comparisons between In summary, larger percentages of women so they may have completed 1995 and 2006–2010 will be discussed women who are under age 20 years, their fertility plans and choose first, followed by cross-category who are never married, and who are sterilization as their contraceptive comparisons for 2006–2010. black are at increased risk of an method; more than one-half (51% in The most common contraceptive unintended pregnancy because they are 2002 and 56% in 2006–2010) are using methods used by women and their not using contraception compared with female sterilization as their method of partners in both 1995 and 2006–2010 women of other characteristics. Table 3 contraception. Conversely, never-married were female sterilization (28% in 1995 also shows that larger percentages of women may choose a nonpermanent and 27% in 2006–2010) and the pill women who have had fewer than two method, such as the pill or other (27% in 1995 and 28% in 2006–2010) live births or who intend more children hormonal methods, in order to delay (Table 4). Condom usage, as the most are not currently using contraception childbearing until a later date. Never- effective contraceptive method currently compared with those who have had two married women may also choose the being used, declined from 20% to 16% or more live births and those who do condom alone to avoid pregnancy or in between 1995 and 2006–2010. The not intend more children. combination with another method to decline in condom usage was offset by a prevent sexually transmitted disease as 75% increase in the use of other Changes in methods of well as to avoid pregnancy. contraception used between hormonal methods (from 4.3% to 7.2%) 1995 and 2006–2010 and and a sevenfold increase in the use of + The decreased use of the condom current method choice the IUD (0.8% to 5.6%). The increased between 1995 and 2006–2010, as the availability and use of other hormonal most effective method of Different methods of contraception methods and the IUD have implications contraception used by women and are used at different life stages by for reducing nonmarital and unplanned their partners, was due to changes in women. A woman’s choice of pregnancies. These methods have lower condom use among women who were National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012 Page 7

not married or cohabiting. In 1995, Women aged 25–29 years (11%) are 1995 to 10% in 2006–2010. There 15% of formerly married women more similar to those under age 25 in was a sevenfold increase in the relied on partners to use a condom as their use of other hormonal methods percentage of women who had had their most effective contraceptive than they are to women aged two or more births over this time method compared with 7.7% in 30 years and over. period who were using an IUD, from 2006–2010. Among never-married + Of women aged 40–44 years, 0.9% in 1995 to 7.1% in 2006–2010. women, reliance on partner’s condom one-half (51%) reported their + The use of a hormonal method by use decreased from 32% in 1995 to contraceptive method was female nulliparous women, either the pill or 22% in 2006–2010. sterilization. This compares with less another hormonal method, to delay a + The overall increase in IUD use from than 3% for women aged 20–24 years first pregnancy increased 20% 1995 to 2006–2010 was greater (Table 4, Figure 2). between 1995 to 2006–2010, from among currently married or + The most frequently used method slightly more than one-half of women cohabiting women than among never among never-married (47%) and with no births (52%) in 1995 to or formerly married women. currently cohabiting women (32%) is approximately 63% in 2006–2010. the pill, whereas the leading method + Almost twice as many women who As shown in Table 4,thereare among currently (30%) or formerly intend more children used other differences in patterns of current married (56%) women is female hormonal methods in 2006–2010 contraceptive use across age and marital sterilization (Figure 3). (11%) than in 1995 (6.0%). IUD or cohabiting status groups in 2006– usage increased by about the same 2010. Parity and intent to have more amount among women who intend + Approximately 50% of women under children more children (from 0.6% to 5.5%) age 25 years use the pill: 53% of The number of children a woman as among those who intend no more those aged 15–19 and 47% of those has borne and her intentions for children (0.8% compared with 5.3%). aged 20–24 years. At aged 40–44 additional children influence her choice There are significant differences years, about 10% of women rely on of contraception (Table 5). As with age when comparisons are made across the pill for contraception (Figure 2). and marital status, patterns of method parity and intentions for more children + Other hormonal methods of choice changed between 1995 and in 2006–2010. contraception are used more 2006–2010 by these characteristics. frequently by women under age 25 + Women who have had two or more years (14%) compared with women + IUD use increased 10-fold for women births report using female (47%) or aged 25 years and over (5.1%). who had had one birth, from 1.2% in male (15%) sterilization to a greater degree than women who have not had a birth or who have had one birth. + Among women who do not intend more children, 44% report female sterilization and 16% report male 60 Female sterilization Pill sterilization as their current 53 51 contraceptive method. 50 47 Education and race and Hispanic origin 40 37 33 There were changes in current 30 method choice by educational attainment 30 25 and race and Hispanic origin between Percent 1995 and 2006–2010 (Table 6). The use 20 of other hormonal methods and the IUD 16 17 increased among all educational 9.8 categories, except for other hormonal 10 methods among high school graduates. 2.6 * The use of female sterilization dropped 0 from 38% to 27% among U.S.-born 15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 Hispanic women. Other changes by race Age and ethnicity include the following. * Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision. SOURCES: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010, and Table 4 of this report. + Pill use decreased among non- Hispanic black women from 24% to Figure 2. Percentage of contracepting women who are using female sterilization or the 18%. pill, by age: United States, 2006–2010 Page 8 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012

Combined effects of age and Female sterilization Pill Other hormonal education with race and Hispanic 60 56 origin The associations of age and 50 47 education with contraceptive method choice vary across racial and Hispanic 40 origin categories, and the patterns of use have changed between 1995 and 32 30 2006–2010. These joint associations of 30 race and Hispanic origin with age and Percent 24 with educational attainment are 19 20 17 presented in Table 7. Changes between 1995 and 12 10 10 2006–2010 by age and race and 10 7.3 Hispanic origin categories 3.9 —There were several changes within race and age 0 Currently married Currently cohabitating Formerly married Never married categories (Table 7) that occurred between 1995 and 2006–2010. However, Marital status due to small sample sizes in some SOURCES: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010, and Table 4 of this report. age-by-race categories, standard errors are relatively large, so some changes Figure 3. Percentage of contraceptors aged 15–44 years who were using female sterilization, the pill, or other hormonal methods, by marital status: United States, that occurred between 1995 and 2006–2010 2006–2010 may not be significant. + Black women under age 25 years decreased their usage of the pill from 38% in 1995 to 24% in 2006–2010. + Fewer white women relied on their There are differences by race and + White women in both age categories partner to use a condom as their most Hispanic origin in 2006–2010 in decreased their reliance on their effective contraceptive method in contraceptive use as well. partner’s use of the condom as their 2006–2010 (14%) than in 1995 + Higher percentages of black (37%) most effective contraceptive method (20%). and foreign-born Hispanic (37%) between 1995 and 2006–2010. + The use of other hormonal methods women used female sterilization increased among white (from 3.4% to Differences by age and race and compared with white women (24%), 5.3%), black (from 7.8% to 13%), Hispanic origin, 2006–2010—There U.S.-born Hispanic women (27%), or and U.S.-born Hispanic women (from were also differences in 2006–2010 by Asian women (11%) (Table 6, 5.2% to 10%). age and race. Figure 4). + Use of the IUD increased across the + Other hormonal methods are more + Among the younger age group in majority of racial and Hispanic origin frequently used by Hispanic (9.2%) 2006–2010, condom use by women’s groups. and black women (13%) compared partners as the most effective contraceptive method was higher Looking only at 2006–2010, Table 6 with white (5.3%) or Asian women among black (38%) and Hispanic shows that female sterilization decreased (3.8%). (29%) women aged 15–24 years monotonically by educational + Across race and Hispanic origin compared with white women (20%). attainment—from 55% of those with groups, use of the pill was highest less than a high school diploma to 13% among white women (32%) (Table 6, + The pill and other hormonal methods of women with a bachelor’s degree or Figure 4). were used by the younger age group higher. Conversely, use of the pill by + Use of the condom by women’s to a greater degree across all race and women and women’s partner’s use of partners as the most effective Hispanic origin categories. the condom increased with increasing contraceptive method was highest Sterilization was used mainly by the educational attainment. For example, among Asian women. For women older age group. three times as many women with a overall, 16% report using the condom Changes between 1995 and bachelor’s degree or higher rely on the (Table 4), but the percentage for 2006–2010 by education and race and pill (35%) compared with women with Asian women is 40%, about twice Hispanic origin categories less than a high school diploma (11%). —Table 7 Similar percentages of women across that for any other Hispanic origin and looks at the joint effect of race and educational categories use other race group (Table 6). education on contraceptive method hormonal methods or the IUD. choice. There were changes over time in National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012 Page 9

and ethnicity for the two broad Female sterilization Pill educational categories (Table 7). 45 + In both educational groups, black 40 37 37 women had larger percentages using 35 female sterilization as their 32 contraceptive method compared with 30 27 white and Hispanic women. + More white women in both 25 23 24 21 educational categories had male 20 Percent 18 partners who had been sterilized 17 compared with Hispanic and black 15 11 women. 10 + One-third of white women with more than a high school education used the 5 pill compared with 24% of Hispanic 0 women and 20% of black women. Hispanic, Hispanic, Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic + Non-Hispanic black women with U.S. born foreign born white black Asian more than a high school education Hispanic origin and nativity and race (13%) were about twice as likely as SOURCES: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010, and Table 6 of this report. comparable white women to use another hormonal method (5.2%). Figure 4. Percentage of contracepting women using female sterilization and the pill, by + Condoms were used more frequently Hispanic origin and nativity and race: United States, 2006–2010 by women’s partners as the most effective contraceptive method among women with more than a high school the usage of female sterilization, the pill with more than a high school education. education in all three racial and and other hormonal contraceptives, the White women increased their use of: ethnic groups. IUD, and the condom as the most + Female sterilization from 40% to Religious affiliation and other effective contraceptive method, and the 47% among those with a high school religious characteristics patterns of change varied across diploma or less categories of Hispanic origin and race. + Other hormonal methods among Contraceptive use varies by The following changes occurred among women with more than a high school religious affiliation, importance of Hispanic women within educational education, from 2.1% to 5.2% religion, and frequency of attendance at categories between 1995 and 2006– + The IUD in both educational groups religious services. The percentages of 2010. The changes in contraceptive use women by religious affiliation, + There was a decrease in the use of that occurred among non-Hispanic black importance of religion, or frequency of the pill (from 21% to 14%) among women by education between 1995 and attendance at religious services who women with a high school diploma or 2006–2010 include the following. used female sterilization, male less. sterilization, or the pill did not change + The percentage using other hormonal between 1995 and 2006–2010 (Table 8). + Condom usage by women’s partners methods increased in both educational Although there were no changes in as the most effective contraceptive groups: from 4.7% to 9.5% for patterns of use over time, there are method decreased among Hispanic women with a high school education differences when comparing women with more than a high school or less, and from 5.1% to 13% for contraceptive use across religious education from 29% to 22%. those with more than a high school characteristics in 2006–2010. + IUD use increased among both education. educational groups; other hormonal + IUD usage increased significantly + Among Baptist and Fundamentalist methods increased among those with among black women with more than Protestant women, 41% used female more than a high school education. a high school education between sterilization as their contraceptive 1995 and 2006–2010 (0.7% to 8.4%). Among non-Hispanic white women method, a significantly larger percentage than women not affiliated in both educational groups condom use Differences by education and race with a religion (22%), who are decreased—from 13% to 8.9% for and Hispanic origin, 2006–2010— Catholic (24%), or who are affiliated women with a high school education or Looking just at 2006–2010, there are with another Protestant denomination less and from 22% to 16% for women differences in method choice across race (25%). Page 10 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012

