This report presents national estimates of fertility, family planning, and reproductive health indicators among females 15-44 years of age in the United States in 2002 from Cycle 6 of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). For selected indicators, data are also compared with earlier cycles of the NSFG.
Descriptive tables of numbers and percentages are presented and interpreted. Data were collected through in-person interviews of the household population 15-44 years of age in the United States between March 2002 and March 2003. The sample included 7,643 females and 4,928 males, and this report focuses on data from the female sample. The overall response rate for the Cycle 6 NSFG was 79 percent, and the response rate for women was 80 percent.
Given the range of topics covered in the report, only selected findings are listed here. About 14 percent of recent births to women 15-44 years of age in 2002 were unwanted at time of conception, an increase from the 9 percent seen for recent births in 1995. Among recent births, 64 percent occurred within marriage, 14 percent within cohabiting unions, and 21 percent to women who were neither married nor cohabiting. The overall rate of breastfeeding initiation among recent births increased from 55 to 67 percent between 1995 and 2002. About 50 percent of women 15-44 had ever cohabited compared with 41 percent of women in the 1995 survey; the percentage of women currently cohabiting also increased, from 7 to 9 percent between 1995 and 2002.
"ferences Surgical sterilization is a common form of contraception in the United States , although not all sterilizing surgeries are for contraception . The majority of sterilization surgeries for women are tubal ligations ( 69% ), followed by hysterectomies ( 17% ) ; other surgeries comprise 11% of all surgeries resulting in female sterilization ( Chandra et al . , 2005"
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Surgical sterilization is a relatively permanent form of contraception that has been disproportionately used by Black, Hispanic, and Native American women in the United States in the past. We use a nationally representative sample of 4,609 women ages 25 to 45 to determine whether sterilization continues to be more common and consequential by race for reproductive-age women. Results indicate that Native American and Black women are more likely to be sterilized than non-Hispanic White women, and Hispanic and Native American women are more likely than non-Hispanic White women to report that their sterilization surgeries prevent them from conceiving children they want. Reasons for sterilization differ significantly by race. These findings suggest that stratified reproduction has not ended in the United States and that the patterns and consequences of sterilization continue to vary by race.
Social Science Research 11/2014; 50. DOI:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.10.010 · 1.27 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background:
Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) is often administered immediately postpartum to reduce the risk of short-interval repeat or unintended pregnancies, but little is known about the actual patterns of postpartum DMPA use. This article examines the patterns of DMPA administered among low-income new mothers in an upstate New York State community.
Mothers attending urban pediatric practices (births 2009-2011) completed a mailed survey approximately 5 months after delivery. Among 83 survey items were questions about breastfeeding and timing of DMPA receipt.
Unintended pregnancy was reported by 48.8% of the subjects. Their deliveries occurred across four local hospitals. Among the 31.3% of subjects who received postpartum DMPA, 62.6% received it prior to hospital discharge. Those receiving in-hospital DMPA (n=127) were significantly more likely than other mothers to be black, older, urban dwelling, non-high school graduates, multiparous, and planning to formula feed. Administration patterns differed by hospital.
This study of postpartum DMPA administration among a convenience sample of low-income mothers demonstrated rates of 26% overall, but there was between-hospital variability. Additional study may identify approaches to ensure timely administration to appropriate candidates.
Journal of Women's Health 01/2014; 23(3). DOI:10.1089/jwh.2012.4016 · 2.05 Impact Factor
"e d u c a t i o n a n d c o h a b i t a t i o n i n b r i t a i n Assessments of the link between education and cohabitation often take a cross-sectional approach (Chandra et al. 2005; Kennedy and Bumpass 2008; Esteve, Lesthaeghe, and López-Gay 2012), and so we begin with some data for the period 2000–04. To illustrate the educational differentials in cohabitation, we look at three indicators of cohabitation commonly used: the proportion currently cohabiting, the proportion ever having cohabited, and the proportion cohabiting among those currently in a union. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Cohabitation is sometimes thought of as being inversely associated with education, but in Britain a more complex picture emerges. Educational group differences in cohabitation vary by age, time period, cohort, and indicator used. Well-educated women pioneered cohabitation in Britain in the 1970s and 1980s. In the most recent cohorts, however, the less educated have exceeded the best educated in the proportions ever having cohabited at young ages. But the main difference by education currently seems largely a matter of timing—that is, the less educated start cohabiting earlier than the best educated. In Britain, educational differentials in cohabitation appear to be reinstating longstanding social patterns in the level and timing of marriage. Taking partnerships as a whole, social differentials have been fairly stable. Following a period of innovation and diffusion, there is much continuity with the past.
Population and Development Review 09/2013; 39(3):441-458. DOI:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2013.00611.x · 2.22 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.