Male migration and risky sexual behavior in rural India: is the place of origin critical for HIV prevention programs?

Table 2 Number and type of sex partners, unprotected sex practices, STI risk of non-migrants, returned migrants and active migrants in Prakasam and Azamgarh districts, India

	Prakasam district				Azamgarh district
	Non-migrants	Returned migrants	Active migrants	p-value¹	Non-migrants	Retuned migrants	Active migrants	p-value¹
Total sample size	401	317	316		431	319	320
	%	%	%		%	%	%
Ever had sex with
Either sex worker or casual unpaid partner	40.4	57.7	57.6	<0.001	38.3	42.3	47.8	0.033
Male partner	1.5	0.9	1.9	0.602	3.0	4.4	1.9	0.184
Had sex in past 12 months with
Sex worker	7.5	12.0	14.6	0.009	6.5	10.3	19.4	<0.001
Casual unpaid partner	25.2	33.4	34.5	0.011	21.1	16.9	27.5	0.005
Both sex worker and casual partner	7.5	11.4	13.9	0.019	4.2	6.3	15.3	<0.001
3+ sex partners	9.2	15.5	17.7	0.003	10.4	10.0	17.2	0.007
Consistent condom use ^# in past 12 months with
Sex worker²	76.7 (30)	68.4 (38)	73.9 (46)	0.732	28.6 (28)	42.4 (33)	41.9 (62)	0.435
Casual unpaid partner⁴	15.8 (101)	22.6 (106)	31.2 (109)	0.031	11.0 (91)	16.7 (54)	33.0 (88)	0.001
Risky sexual behavior ^$	9.3	12.3	13.1	0.334	6.8	8.6	16.5	0.002

¹ Chi-square test.
² Among those who had sex with sex workers in last 12 months.
³ Among those who had sex with sex workers.
⁴ Among those who had sex with casual unpaid female partners in last 12 months.
⁵ Among those who had sex with casual unpaid female partners.
^# Every time condom use in sex episodes in past12 months prior to the survey with specific type of partner (irrespective of place of origin or destination).
( ) Data in parenthesis indicates the total sample size for that variable.
^$ No consistent condom use in sex with both sex worker and/or casual unpaid partner, and having sex with both sex worker and casual unpaid partners.

ISSN: 1471-2458