+ The use of female sterilization not important (22%) rely on partner’s other national surveys, for example, the increases monotonically by the use of condoms more frequently than National Health Interview Survey and importance of religion in women’s women for whom religion is very the Current Population Survey (31). daily life from 12% for women for important (15%). There were changes in patterns of whom religion is not important to + There is no difference in the use of contraceptive use between 1995 and 32% for women for whom religion is periodic abstinence by religious 2006–2010 by health insurance coverage very important. Women who attend affiliation, importance of religion, or and income. religious services once a week or frequency of attendance at religious + The percentage of women without more use female sterilization to a services. greater degree (32%) than women insurance who relied on female who attend less than once a week Economic characteristics and sterilization increased from 31% in (25%) or never attend religious residential location 1995 to 39% in 2006–2010. In services (22%). contrast, the percentage of women + Women who are of another Protestant Table 9 examines how economic with private insurance who used denomination have a higher characteristics and residential location female sterilization decreased in this frequency of male sterilization (13%) may be related to women’s current period, from 27% in 1995 to 23% in compared with women who are contraceptive method use, and how 2006–2010. Catholic, women with no religion, or patterns of use may have changed + There was a decrease in the women who are Baptist or between 1995 and 2006–2010. These percentages of women with incomes Fundamentalist Protestant (8% to 9% variables may indicate differential over 300% of the poverty level in the each). access to specific methods because of use of female sterilization. There was + As was the case for female out-of-pocket costs and relative ease in no change in the percentages for sterilization, male sterilization is used obtaining various methods. For example, lower income women. to a greater degree among women for if it is difficult to travel to a medical + Pill usage increased only among whom religion is very important professional to get a monthly injection, women who had private insurance (12%) and who attend religious women may rely on a method that between 1995 (26%) and 2006–2010 services once a week or more (13%) requires few or no medical (30%). In contrast, the percentages of compared with women for whom appointments, such as an IUD, which women who used the pill decreased religion is not important at all (6.6%) may remain in place for up to 10 years, and who never attend religious or condoms, which are available from among those who had public services (8.6%). local area stores. This has been insurance or who had no insurance in + Baptist and Fundamentalist Protestant documented in previous research, which the preceding 12 months. women used the pill to a lesser has found disparities in the receipt of + There was a significant increase in degree (21%) compared with Catholic reproductive health services among the use of the pill by women with (28%) or other Protestant (29%) women living in rural areas compared incomes of 400% of the poverty level women, or women with no religious with women living in metropolitan areas or more between 1995 (28%) and affiliation (31%). (4,30). 2006–2010 (39%). + Of women for whom religion is not Overall, patterns of contraceptive Differences can also be seen across important, almost one-half (48%) use use in 2006–2010 were similar to those categories of insurance coverage, the pill or other hormonal methods in 1995 across categories of insurance income, and residential location among compared with 29% of women for coverage in the past 12 months, poverty women in 2006–2010. whom religion is very important. level income, or metropolitan residence, + Women who never attend religious but some differences between the two + About twice as many women with services (30%) or attend less time points are detailed below (Table 9). public insurance (40%) or no frequently than once a week (29%) There was, however, a compositional insurance in the previous 12 months used the pill to a greater extent shift in insurance coverage and income (39%) used female sterilization in compared with women who attend among currently contracepting women 2006–2010 compared with women religious services once a week or between these two time periods. In who had private insurance (23%). more (22%). 1995, 71% of women had private + In 2006–2010, levels of female + Catholic women (18%) and women insurance the entire year, 17% of sterilization decreased as income with no religious affiliation (16%) women had public insurance, and 11% increased: Forty-three percent of more frequently rely on their had no insurance. In 2006–2010, 65% of contracepting women with incomes at partner’s use of condoms as their women had private insurance, 19% had 0–149% of the poverty level used most effective contraceptive method public insurance, and 15% had no female sterilization compared with compared with Baptist or insurance (analysis not shown). The 14% of women with incomes at Fundamentalist Protestant women shift from private to public insurance or 400% or more of the poverty level (12%). Women for whom religion is no coverage has been documented in (Figure 5). National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012 Page 11

Discussion and Female sterilization Pill Male sterilization 45 43 Conclusion

40 39 This report presents estimates of current contraceptive use among women 35 of childbearing ages using data collected 30 in 2006–2010. A Healthy People 30 objective since 1980 (6–8) is to reduce 25 25 the proportion of births that are 23 22 20 unintended, and the use of effective 20 19 Percent contraception is a major factor in a 15 14 woman’s ability to plan her pregnancies, 12 11 that is, to ‘‘achieve desired birth spacing 10 and family size’’ (13). Changes in 5 3.7 contraceptive method choice and use have not decreased the overall 0 proportion of pregnancies that are 0–149% 150%–299% 300%–399% 400% or more unintended between 1995 and 2008 due, Income as percent of poverty in part, to 1) compositional changes in SOURCES: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010, and Table 9 of this report. race and Hispanic origin in the U.S. population and 2) an increase in the Figure 5. Percentage of contraceptors aged 15–44 years who were using female or male proportion of births that were nonmarital sterilization or the pill, by poverty level income: United States, 2006–2010 from 1982. But, changes in contraceptive method use among married, non-Hispanic white women have contributed to a significant decline + Women living outside of metropolitan + Women in central cities used other in the proportion of unintended births areas were more likely to use female hormonal methods more (9.2%) among this group (3,17). sterilization for their method of compared with women living outside Since 1990, a number of new contraception (35%) compared with central cities of metropolitan areas those living in central cities (24%) or (5.7%). hormonal methods have become available that are highly effective in within a metropolitan area, not a In summary, women’s current use central city (25%). preventing unintended pregnancies of contraceptive methods varies (22–24). Despite the increased + Women who had private insurance depending on their insurance coverage, availability of these new methods, (14%) relied on male sterilization to a their income, and their residential disparities in unintended pregnancies greater degree than other women. location. Women with fewer economic and birth rates across major + About twice as many women living resources, as suggested by having public sociodemographic groups persist due to in a metropolitan area not in a central insurance or no insurance, or by having variations in use and access. The city (12%) used male sterilization incomes below 150% of the poverty following paragraphs restate some of the compared with women living in a level, use female sterilization to a main themes presented in the report and central city (6.9%). greater degree compared with women summarize changes in patterns of use + The percentage of women using the who have private insurance and incomes between 1995 and 2006–2010. pill increased with income, from 19% above 150% of the poverty level. Changes in contraceptive use were of those with incomes of 0–149% to Women with private insurance and presented by comparing the 1995 and 39% among women with incomes at incomes at 150% of the poverty level or 2006–2010 surveys. These comparisons 400% or greater. more, use male sterilization and the pill showed changes such as an increase in + More women with public insurance in at higher rates than women with other the current use of the IUD and other the last year used other hormonal characteristics. Women living in rural hormonal methods along with a decrease methods (11%) compared with those areas use sterilization, both male and in the current use of condoms as the with no insurance (7.3%) or private female, to a greater extent compared most effective method used. Given that insurance (4.9%). with women living in central cities. various highly effective, reversible + Women with incomes at 149% of the More women living in metropolitan methods became available starting in poverty level or less (8.2%) used areas rely on their partner’s use of 1990 with the introduction of other hormonal methods more condoms as their most effective Norplant™, describing changes in compared with women with incomes contraceptive method compared with patterns of use over this time period is of 300% or more. women living in nonmetropolitan areas. especially valuable. Page 12 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012

