Visit coronavirus.gov for the latest Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) updates.

You are here

Disparities Data Details MICH-17.1 by Geographic Location for 2011-15

Disparities Details by Geographic Location for 2011-15
MICH-17.1 : Women with impaired fecundity (percent, 18–44 years)
This chart compares rates by population.

2020 Baseline (year): 12.7 (2002)
2020 Target: 11.4 1
Desired Direction: ↓ Decrease Desired
Data Source: National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), CDC/NCHS
Error Bar (I) represents the 95% confidence interval.
Additional footnotes may apply to these data. Please refer to footnotes below the data table for further information.
See also Disparities Overview by Geographic Location for MICH-17.1

MICH-17.1 Reduce the proportion of women aged 18 to 44 years who have impaired fecundity

Women with impaired fecundity (percent, 18–44 years)

2020 Baseline (year): 12.7 (2002)
2020 Target: 11.4 1
Desired Direction: ↓ Decrease Desired
Geographic Location 2011-15 Disparity
Metropolitan 11.4
CI 9.8/12.9
SE 0.768
÷ 1.000
Best rate
Non-metropolitan 13.3
CI 12.1/14.4
SE 0.569
÷ 1.169
CI
1.000/ 1.334

Data are subject to revision and may have changed since a previous release.

Unless noted otherwise, any age-adjusted data are adjusted using the year 2000 standard population.

Data are not available or not collected for populations not shown.

CI: 95% confidence interval.

Summary measures of health disparities by Geographic Location — 2011-15
  • The better group rate for this objective, 11.4%, was attained by persons living in a metropolitan area.
  • The worse group rate for this objective, 13.3%, was attained by persons living in a non-metropolitan area.
  • The absolute difference (or range) between the best and worst group rates was 1.9 percentage points.
  • The worst group rate was 1.169 times the best group rate.
Detailed measures of health disparities by Geographic Location — 2011-15

Persons living in a metropolitan area achieved the better group rate for this objective, 11.4%.

The rate among persons living in a non-metropolitan area was 1.169 times the better group rate.

FootnotesShow Footnotes