The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Trends in Contraceptive Use in the United States: 1982-1995
Abstract
CONTEXT: Trends in contraceptive use have implications for shifts in pregnancy rates and birthrates and can inform clinical practice of changes in needs for contraceptive methods and services. METHODS: Information on current contraceptive use was collected from a representative sample of women of reproductive age in the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). This information is compared with similar data from 1982 and 1988 to examine trends in use, both overall and in social and demographic subgroups. RESULTS: The proportion of U.S. women using a contraceptive method rose from 56% in 1982 to 60% in 1988 and 64% in 1995. As in 1982 and 1988, female sterilization, the pill and the male condom were the most widely used methods in 1995. Between 1988 and 1995, the proportion of users relying on the pill decreased from 31% to 27%, while condom use rose from 15% to 20%. The largest decreases in pill use and the largest increases in condom use occurred among never-married women and among black women younger than 25. Reliance on the IUD dropped sharply among Hispanic women, while use of the diaphragm fell among college-educated white women. CONCLUSIONS: The decline in pill and diaphragm use and the increase in reliance on condoms suggest that concerns about HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases are changing patterns of method use among unmarried women.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Oral Contraceptives and the Risk of Breast Cancer
Marchbanks, P. A., McDonald, J. A., Wilson, H. G., Folger, S. G., Mandel, M. G., Daling, J. R., Bernstein, L., Malone, K. E., Ursin, G., Strom, B. L., et al. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa013202 · Cited by 532
Sanders, S. A., Graham, C. A., Bass, J. L., & Bancroft, J. (2001) · Contraception · doi:10.1016/s0010-7824(01)00218-9 · Cited by 347
Scholes, D., LaCroix, A. Z., Ichikawa, L. E., Barlow, W. E., & Ott, S. M. (2005) · Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine · doi:10.1001/archpedi.159.2.139 · Cited by 221
Pregnancy Intention: How PRAMS Data Can Inform Programs and Policy
Melvin, C. L., Rogers, M., Gilbert, B. C., Lipscomb, L., Lorenz, R., Ronck, S., & Casey, S. (2000) · Maternal and Child Health Journal · doi:10.1023/a:1009579615114 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Piccinino, L. J., & Mosher, W. D.
- Venue
- Family Planning Perspectives
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1998-01
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 4
- ISSN
- 0014-7354 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1785529372
- Cited by
- 409
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 45.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Trends in Contraceptive Use in the United States: 1982-1995. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2991517
- The paper
- Piccinino, L. J., & Mosher, W. D. (1998). Trends in Contraceptive Use in the United States: 1982-1995. Family Planning Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991517
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.