The data presented in this report with women with greater resources and Growth. National Center for Health show that teenagers and black and those living in metropolitan areas. Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(25). Hispanic women have adopted other Women without insurance and those 2005. Available from: http://www. hormonal methods to a greater degree living in central cities were more likely cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/ than older women or non-Hispanic to rely on the condom, a method of sr23_025.pdf. 5. Mosher WD, Martinez GM, Chandra white women (Tables 4 and 6). contraception that does not involve a Concurrently, there was a 45% decline A, Abma JC, Willson SJ. Use of medical professional and is available contraception and use of family in the use of condoms as the most over the counter in most drug and planning services in the United effective method used among 15–19 grocery stores. States, 1982–2002. Advance data year-olds. The change in method choice In the last two decades, women from vital and health statistics; no by teenagers, along with their increased (and their partners) have an increasing 350. Hyattsville, MD: National use of contraception at first intercourse array of contraceptive choices to help Center for Health Statistics. 2004. and their increased use of dual Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/ them plan and time their pregnancies. methods (32), have been credited with nchs/data/ad/ad350.pdf. Up-to-date descriptions of contraceptive the recent decline in teenage birth 6. U.S. Department of Health and use are needed to keep pace with these rates (33). Human Services (ed). Promoting There are differences, however, by developments as well as provide health, preventing disease: Objectives race and Hispanic origin for teenagers information to supplement and for the Nation. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. and young adult women aged 15–24 complement other NCHS data on births in the United States, for example, the 1980. years, in their method choice that have 7. U.S. Department of Health and recent report documenting record low implications for disparities in unintended Human Services (ed). Healthy People births. Nearly 4 of 10 non-Hispanic teenage birth rates (33). This report fills 2000: National Health Promotion and black women aged 15–24 (38%) are this need by using the most recent Disease Prevention Objectives. U.S. currently relying on their partner’s use NSFG data augmented by data from the Government Printing Office, of the condom as their most effective 1995 NSFG to describe current use of Washington, DC. September 1990. method of contraception and 52% are contraception both across demographic 8. Healthy People 2020 Website. Family currently using the pill, other hormonal characteristics and over time. planning topic area. Available from: methods, or the IUD (Table 7). For http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/ white women in the same age group, topicsobjectives2020/overview. References aspx?topicid=13. 20% rely on their partner’s use of the 1. Mosher WD, Jones J. Use of 9. Logan C, Holcombe E, Manlove J, condom and 73% are using a highly contraception in the United States: Ryan S. The consequences of effective, reversible method. Women 1982–2008. National Center for unintended childbearing: A white who rely on their partner’s use of the Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat paper. May 2007. Available from: condom have double the probability of 23(29). 2010. Available from: http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/ becoming pregnant than those who use http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/ resources/pdf/consequences.pdf. the pill (Table B). sr_23/sr23_029.pdf. 10. Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Disparities This report presents differences in 2. Potter FJ, Iannacchione VG, Mosher in rates of unintended pregnancy in contraceptive use by nativity status WD, Mason RE, Kavee JD. Sample the United States, 1994 and 2001. among women of Hispanic origin, an design, sampling weights, imputation, Perspect Sex Reprod Health important distinction given research and variance estimation in the 1995 38(2):90–96. 2006. National Survey of Family Growth. 11 Finer LB, Zolna MR. Unintended documenting changes in fertility patterns National Center for Health Statistics. pregnancy in the United States: by nativity status among Hispanic Vital Health Stat 2(124). 1998. Incidence and disparities, 2006. women (3,34). Among other findings, Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/ Contraception 84(5):478–85. 2011. data in this report show that foreign- nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_124.pdf. 12. Chandra A. Health aspects of born Hispanic women rely to a greater 3. Martinez GM, Daniels K, Chandra A. pregnancy and childbirth: United extent on female sterilization as their Fertility of men and women aged States, 1982–1988. National Center current contraceptive method compared 15–44 years in the United States: for Health Statistics: Vital Health with U.S.-born Hispanic women. National Survey of Family Growth, Stat 23(18). 1995. Available from: This report also found differentials 2006–2010. National health statistics http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/ in current contraceptive use by measures reports; no 51. Hyattsville, MD: sr_23/sr23_018.pdf. of access—economic resources and National Center for Health Statistics. 13. CDC. Achievements in public health, 2012. Available from: http://www. 1900–1999: Family planning. residential location. Women with public cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr051.pdf. MMWR 48(47): 1073–81. Dec 3, insurance, with incomes below 150% of 4. Chandra A, Martinez GM, Mosher 1999. Available from: http:// the poverty level, and who lived in WD, Abma JC, Jones J. Fertility, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/ nonmetropolitan areas were much more family planning, and reproductive mmwrhtml/mm4847a1.htm. likely to use female sterilization as their health of U.S. women: Data from the 14. Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Curtin SC, current contraceptive method compared 2002 National Survey of Family Mathews TJ. Report of final natality National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012 Page 13

statistics, 1995. Monthly vital 24. American College of Obstetricians 33. Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ. Birth rates statistics report, vol 45 no 11, supp and Gynecologists. Birth control: A for U.S. teenagers reach historic lows 2. Hyattsville, MD: National Center woman’s choice. Washington, DC. for all age and ethnic groups. NCHS for Health Statistics. 1997. Available 2003. data brief, no 89. Hyattsville, MD: from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ 25. Trussell J. Estimates of contraceptive National Center for Health Statistics. mvsr/supp/mv45_11s.pdf. failure from the 1995 National 2012. Available from: http://www. 15. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Survey of Family Growth. cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/ et al. Births: Final data for 2008. Contraception 78(1):85. 2008. db89.htm. National vital statistics reports; vol 26. Office of Management and Budget. 34. Landale NS, Oropesa RS. Hispanic Directive No. 15 Race and Ethnic families: Stability and change. 59 no 1. Hyattsville, MD: National Standards for Federal Statistics and Annual Review of Sociology Center for Health Statistics. 2010. Administrative Reporting. Adopted 33:381–405. 2007. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/ May 12, 1977. Available from: nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_01.pdf. http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/ 16. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Ventura SJ. populations/bridged-race/Directive Births: Preliminary data for 2010. 15.html. National vital statistics reports Web 27. Office of Management and Budget. release; vol 60 no 2. Hyattsville, Revisions to the Standards for the MD: National Center for Health Classification of Federal Data on Statistics. 2011. Available from: Race and Ethnicity. Federal Register http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/ 62FR58781–90. Statistical policy nvsr60/nvsr60_02.pdf. directive 15. 1997. Available from: 17. Mosher WD, Jones J, Abma JC. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ Intended and unintended births in the fedreg_1997standards/. United States: 1982–2010. National 28. Goldscheider C, Mosher WD. health statistics reports; no. 55. Religious affiliation and Hyattsville, MD: National Center for contraceptive usage: Changing Health Statistics. 2012. Available American patterns, 1955–1982. Stud from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ Fam Plann 19(1): 48–57. January/ nhsr/nhsr055.pdf. February 1988. 18. Kost K, Singh S, Vaughan B, 29. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Trussell J, Bankole A. Estimates of Drugs@FDA: FDA approved drug contraceptive failure from the 2002 products. Available from: http:// National Survey of Family Growth. www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ Contraception 77(1):10–21. 2008. drugsatfda/index.cfm. 19. Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in 30. Chuang CH, Hwang SW, McCall- the United States. Contraception Hosenfeld JS, et al. Primary care 83(5): 397–404. 2011. physicians’ perceptions of barriers to 20. Lepkowski JM, Mosher WD, Davis preventive reproductive health care in KE, Groves RM, Van Hoewyk J. The rural communities. Perspect Sex 2006–2010 National Survey of Reprod Health 44(2):78–83. 2012. Family Growth: Sample design and 31. Cohen RA, Makuc DM, Bernstein analysis of a continuous survey. AB, Bilheimer LT, Powell-Griner, E. National Center for Health Statistics. Health insurance coverage trends, Vital Health Stat 2(150). 2010. 1959–2007: Estimates from the Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/ National Health Interview Survey. nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_150.pdf. National health statistics reports; no 21. Groves RM, Mosher WD, Lepkowski 17. Hyattsville, MD: National Center JM, Kirgis NM. Planning and for Health Statistics. 2009. Available development of the continuous from: http://wwwdev.cdc.gov/nchs/ National Survey of Family Growth. data/nhsr/nhsr017.pdf. National Center for Health Statistics. 32. Martinez G, Copen CE, Abma JC. Vital Health Stat 1(48). 2009. Teenagers in the United States: Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/ Sexual activity, contraceptive use, nchs/data/series/sr_01/sr01_048.pdf. and childbearing, 2006–2010 22. Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Stewart F, National Survey of Family Growth. et al. Contraceptive technology. National Center for Health Statistics. Revised 18th edition. New York: Vital Health Stat 23(31). 2011. Ardent Media. 2004. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/ 23. Hatcher RA. Contraceptive choices. nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_031.pdf. Dawsonville, GA: Bridging the Gap Communications. 2003. Page 14 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012 * * 100.0 (0.62) (0.36) (0.94) (0.89) (0.93) (0.48) (0.18) (0.20) (0.40) (1.01) (1.59) (0.19) (2.09) (1.53) (0.53) (0.42) (0.54) (0.52) (0.29) (1.53) 10,652 40–44 2.6 1.1 7.1 6.8 8.6 2.4 0.4 0.6 1.4 7.4 0.6 2.4 1.4 3.1 1.5 0.4 15.1 38.1 75.3 24.7 * 100.0 (0.66) (0.31) (0.97) (1.04) (0.71) (0.73) (0.21) (0.31) (0.28) (0.44) (1.23) (1.18) (0.36) (1.69) (1.52) (0.61) (0.50) (0.41) (0.17) (0.25) (1.52) 10,538 methods. 35–39 4.1 1.0 8.4 9.0 6.5 4.8 0.5 1.0 0.5 2.0 1.1 4.8 2.3 2.0 0.4 0.6 12.7 12.4 27.9 74.6 25.4 other and * diaphragm), 2006–2010 100.0 9,188 (0.54) (0.20) (0.26) (0.84) (1.14) (0.83) (0.80) (0.33) (0.32) (0.29) (0.54) (1.37) (0.51) (1.01) (1.91) (1.90) (0.86) (0.92) (0.41) (0.23) (1.90) 30–34 3.2 0.4 0.8 6.7 6.6 4.9 1.4 1.7 0.9 3.9 1.9 6.6 6.0 7.2 1.8 0.5 (without 10.8 17.7 20.9 69.7 30.3 States, cream error) or jelly United – (standard insert, years thousands 100.0 (0.52) (0.21) (0.91) (1.05) (0.68) (0.59) (0.43) (0.58) (0.36) (0.71) (1.26) (0.62) (0.48) (0.93) (1.46) (0.78) (0.92) (0.40) (0.07) (0.10) (1.46) 10,535 or in in 25–29 4.1 0.5 8.4 7.0 4.7 2.4 3.4 1.5 7.4 3.1 2.7 6.3 8.4 1.4 0.2 0.3 13.6 21.5 10.7 65.3 34.7 interview: Age at distribution Number suppository age to Percent * * sponge, – 100.0 (0.50) (0.07) (0.96) (1.05) (0.93) (0.48) (0.54) (0.54) (0.28) (0.76) (1.51) (1.52) (0.20) (1.74) (0.34) (0.62) (0.92) (0.37) (1.74) 10,365 Today™ 20–24 3.3 0.2 8.7 7.9 3.3 2.7 3.3 1.1 7.1 0.5 1.5 4.0 8.1 1.4 11.6 14.9 27.4 58.3 41.7 according cap, cervical years, separately. * * * * – foam, 15–44 shown 100.0 (0.48) (0.69) (0.60) (0.65) (0.27) (0.25) (0.47) (0.22) (0.60) (1.08) (1.67) (1.39) (0.23) (0.44) (0.18) (1.39) (0.08) 10,478 pouch, not 15–19 2.1 6.7 6.1 7.1 0.8 0.7 3.5 0.7 4.9 0.6 3.2 0.5 0.2 16.2 51.4 30.5 69.5 aged vaginal reasons, or women condom 100.0 (0.11) (0.26) (0.05) (0.09) (0.40) (0.42) (0.32) (0.28) (0.15) (0.19) (0.27) (0.62) (0.65) (0.43) (0.77) (0.79) (0.25) (0.25) (0.17) (0.09) (0.79) (0.09) among 61,755 female noncontraceptive 15–44 0.9 3.2 0.1 0.6 7.7 3.5 1.3 2.3 7.3 4.5 6.2 4.0 5.0 1.7 0.4 0.3 for 11.8 10.2 17.1 16.5 62.2 37.8 used contraception, sterilization method .... surgical ...... and emergency male precision...... rounding...... or to interview and cream), status planning interview ...... method or due male rhythm ...... jelly reason reliability 100 and before or family before of to ...... (noncontraceptive) patch ...... add without status ...... female 2 (Depo-Provera™) unknown months or natural calendar or ...... not months (IUD) 3 (contraceptors) contraceptive standards 3 female ...... ring in methods (with may in 1 sterile, meet postpartum ...... device injectable intercourse sterilization Lunelle™ sterile, not or ...... abstinence, abstinence, pregnancy sterilization Current contraception Contraceptive zero. had methods hormonal diaphragm male sterilization does 1. intercourse ...... Percentages contraception intercourse ...... Contraceptive 3-month Implant, using women Other Withdrawal Periodic Periodic Had Condom Intrauterine Other No Pill Male Never Seeking Pregnant Female Nonsurgically Surgically Quantity Figure Includes Includes Using Total All NOTE: Not – * 1 2 Table National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012 Page 15 * * * * * – race (1.4) 100.0 2,456 (2.25) (3.83) (3.83) (1.97) (1.51) (1.14) (0.86) (1.37) (2.87) (0.64) (3.62) (1.74) (1.22) (1.89) (0.83) Asian, 4.9 6.6 4.0 2.2 1.5 3.6 3.4 8.8 2.7 6.7 1.8 single 58.5 41.6 12.3 17.6 23.6 * race 100.0 8,451 (1.59) (1.54) (1.54) (0.80) (0.29) (0.22) (0.88) (0.47) (0.05) (0.47) (0.26) (0.73) (0.67) (0.89) (0.65) (0.38) (0.86) (0.90) (0.84) (0.49) (0.13) Black, methods. 9.9 0.9 0.4 7.2 2.4 0.1 2.3 1.0 6.1 4.6 4.7 1.6 9.2 2.6 0.2 single 11.8 11.2 20.2 54.2 45.8 10.5 Non-Hispanic other and race diaphragm), 100.0 (1.02) (0.90) (1.08) (1.08) (0.66) (0.09) (0.28) (0.32) (0.09) (0.22) (0.10) (0.33) (0.18) (0.97) (0.32) (0.20) (0.46) (0.39) (0.51) (0.51) (0.13) (0.03) 37,384 White, 8.7 0.3 3.5 3.1 0.3 1.5 0.5 4.5 1.6 3.6 1.4 6.4 3.6 9.2 6.9 0.6 0.1 single 11.3 15.5 21.0 65.6 34.4 (without error) cream or race: jelly * * and (standard born 5,104 100.0 (1.83) (1.44) (0.94) (1.94) (0.54) (1.94) (0.90) (0.38) (0.37) (0.94) (0.75) (1.18) (0.16) (0.94) (0.75) (0.72) (0.96) (1.23) (0.17) (0.83) insert, or origin 3.7 1.1 5.1 1.7 1.4 7.4 3.4 6.6 0.4 7.3 6.4 4.7 9.9 7.2 0.6 4.1 Hispanic, 22.7 10.5 62.3 37.8 foreign distribution suppository Hispanic Percent to * sponge, born 5,369 100.0 (0.11) (1.91) (1.18) (0.76) (1.98) (1.98) (0.69) (0.61) (0.44) (0.41) (1.13) (0.49) (1.30) (0.56) (0.54) (1.04) (1.23) (0.62) (0.79) (0.41) (0.48) Today™ 0.2 2.9 5.8 1.3 1.6 1.7 6.0 2.5 2.5 1.6 8.5 3.4 6.7 1.0 2.8 Hispanic, U.S. 11.6 15.3 13.1 57.2 42.8 17.3 according cap, cervical Hispanic years, separately. * foam, 100.0 (1.59) (0.63) (0.31) (1.06) (1.39) (1.39) (0.56) (0.30) (0.31) (0.31) (0.77) (0.39) (0.62) (0.29) (0.76) (0.67) (0.42) (0.88) (0.75) (0.23) (0.46) 15–44 shown 10,474 Total pouch, not Hispanic 3.3 0.7 5.5 0.7 1.6 1.5 6.7 2.9 4.5 1.0 7.5 4.0 7.0 0.8 3.4 11.8 18.9 59.7 40.3 12.4 10.8 aged vaginal reasons, or women 1 condom 100.0 (0.11) (0.43) (0.77) (0.09) (0.27) (0.62) (0.79) (0.79) (0.09) (0.17) (0.25) (0.19) (0.25) (0.15) (0.32) (0.65) (0.28) (0.40) (0.42) (0.09) (0.05) (0.26) 61,755 among women female noncontraceptive 0.9 6.2 0.4 4.5 0.3 1.7 5.0 2.3 4.0 1.3 7.3 3.5 7.7 0.6 0.1 3.2 11.8 All 16.5 17.1 62.2 37.8 10.2 for separately. used shown contraception, sterilization not method .... surgical ...... and groups, emergency male precision...... rounding. origin ...... or to interview and cream), status planning interview ...... and method or ...... due male . rhythm ...... race jelly reason reliability and 100 before or family . before of to ...... (noncontraceptive) patch ...... add without multiple status ...... or 3 female (Depo-Provera™) unknown months calendar natural or ...... or not months (IUD) 3 ...... (contraceptors) contraceptive standards 3 female ...... in methods (with 2006–2010 may in other 2 ring sterile, meet of postpartum ...... device injectable intercourse sterilization Lunelle™, sterile, not or ...... pregnancy abstinence, abstinence, sterilization Current contraception Contraceptive zero. had States, hormonal methods women diaphragm male sterilization does 2. intercourse ...... Percentages contraception intercourse ...... Implant, 3-month using women Male Female Surgically Other Pill Nonsurgically Other Pregnant Seeking Contraceptive No Never Intrauterine Periodic Had Condom Withdrawal Periodic Quantity Figure Includes Includes Includes All NOTE: Total Using * 1 2 3 Table – United Not Page 16 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012

Table 3. Current use of a method of contraception by women aged 15–44 years, all women, and women at risk of unintended pregnancy, by selected characteristics: United States, 2006–2010

All women Women at risk of unintended pregnancy1

Percent currently Percent not Number in using a method Number in Percent currently currently using (Standard Characteristic thousands (standard error) thousands using a method a method error2)

Total3 ...... 61,755 62.2 (0.79) 43,145 89.0 11.0 (0.55)

Age 15–24 years ...... 20,842 44.3 (1.40) 10,840 85.2 14.8 (1.06) 15–19 years ...... 10,478 30.5 (1.39) 3,896 82.0 18.0 (1.71) 20–24 years ...... 10,365 58.3 (1.74) 6,944 87.0 13.0 (1.29) 25–44 years ...... 40,912 71.3 (0.79) 32,305 90.3 9.7 (0.58) 25–29 years ...... 10,535 65.3 (1.46) 7,766 88.6 11.4 (1.17) 30–34 years ...... 9,188 69.7 (1.90) 7,019 91.2 8.8 (1.14) 35–39 years ...... 10,538 74.6 (1.52) 8,750 89.8 10.2 (1.19) 40–44 years ...... 10,652 75.3 (1.53) 8,770 91.4 8.6 (1.15)

Marital or cohabiting status Married ...... 25,605 77.4 (0.88) 21,417 92.5 7.5 (0.59) Cohabiting ...... 6,910 72.8 (1.74) 5,572 90.2 9.8 (1.29) Formerly married ...... 5,659 63.9 (2.27) 4,122 87.8 12.2 (1.79) Never married ...... 23,581 42.2 (1.48) 12,034 82.6 17.4 (1.19)

Parity No births ...... 27,401 45.7 (1.26) 14,551 86.1 14.0 (1.04) One birth ...... 10,011 59.8 (1.64) 7,185 83.4 16.7 (1.56) Two or more births ...... 24,342 81.7 (0.91) 21,409 92.9 7.1 (0.65)

Intent to have more children4 Intends more ...... 30,133 49.2 (1.11) 17,378 85.4 14.6 (1.01) Intends no more ...... 30,776 74.7 (0.87) 25,153 91.4 8.6 (0.64)

Religion No religion ...... 11,083 63.7 (1.56) 8,123 86.9 13.1 (1.22) Catholic ...... 15,399 60.6 (1.30) 10,520 88.7 11.3 (1.13) Baptist and fundamentalist Protestant...... 12,617 62.6 (1.53) 8,785 89.9 10.1 (0.93) Other Protestant denomination ...... 16,876 65.1 (1.33) 12,181 90.2 9.8 (0.84)

Education5 No high school diploma or GED ...... 6,844 70.2 (1.61) 5,438 88.3 11.7 (1.48) High school diploma or GED ...... 11,578 73.3 (1.36) 9,407 90.2 9.8 (0.97) Some college, no bachelor’s degree ...... 13,702 70.0 (1.36) 10,472 91.5 8.5 (0.96) Bachelor’s degree or higher ...... 15,083 67.4 (1.42) 11,347 89.6 10.4 (1.08)

Poverty level income6 0–149% ...... 16,695 66.8 (1.14) 12,473 89.4 10.6 (0.86) 0–99% ...... 10,554 64.4 (1.39) 7,721 88.1 11.9 (1.04) 150%–299% ...... 14,992 70.4 (1.22) 11,863 89.0 11.0 (0.98) 300%–399% ...... 9,311 74.1 (1.94) 7,505 91.9 8.1 (1.19) 400% or more ...... 10,279 64.1 (1.35) 7,407 89.0 11.0 (1.26)

Hispanic origin and race Hispanic ...... 10,474 59.7 (1.39) 6,978 89.6 10.4 (1.05) U.S. born ...... 5,369 57.2 (1.98) 3,433 89.5 10.5 (1.16) Foreign born ...... 5,104 62.3 (1.94) 3,544 89.7 10.4 (1.67) Not Hispanic White, single race ...... 37,384 65.6 (1.08) 27,105 90.5 9.5 (0.67) Black or African American, single race ...... 8,451 54.2 (1.54) 5,526 82.8 17.2 (1.24) Asian, single race ...... 2,456 58.5 (3.83) 1,600 89.7 10.3 (2.90)

1Women are considered to be ‘‘at risk of unintended pregnancy’’ if they were coded 1–22 or 42 on CONSTAT1, the recode for current contraceptive status. Codes 1–22 are women who are currently using contraception; code 42 are women who have had sex in the last 3 months but are not current contraceptors. 2The standard error is the same for the percentages in the two columns—percent currently using and percent currently not using a method—of women at risk of unintended pregnancy. 3Includes women who did not know their fertility intentions, those of other religions, and those of other or multiple race and origin groups, not shown separately. 4Measures future intentions. Women who are currently seeking a pregnancy are not considered to be at risk of unintended prgnancy. 5Limited to women aged 22–44 years at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma. 6Limited to women aged 20–44 years at time of interview. National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012 Page 17 (0.88) (0.72) (1.05) (0.84) (0.48) (0.80) (0.80) (0.91) (0.39) (0.91) (0.85) (0.74) (0.73) (1.20) (0.79) (0.64) (0.98) (0.43) (0.41) (1.06) (0.88) (0.60) (0.33) (1.59) (0.88) (0.72) Other methods 5.3 7.0 7.0 7.7 7.1 6.9 6.0 4.0 7.0 6.2 5.3 5.8 5.4 5.0 6.7 5.5 3.1 5.5 5.7 6.6 5.8 6.1 6.6 7.6 6.4 6.1 2 * * * * (0.11) (0.28) (0.32) (0.48) (0.59) (0.49) (0.30) (0.46) (0.38) (0.48) (0.25) (0.51) (0.45) (0.36) (0.33) (0.34) (0.21) (0.16) (0.54) (0.12) (0.29) (0.02) Periodic 0.3 0.9 0.8 2.8 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.2 1.8 1.5 2.6 1.7 1.8 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.2 1.4 0.3 1.7 2.3 abstinence 2006–2010 and * * * (0.21) (0.31) (0.34) (0.47) (0.24) (0.15) (0.26) (0.26) (0.64) (0.15) (0.97) (1.13) (0.50) (0.93) (0.78) (0.49) (0.44) (1.03) (0.82) (0.58) (0.12) (0.86) (0.69) 1995 ring. device 0.5 0.8 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 3.2 1.0 6.5 7.1 3.0 7.3 3.6 5.9 5.6 5.9 5.6 7.1 0.8 2.7 4.6 Intrauterine States, contraceptive 1 and (0.77) (0.67) (0.17) (1.12) (0.32) (0.28) (0.43) (0.76) (0.53) (0.23) (0.58) (0.93) (0.76) (0.96) (1.76) (1.08) (0.82) (1.39) (0.43) (1.27) (0.44) (1.24) (0.40) (1.73) (0.26) (1.00) United Other 8.0 3.5 0.4 6.4 1.5 2.7 2.5 5.9 1.9 2.5 2.7 9.7 5.6 7.3 5.1 7.2 3.9 4.3 hormonal methods patch, 11.3 12.0 13.2 10.8 10.1 12.2 16.1 13.6 error) status: (standard contraceptive (1.31) (1.50) (0.84) (1.75) (0.98) (0.60) (1.14) (1.50) (1.18) (0.52) (1.37) (1.65) (1.71) (1.22) (2.53) (1.44) (1.32) (1.44) (0.74) (1.63) (0.67) (1.59) (0.92) (1.93) (0.48) (1.29) marital Condom 9.0 7.7 31.8 15.0 12.4 18.6 16.6 17.4 18.4 24.8 17.9 12.1 26.3 15.5 22.0 36.2 20.8 29.4 14.1 15.8 16.4 25.5 15.3 20.0 20.4 23.6 and (Lunelle™), distribution age by Percent injectable (1.44) (1.57) (0.78) (2.29) (0.81) (0.73) (1.36) (1.70) (1.35) (0.62) (1.59) (1.89) (1.82) (1.54) (2.59) (1.77) (1.50) (2.22) (0.99) (2.19) (1.02) (2.21) (1.37) (2.42) (0.61) (1.76) Pill used 6.0 9.8 11.3 43.5 20.9 36.1 20.4 28.2 38.8 20.6 17.0 52.0 25.3 46.6 44.2 32.9 49.5 16.5 20.6 32.2 27.5 47.1 18.6 53.2 26.9 49.2 1-month * * method implant, of (1.11) (0.17) (0.69) (1.15) (0.93) (0.67) (0.89) (2.04) (0.70) (0.51) (1.53) (0.36) (1.39) (0.16) (0.73) (0.24) (1.41) (0.84) (0.82) (0.65) (0.34) (1.14) (0.41) (0.23) Male 0.4 3.3 3.8 4.7 1.1 9.5 0.6 4.1 0.8 6.1 4.0 0.9 0.6 18.8 20.3 17.3 10.3 20.0 13.7 16.6 13.0 10.0 17.1 10.9 Implanon™ distribution * * includes Sterilization also (0.71) (1.85) (1.49) (1.88) (1.41) (0.83) (1.32) (1.20) (2.46) (0.72) (2.22) (2.52) (0.60) (1.00) (1.39) (0.41) (3.00) (1.42) (2.12) (1.17) (0.57) (1.60) (0.60) (0.37) rhythm. Female 8.8 3.8 2.7 2.6 1.8 percent 50.5 49.9 24.7 40.7 31.2 29.5 17.4 50.6 34.7 37.3 30.0 10.2 16.4 55.5 34.4 24.0 26.6 30.2 27.8 2006–2010, and temperature For any and years 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 test, method Using 15–44 mucus (Depo-Provera™). in aged cervical 8,566 4,144 7,227 3,286 8,264 7,980 6,760 8,016 7,861 5,750 6,403 2,681 9,943 6,879 8,431 3,618 5,028 6,040 3,194 9,234 22,667 30,232 29,160 38,394 19,806 38,663 injectable thousands Number (NFP), precision. women or 3-month . . . . planning and ...... reliability family of implant status cohabiting cohabiting contracepting natural ...... cohabiting cohabiting not of not standards ...... not not Norplant™ Age ...... Total rhythm, cohabiting meet ...... or Characteristic ...... not cohabiting married cohabiting married married, married, years years years years years years years years years years years years Number includes years years years years married, married, calendar does 4...... Marital 40–44 35–39 30–34 25–29 40–44 35–39 20–24 30–34 15–19 25–29 20–24 15–19 1995, Never Formerly Currently Currently 25–44 Never 15–24 Formerly 25–44 Currently Currently 15–24 Figure For Includes 1995 1995 2006–2010 2006–2010 1995 * 1 2 Table 2006–2010 Page 18 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012 (0.43) (1.13) (0.84) (0.44) (0.70) (0.78) (0.41) (0.74) (0.61) (0.48) Other methods 3.9 9.5 6.8 5.5 7.7 7.7 5.2 8.1 8.3 4.3 2 (0.30) (0.27) (0.17) (0.27) (0.24) (0.41) (0.23) (0.33) (0.34) (0.23) 1995 Periodic 1.6 1.0 0.5 2.4 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.9 2.5 1.3 abstinence States, (0.58) (1.51) (0.28) (0.14) (0.64) (0.37) (0.16) (0.17) (0.17) (0.50) device United 7.1 1.1 0.9 5.5 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.6 5.3 Intrauterine 10.1 ring. 1 children: (0.51) (1.13) (0.78) (0.48) (0.28) (0.79) (0.89) (0.28) (0.46) (0.53) contraceptive Other error) 5.0 9.4 9.6 4.4 3.0 9.7 3.2 3.4 6.0 hormonal methods 11.4 and more patch, have (standard to (0.72) (1.82) (1.28) (0.71) (0.51) (1.21) (1.22) (0.47) (1.17) (1.06) Condom 10.4 21.7 23.3 10.0 13.0 26.1 25.7 12.6 30.3 31.6 contraceptive intent distribution and (1.11) (0.94) (1.98) (1.46) (1.03) (0.58) (1.42) (1.33) (0.58) (1.14) Percent (Lunelle™), Pill parity 50.6 10.7 28.7 53.5 14.0 12.0 47.8 33.8 12.7 49.0 by injectable * used (1.03) (1.39) (0.54) (1.00) (0.67) (0.25) (0.78) (0.66) (0.53) 1-month Male 8.8 3.0 0.6 7.2 4.1 14.9 16.4 16.0 17.8 method implant, of – Sterilization (1.52) (1.24) (0.50) (1.63) (0.91) (1.01) (0.87) (0.35) (0.09) Implanon™ Female 2.4 2.7 0.2 46.6 10.7 44.4 47.2 12.2 45.8 distribution includes also any rhythm. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 percent method Using 2006–2010, and temperature in For and years 5,989 6,866 1,516 1 19,884 12,521 22,994 20,280 14,836 23,363 12,952 test, thousands Number shown. 15–44 not mucus is (Depo-Provera™). aged cervical intentions injectable (NFP), 3 precision. women fertility or 3-month their planning children and reliability know family of more not implant Parity did contracepting natural have Characteristic ...... of who to standards ...... Norplant™ ...... rhythm, births births meet Intent women more more ...... not for no more no Number more more more includes zero. calendar does 5. birth birth or or births births 2006–2010 1995, Two One No Intends Two Intends One Intends No Intends Quantity Figure For Includes Information 2006–2010 2006–2010 and 1995 – 1995 * 1 2 3 Table National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012 Page 19 (0.64) (0.84) (0.82) (2.37) (0.86) (1.27) (0.48) (0.86) (1.38) (1.34) (0.73) (0.89) (1.84) (0.53) (0.72) (0.42) (0.79) (0.92) (1.61) (1.14) Other methods 4.7 5.9 5.6 8.8 4.7 6.8 5.2 6.8 7.2 7.5 7.0 6.2 5.2 4.6 7.3 4.4 5.2 5.6 5.1 10.1 2 (0.41) (0.32) (0.35) (1.43) (0.26) (0.52) (0.19) (0.52) (0.88) (0.72) (0.38) (0.55) (1.95) (0.34) (0.34) (0.27) (0.41) (0.44) (0.90) (0.42) 1995 Periodic 1.7 1.2 1.0 3.3 0.5 1.0 1.0 3.5 2.2 1.8 2.4 2.0 5.4 2.1 1.2 2.3 1.2 2.3 3.6 1.1 abstinence States, * (0.84) (0.90) (0.64) (2.05) (0.94) (1.08) (0.58) (0.32) (1.08) (1.07) (0.21) (0.67) (0.15) (0.25) (0.55) (0.13) (0.35) (0.45) (0.79) United device 6.3 6.4 5.2 4.7 4.9 4.7 5.5 1.4 7.5 6.0 0.7 6.8 0.6 0.8 1.3 0.7 0.9 1.5 2.0 ring. Intrauterine race: * 1 and (0.69) (0.96) (0.55) (1.92) (1.54) (1.03) (0.42) (0.35) (1.41) (1.21) (0.48) (0.96) (0.45) (0.81) (1.07) (0.31) (0.77) (0.98) (1.46) contraceptive Other error) 5.0 8.0 4.2 3.8 7.5 5.3 1.5 8.3 3.1 9.2 4.1 7.8 5.2 3.4 4.1 6.8 8.1 hormonal methods and 13.2 10.2 origin patch, (standard (1.46) (1.21) (1.24) (5.17) (1.64) (1.46) (0.78) (1.25) (1.53) (1.96) (1.14) (1.35) (5.00) (0.79) (1.26) (2.26) (0.63) (1.32) (1.70) (1.98) Hispanic Condom 11.9 19.2 16.4 40.4 19.5 10.1 14.1 26.4 15.9 20.3 20.7 18.1 43.9 14.0 20.3 21.2 19.6 13.1 20.5 18.5 contraceptive and distribution (1.62) (1.47) (1.49) (3.33) (1.41) (1.37) (1.43) (1.23) (2.14) (1.92) (1.30) (1.62) (3.30) (0.93) (1.16) (1.72) (0.79) (1.66) (1.49) (2.29) (Lunelle™), Percent Pill education 35.3 23.4 17.3 21.0 18.3 10.6 32.0 32.2 16.8 22.9 27.1 19.8 17.1 20.2 23.7 23.7 28.6 13.6 23.0 20.6 by injectable used (1.33) (1.33) (1.20) (2.54) (0.53) (1.07) (0.91) (0.89) (1.46) (1.29) (0.87) (1.03) (2.15) (0.85) (0.38) (1.20) (0.57) (0.99) (0.76) (1.03) 1-month Male 6.8 1.7 4.3 6.0 5.1 5.5 7.4 1.8 4.6 6.4 4.0 3.8 11.6 11.6 15.2 13.3 13.1 12.4 13.7 13.6 diploma. method implant, of Sterilization (1.58) (1.51) (3.83) (2.12) (2.51) (2.63) (1.47) (2.96) (0.81) (3.18) (2.71) (1.28) (3.03) (1.77) (1.10) (2.56) (0.70) (2.00) (1.87) (2.91) equivalency Implanon™ Female 11.3 11.7 12.7 27.1 43.1 37.3 54.9 23.6 36.5 26.7 31.7 26.1 16.2 39.9 40.0 37.8 24.5 56.3 36.6 37.8 school distribution includes high also any rhythm. 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 percent method Using Development 2006–2010, and temperature in For separately. and years 9,585 1,435 8,482 4,577 4,804 3,177 8,291 3,072 6,249 8,631 1,099 5,023 2,134 3,955 3,957 1,629 Educational 13,118 10,167 24,528 27,901 shown test, thousands Number not 15–44 General mucus is (Depo-Provera™). status, aged GED cervical nativity injectable on (NFP), precision. women interview. or ...... of ...... 3-month race planning time ...... information ...... and 3 at and reliability degree degree ...... family of GED GED years missing implant or or GED GED origin contracepting higher higher natural or ...... with ...... or ...... Education Characteristic 22–44 or or of bachelor’s bachelor’s standards ...... race race race diploma race diploma race race Norplant™ no no aged Hispanic rhythm, women meet ...... diploma diploma degree degree born born ...... not single single single single single single school school 4 Number women includes born born college, college, calendar Hispanic to school school does 6. high high 2006–2010 Asian, Black, White, Foreign U.S. Asian, Black, U.S. White, Foreign 1995, Hispanic Bachelor’s Some High No Non-Hispanic Bachelor’s Hispanic Some High Non-Hispanic No Figure For Includes Limited Includes 1995 2006–2010 2006–2010 and * 1 2 3 4 Table 1995 Page 20 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012 and (1.11) (1.05) (1.57) (0.70) (1.46) (0.79) (0.65) (1.23) (0.63) (0.48) (0.82) (2.32) (0.99) (0.96) (1.46) (0.91) (1.53) (0.53) Other methods 7.1 5.5 8.6 2.7 6.5 4.9 8.9 3.8 6.0 7.6 6.1 9.1 4.1 5.5 6.4 3.9 4.3 5.1 1995 2 * * * * States, (0.13) (0.71) (0.72) (0.39) (0.39) (0.37) (0.32) (0.34) (1.13) (0.32) (0.52) (0.43) (0.57) (0.24) Periodic 0.2 1.9 2.4 1.3 2.9 2.0 2.7 1.0 2.8 0.5 2.5 0.6 2.2 1.2 abstinence United * * * (0.83) (0.32) (0.77) (0.45) (1.77) (0.34) (0.23) (0.14) (0.16) (0.63) (1.20) (0.53) (1.52) (0.56) (0.65) device 4.1 0.7 6.5 education: 1.1 7.9 1.0 1.1 0.4 0.9 1.5 4.9 1.7 4.9 1.4 6.0 Intrauterine and 1 age (1.22) (0.99) (1.02) (0.71) (1.74) (0.67) (0.36) (2.41) (0.49) (0.28) (0.92) (1.24) (1.45) (0.74) (2.68) (0.99) (3.37) (0.42) Other error) 5.1 7.4 4.7 4.2 2.1 3.6 2.1 8.1 2.7 9.8 3.7 6.2 3.6 and hormonal methods 10.7 15.8 17.4 23.4 17.5 race, (standard (1.66) (1.94) (1.51) (1.41) (2.67) (1.22) (0.96) (3.19) (0.79) (0.66) (1.75) (3.57) (1.41) and (1.43) (3.70) (1.47) (4.06) (0.86) Condom 19.9 21.3 14.9 14.0 29.3 14.7 22.4 35.4 13.1 17.6 27.1 28.5 13.2 17.2 38.2 13.9 31.9 12.2 origin distribution (2.07) (1.92) (1.76) (1.71) (3.34) (1.35) (1.10) (3.06) (1.08) (0.79) (1.85) (2.45) (1.59) (1.49) (2.65) (1.69) (3.99) (1.43) Percent Pill Hispanic 57.8 26.0 15.2 18.4 36.2 18.4 31.3 38.0 18.7 21.8 54.5 22.0 16.5 18.2 23.8 21.1 40.1 23.6 by * * * * used (0.24) (0.72) (1.29) (0.56) (0.52) (0.73) (1.02) (0.69) (0.35) (1.48) (0.70) (0.95) (0.89) (1.17) Male 0.6 2.6 6.6 1.7 2.4 1.0 6.1 2.2 5.0 3.8 14.9 15.9 16.9 17.4 method of Sterilization (1.79) (0.36) (2.28) (2.96) (2.43) (0.85) (2.10) (0.79) (1.08) (1.18) (0.87) (0.50) (3.14) (2.86) (2.02) (1.48) (2.33) (1.09) Female 1.3 2.3 4.4 2.1 2.7 3.2 30.8 33.9 39.9 56.8 53.1 16.5 40.4 30.4 27.2 48.9 46.1 47.6 distribution any percent 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 method Using and in years 873 5,985 1,692 4,888 2,507 1,361 3,662 1,361 1,516 5,775 1,093 3,431 3,083 1,146 2,421 1 18,543 13,219 22,126 thousands Number 15–44 aged ...... 3 ...... GED GED women age ...... GED or or less less education or and less or or or and race diploma diploma GED GED diploma race GED or or and or school school and contracepting school Characteristic origin table. of ...... high high diploma diploma of race race race origin race race race a a high diploma ...... a end years years years years years years years years than than at Hispanic school school single single single years years years years single single single than Number school Hispanic 7. 25–44 15–24 More High 25–44 More 15–24 25–44 High 15–24 25–44 15–24 White, 25–44 15–24 Black, Black, White, White, More 25–44 Black, 15–24 High footnotes Non-Hispanic Hispanic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic 2006–2010 2006–2010 1995 1995 See Table National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012 Page 21 and (1.11) (1.44) (0.61) (1.04) (1.55) (1.31) Other methods 5.0 3.8 4.7 6.1 7.6 6.7 1995 2 * * States, (0.29) (0.24) (1.08) (0.86) Periodic 1.4 0.5 2.3 2.1 abstinence United (1.81) (1.00) (0.74) (0.85) (1.09) (0.91) device 8.4 education: 2.7 6.4 4.8 4.8 7.2 Intrauterine ring. and 1 age (2.49) (1.51) (0.62) (0.46) (1.73) (1.25) contraceptive Other error) 9.5 5.2 2.9 6.9 8.4 and hormonal methods and 12.8 patch, race, (standard (2.18) (1.81) (1.12) (1.15) (2.71) and (1.88) Condom 8.9 18.1 12.9 15.5 21.8 13.7 contraceptive origin distribution (2.39) (2.09) (1.56) (1.88) (2.80) (1.87) (Lunelle™), Percent Pill Hispanic 20.4 13.8 33.0 15.9 23.8 14.3 by injectable * used 1-month (1.19) (1.23) (1.42) (2.04) (1.22) Male 3.7 8.1 5.2 16.3 13.9 diploma. method implant, of Sterilization (3.79) (3.15) (1.42) (2.79) (4.27) (2.97) equivalency Implanon™ Female 31.4 56.2 17.4 47.0 24.7 42.4 school distribution includes high also any rhythm. percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 method Using Development 2006–2010, and temperature For in and years Educational 1,903 1,974 7,144 1,963 3,507 test, 13,925 thousands Number 15–44 General mucus is (Depo-Provera™). aged GED cervical ...... 3 ...... injectable ...... (NFP), GED GED precision. women interview...... GED or or or of less less education or 3-month less or or planning time and or and at diploma diploma reliability GED GED family diploma of race GED or or years implant or school school and contracepting natural school Characteristic 22–44 of standards high high diploma diploma race origin race a a Norplant™ high diploma aged rhythm, meet a than than not school school single single than Number women school includes Hispanic calendar to does 7. More High More High Black, White, More High 1995, Non-Hispanic Hispanic Figure For Includes Limited 2006–2010—Con. * 1 2 3 Table 2006–2010 Page 22 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012 (1.02) (0.58) (0.62) (0.82) (0.48) (0.55) (2.09) (0.63) (0.88) (1.26) (0.66) (0.51) (0.50) (0.97) (1.46) (0.58) (0.74) (0.55) (0.75) (0.53) Other methods 7.3 5.7 4.5 8.0 6.3 6.1 7.6 5.2 6.0 7.4 7.7 5.2 7.0 6.9 7.1 4.8 5.4 4.7 6.8 6.0 and life, 2 * (0.22) (0.20) (0.46) (0.39) (0.25) (0.40) (0.25) (0.45) (0.28) (0.45) (0.33) (0.34) (0.44) (0.78) (0.30) (0.36) (0.31) (0.38) (0.29) daily Periodic 0.6 1.0 1.8 1.9 1.9 3.1 0.9 1.8 0.5 3.2 1.7 2.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 0.9 1.2 2.0 1.8 abstinence * woman’s (0.11) (0.88) (0.59) (0.57) (0.34) (0.17) (0.95) (0.72) (0.21) (0.70) (1.12) (0.17) (0.52) (0.14) (0.36) (0.20) (0.65) (0.70) (0.22) the device in 0.3 6.4 5.9 4.4 1.2 1.0 4.0 5.5 1.0 4.9 7.3 0.7 5.2 0.6 1.2 0.6 4.5 4.6 0.6 Intrauterine ring. 1 religion (0.81) (0.59) (0.77) (0.73) (0.34) (0.45) (2.05) (0.82) (0.45) (0.88) (0.78) (0.49) (0.64) (0.38) (1.18) (0.91) (0.58) (0.82) (0.88) (0.49) of contraceptive Other error) 6.9 7.7 6.4 6.3 4.0 3.3 7.6 4.9 7.9 6.8 4.0 6.7 3.1 5.0 6.2 5.0 7.3 7.6 3.2 hormonal methods and 10.1 patch, (standard importance (1.11) (1.47) (0.92) (1.16) (1.02) (0.79) (0.88) (2.63) (1.46) (0.85) (1.33) (1.44) (1.09) (0.81) (0.75) (2.59) (1.46) (0.82) (1.09) (0.97) Condom 12.3 18.0 16.0 15.4 21.8 21.0 18.6 21.8 18.1 20.5 18.1 16.3 22.7 14.6 19.0 29.3 21.5 16.3 15.0 18.4 contraceptive distribution religion, (1.69) (1.36) (1.55) (1.21) (0.93) (0.91) (3.26) (1.84) (0.95) (1.93) (1.60) (1.03) (1.25) (0.82) (2.82) (1.48) (1.08) (1.63) (1.68) (1.39) (Lunelle™), Percent Pill current 29.9 29.3 22.4 28.4 30.3 21.2 37.9 30.3 32.0 28.4 31.4 27.2 22.7 21.5 37.1 27.8 25.3 20.6 28.9 29.6 by injectable used (1.26) (0.83) (1.28) (0.68) (0.62) (0.84) (2.06) (0.93) (0.66) (1.09) (0.80) (1.06) (0.72) (1.21) (1.26) (0.89) (1.20) (0.96) (0.72) (1.18) 1-month Male 8.6 9.1 8.2 9.6 6.6 8.6 9.9 9.2 8.7 4.5 9.2 7.8 8.3 11.6 12.9 14.6 12.0 13.0 12.7 14.3 method implant, of Sterilization (1.65) (1.35) (1.90) (1.12) (0.89) (1.13) (2.54) (1.68) (0.92) (2.05) (1.04) (1.52) (0.86) (1.92) (2.09) (1.52) (1.85) (1.27) (1.15) (1.68) Implanon™ Female 11.9 22.3 25.4 32.2 24.3 25.9 32.9 23.9 23.9 23.7 22.9 32.1 33.0 21.6 15.1 25.4 25.4 25.2 38.7 40.7 distribution includes also any rhythm. 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 percent method Using 2006–2010, and temperature 2006–2010 For in and years and 8,804 1,099 8,843 1,990 1,949 9,335 1,400 7,060 1,914 5,633 9,405 7,895 1 1 1 18,436 test, 17,413 12,385 13,831 17,359 17,269 10,991 10,186 denominations. thousands Number 1995 15–44 mucus denominations. (Depo-Provera™). Protestant aged shown. cervical States, Protestant not injectable is (NFP), other ...... life precision. women United 4 4 Fundamentalist or services and 3-month daily of ...... 3 planning affiliations other in ...... 5 and 5 reliability and Protestant Protestant family of services: religion religious implant Presbyterian, religion ...... attendance of contracepting Baptist, natural ...... other Characteristic of of of Current week week standards denomination denominations more more a a Lutheran, religious Norplant™ ...... rhythm, or or Southern meet of Fundamentalist Fundamentalist women ...... important important once once Importance not for ...... Frequency week week Number and and includes ...... Protestant Protestant calendar Baptist, Methodist, a a than than important important does 8. important important religion religion 1995, Never Less Once Never Less Once Not Baptist Catholic Baptist Somewhat Somewhat Catholic Very Very Other Other No Not No Figure For Includes Information Includes Includes 2006–2010 1995 attendance 2006–2010 1995 2006–2010 * 1 2 3 4 5 Table 1995 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012 Page 23 and (0.67) (0.58) (0.76) (0.69) (0.46) (0.64) (0.99) (0.79) (0.43) (0.88) (1.23) (1.07) (0.83) (0.61) (0.72) (1.09) (0.59) (0.75) (0.42) (0.65) Other methods 1995 4.6 5.9 6.2 5.1 7.1 6.9 5.9 4.5 4.9 5.6 7.9 7.9 6.8 6.7 4.8 5.7 4.4 4.9 7.2 8.6 2 States, (0.35) (0.27) (0.27) (0.35) (0.29) (0.35) (0.26) (0.58) (0.21) (0.51) (0.65) (0.64) (0.34) (0.33) (0.32) (0.33) (0.38) (0.37) (0.26) (0.49) Periodic 0.9 1.4 0.9 1.7 2.6 2.2 0.9 1.5 1.2 2.4 1.7 2.7 1.0 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.4 2.6 3.6 abstinence United (1.11) (1.10) (0.65) (0.53) (0.21) (0.15) (0.24) (0.97) (0.23) (1.17) (0.52) (0.24) (1.19) (0.63) (0.63) (0.23) (0.68) (0.19) (0.25) (0.14) location: device 7.9 5.3 5.7 5.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 4.6 0.9 7.4 4.9 0.5 7.2 1.7 6.1 0.9 5.3 0.6 1.0 0.8 ring. Intrauterine 1 residential (0.98) (0.50) (1.07) (0.74) (0.33) (0.45) (0.93) (0.32) (0.76) (0.51) (0.68) (1.05) (0.80) (0.84) (0.41) (0.70) (0.94) (1.05) (0.65) (0.24) contraceptive Other and error) 7.5 5.7 9.2 5.0 3.1 5.8 5.9 2.0 3.5 4.9 3.9 7.3 4.3 6.5 3.4 8.2 9.2 6.3 2.2 hormonal methods and 10.5 patch, income, (standard (1.11) (1.11) (1.09) (1.00) (1.10) (0.95) (0.76) (0.99) (1.98) (0.92) (1.44) (0.87) (1.38) (1.83) (1.60) (1.08) (0.92) (1.12) (1.14) (0.64) Condom 14.9 12.0 10.2 16.9 19.9 14.6 22.0 21.8 17.7 23.5 16.3 16.3 17.6 19.6 19.7 16.0 18.3 14.3 15.3 20.4 contraceptive distribution insurance, (2.33) (1.37) (1.59) (1.36) (0.89) (1.03) (Lunelle™), (2.12) (1.02) (1.98) (1.31) (1.71) (1.48) (2.00) (1.51) (1.15) (1.37) (1.29) (1.46) (1.30) (0.71) Percent Pill health 26.4 27.6 27.9 27.3 26.3 27.7 39.2 27.5 25.0 30.0 26.8 14.0 26.0 22.9 25.5 19.0 22.3 17.7 22.4 26.3 by injectable used 1-month (1.11) (1.33) (1.13) (0.77) (0.59) (0.58) (1.82) (0.84) (1.73) (0.97) (1.32) (1.13) (0.90) (1.12) (0.81) (0.59) (0.87) (0.88) (0.50) (0.57) Male 6.9 6.9 3.8 6.7 3.7 5.2 5.0 3.7 11.9 13.1 11.6 11.7 10.4 12.3 15.0 22.3 14.4 16.4 10.8 14.1 method implant, of Sterilization (2.26) (1.70) (1.66) (1.43) (0.83) (1.13) (1.95) (0.94) (1.53) (1.36) (1.59) (1.84) (2.36) (1.96) (1.23) (1.82) (1.51) (1.87) (1.34) (0.73) Implanon™ Female 34.7 24.9 23.5 32.6 25.7 27.7 14.1 18.9 19.5 23.4 26.9 29.9 38.5 31.0 31.9 42.7 42.8 40.1 45.0 26.5 distribution includes also any rhythm. percent 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 method Using details. 2006–2010, and shown. for temperature For in not and is terms years 8,113 8,189 1,681 1,330 of 6,590 1,657 6,899 5,167 1,365 5,554 4,078 1,150 6,174 6,687 7,793 test, 1 1 1 1 1 18,524 19,220 22,959 10,561 25,669 thousands Number 15–44 calculated mucus Definition be (Depo-Provera™). not aged cervical Notes’’ 3 could injectable (NFP), women interview. 3 months ‘‘Technical of coverage 3-month 12 ...... planning See level time and ...... at city city last location family in insurance city city years poverty implant insurance. central central ...... of contracepting natural whom 5 5 Characteristic 20–44 not central not central of for only only coverage area area military Residential Norplant™ ...... aged rhythm, Percent with ...... area, area, area, area, women insurance insurance more more for ...... Number insurance insurance women includes Insurance ...... or or calendar women to 9. public public metropolitan metropolitan 4 1995, Not Metropolitan Metropolitan Not Metropolitan Metropolitan 400% Any 400% Private 300%–399% 300%–399% 150%–299% None None 150%–299% Any 0–149% 0–149% Private For Includes Limited Information Includes 2006–2010 1995 2006–2010 2006–2010 2006–2010 1995 1 2 3 4 5 Table 1995 Page 24 National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012

Technical Notes because they had never had sexual completed their education. The recode intercourse, so this misclassification variable used was HIEDUC. Definition of terms does not affect the conclusions reached Frequency of attendance of about the proportion of women at risk religious services—All women, At risk of an unintended of an unintended pregnancy for 1995. regardless of current religious affiliation, pregnancy—This dichotomous variable Sexual activity status is based on were asked ATTNDNOW, how often she is based on the recode variable the event history calendar series of attended religious services. CONSTAT1, which categorizes women questions that determine months of Health insurance coverage in the either by their most effective nonintercourse compared with the month last 12 months—This is the type of contraceptive method used in the month of interview. If a woman has not had insurance coverage the woman had at of interview or by the reason they were intercourse in the month of interview any time in the last 12 months classified not using contraception that month. as private insurance only, any public and the 2 months prior to the interview Women are considered to be at risk of insurance (including military insurance) month, she is classified as not currently an unintended pregnancy if they are (31), or no insurance. In the Cycle 5 sexually active. If she has had currently using contraception interview, women were asked three intercourse in this time period, she is (CONSTAT1 codes 1–22 in 2006–2010; yes/no questions about different types of codes 1–19 in 1995) or they have had considered sexually active and at risk of insurance they may have had during the sex in the past 3 months, but are not pregnancy. Defining sexually active by last 12 months. These questions, and the currently using contraception intercourse in the current month or the category of insurance they represent, (CONSTAT1 code 42 in both 1995 and past 2 months provides a conservative are: 2006–2010). All other women are estimate of the proportion of women at + ‘‘During the last 12 months, were you considered to be not at risk of an risk of an unintended pregnancy. covered by MEDICAID, MEDICAL unintended pregnancy (CONSTAT1 Current contraceptive status—This ASSISTANCE, or another public codes 30–41)—including those who are variable measures the contraceptive assistance program that pays for pregnant, seeking pregnancy, or method used (if any) in the month of medical care?’’—public insurance. postpartum (CONSTAT1 codes 30–32); the interview. In some tables, only the + ‘‘During the last 12 months, were you either nonsurgically sterile or sterile for subset of women who report currently covered by CHAMPUS, CHAMPVA, noncontraceptive reasons (CONSTAT1 using a method are analyzed. The the VA, or any other program that codes 33–38); or are not using recode variable used was CONSTAT1. provides health care for people in the contraception, but have not had sexual Shortly before the publication of military and their families?’’— intercourse since menarche or in the 3 this report, a routing issue that affected military insurance. months prior to the interview the 1995 NSFG’s coding of the current + ‘‘(Not counting MEDICAID/Not (CONSTAT1 codes 40, 41). contraceptive use variable, CONSTAT1, counting military health insurance/ Shortly before the publication of was discovered among the small group Not counting MEDICAID and this report, a routing issue that affected of women who had never had sexual military health insurance), during the the 1995 NSFG’s coding of the current intercourse, but had used a contraceptive last 12 months, were you covered by contraceptive use variable, CONSTAT1, method. These women (about 1% of the a health insurance plan that pays for was discovered among the small group 1995 sample) were assigned hospital or doctor bills?’’—private of women who had never had sexual CONSTAT1 code 40, “Other nonuser— insurance. intercourse, but had used a contraceptive never had intercourse since first method. These women (about 1% of the period.’’ Some of these women may These were used to create a sample) were assigned CONSTAT1 have been using a contraceptive method composite variable of insurance code 40, ‘‘Other nonuser—never had in the month of interview, but the data coverage in the past 12 months with intercourse since first period.’’ Some of needed to assign a contraceptive method three categories—private insurance only, these women may have been using a value to CONSTAT1 for these women any public insurance, and no insurance contraceptive method in the month of are missing for 1995. This coverage. If a woman reported having interview, but the data needed to assign misclassification of approximately 100 both public and private insurance during a contraceptive method value to cases results in a slight underestimate the last 12 months she was classified as CONSTAT1 for these women are for 1995 in the number and percentage having public insurance. The number of missing for 1995. This misclassification of women who were using a women who reported military insurance of approximately 100 cases results in a contraceptive method. coverage was too small to show slight underestimate for 1995 in the Education—This is the woman’s separately and those women were number and percentage of women who education, as measured by the highest included in the category for public were using a contraceptive method. degree she has finished, at the date of insurance. This coding is consistent with Practically, these women were not at interview. Results are presented only for other studies of insurance coverage that risk of unintended pregnancy, even if respondents aged 22 years and over, as classify military coverage as a type of they were using a contraceptive method, many younger women have not public insurance (31). An equivalent National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012 Page 25 insurance variable was created for Poverty level income—The woman 2006–2010 using the raw variables reported her total family income for the COVERHOW01–COVERHOW04. previous calendar year in the self- Hispanic origin and race—is administered ‘‘Audio Computer-Assisted classified according to OMB standards Self Interview,’’ or ACASI, portion of for the presentation of race and origin the interview. Her reported income, in data in federal statistics (27). The 1997 conjunction with the number of persons OMB standards that allow respondents living in the household, is compared to to report more than one race or ethnic the annual weighted poverty threshold origin are followed and the recode table for families of the same size as variable, HISPRACE2, is used. In this published by the U.S. Census Bureau. report, the categories Hispanic, non- Poverty level is the household’s income Hispanic white, and non-Hispanic black, expressed as a percentage of the poverty are shown. In some tables, non-Hispanic level threshold for a household of that Asian is shown when sample sizes were size. For example, for a family of four adequate for statistical reliability. in 2008, the poverty level was $22,025. In contrast to the analysis tables, If a family of four had an income of data on race in Table A that include $50,000, her family income relative to figures taken from published NCHS the poverty level would be $50,000/ vital statistics reports (14–16) conform $22,025 * 100 = 227, or 227% of the to 1977 OMB standards (26) whereby poverty level; recode variable persons of multiple races were classified POVERTY. into a single race category. Religious affiliation—Religious Importance of religion in daily affiliation is derived from RELCURR life—is based on the raw variable (intermediate variable). It combines RELDLIFE. In 1995, this was asked of Fundamentalist Protestant with Baptist all women, including those with no or Southern Baptist into one group and religious affiliation; in 2006–2010, if a all other Protestants into another. The woman had no current religion, she was residual category, all other religious skipped by this question. For affiliations, is not analyzed because of comparability across instruments, the diversity of religions of which it is women interviewed in 1995 with no comprised (e.g., Jewish, Muslim, or current religious affiliation were set to Mormon). Members of these religions missing. have different patterns of contraceptive Intent to have more children—This method use that are masked when measure indicates intentions for combined. additional births. Only two categories are shown: intends more and intends no more. Women who reported not knowing their fertility intentions are not shown separately. The recode variable used was INTENT. Marital and cohabiting status—This is the woman’s marital and cohabiting status at the time of the interview. The recode variable used was RMARITAL. Metropolitan residence—This is based on the woman’s address at the time of the interview and classified according to 2000 census population counts. OMB defines metropolitan statistical areas. The recode variable used was METRO. Parity—The recode variable, PARITY, is used and gives the total number of live births the woman had at the time of the interview. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF FIRST CLASS MAIL HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES POSTAGE & FEES PAID CDC/NCHS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention PERMIT NO. G-284 National Center for Health Statistics 3311 Toledo Road Hyattsville, MD 20782

OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

National Health Statistics Reports n Number 60 n October 18, 2012

Acknowledgments The 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), with the support and assistance of a number of other organizations and individuals. Interviewing and other tasks were carried out by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, under a contract with NCHS. The 2006–2010 NSFG was jointly planned and funded by the following programs and agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development • Office of Population Affairs • National Center for Health Statistics, CDC • Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, CDC • Division of Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, CDC • Division of Reproductive Health, CDC • Division of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, CDC • Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, CDC • Children’s Bureau of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) • Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, ACF • Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation NCHS gratefully acknowledges the contributions of these programs and agencies and all others who assisted in designing and carrying out the 2006–2010 NSFG. This report was prepared under the general direction of Charles J. Rothwell, Director of NCHS’ Division of Vital Statistics (DVS), and Stephanie J. Ventura, Chief of the Reproductive Statistics Branch, DVS. The authors are grateful for the valuable comments provided by Stephanie Ventura; Robert Anderson, DVS Acting Co-Associate Director for Science; and Jennifer Madans, NCHS Associate Director for Science. The authors would also like to thank Yashodhara Patel and Isaedmarie Febo-Vázquez for their helpful contributions to the preparation of this report. The report was produced by CDC/OSELS/NCHS/OD/Office of Information Services, Information Design and Publishing Staff: Typesetting was done by Annette F. Holman, and graphics were produced by Odell Eldridge (contractor). Edited by vendor.

Suggested citation Copyright information National Center for Health Statistics Edward J. Sondik, Ph.D., Director Jones J, Mosher W, Daniels K. Current All material appearing in this report is in the Jennifer H. Madans, Ph.D., Associate Director contraceptive use in the United States, public domain and may be reproduced or copied without permission; citation as to for Science 2006–2010, and changes in patterns of use source, however, is appreciated. since 1995. National health statistics reports; Division of Vital Statistics no 60. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Charles J. Rothwell, M.S., Director Health Statistics. 2012.

For free e-mail updates on NCHS publication releases, subscribe online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/govdelivery.htm. For questions or general information about NCHS: Tel: 1–800–232–4636 • E-mail: [email protected] • Internet: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2013–1250 • CS234857