Skip to main content

Table 2 Effects of migration on modern contraceptive use among women by volume of migration

From: Migration and family planning in the state with highest total fertility rate in India

Characteristics Low male out-migration area (LMA) High male out-migration area (HMA) HMA vs LMA
%(N) AOR (95% CI), p-value %(N) AOR (95% CI), p-value AOR (95% CI), p-value
Overall 32·0 (446)   21·2 (491)   0·58 (0·35–0·95), p = 0·030
Migration status of husband
 Resident 34·3 (266) Referent 26·0 (280) Referent 0·57 (0·36–0·91), p = 0·020
 Migrant 28·7 (180) 0·51 (0·31–0·85), p = 0·009 14·7 (211) 0·43 (0·26–0·73), p = 0·002 0·43 (0·15–1·27), p = 0·128
Frequency of husband’s home visita
 Infrequent (Once or less in a year) 30·3 (62) Referent 13·6 (84) Referent 0·27 (0·08–0·91), p = 0·034
 Frequent (Multiple visits within a year) 27·8 (118) 0·57 (0·24–1·36), p = 0·203 15·4 (127) 1·65 (0·62–4·43), p = 0·317 0·64 (0·31–1·31), p = 0·222
Number of days husband stays during home visitsa
  < 30 days 27·0 (105) 0·76 (0·34–1·67), p = 0·491 10·0 (97) 0·52 (0·20–1·37), p = 0·187 0·38 (0·16–0·94), p = 0·036
 30+ days 31·0 (75) Referent 18·7 (114) Referent 0·50 (0·21–1·21), p = 0·125
Destination where husband has been workinga
 Short distance destination 30·6 (36) Referent 33·2 (19) Referent 1·62 (0·09–30·1), p = 0·748
 Long distance destination 28·2 (145) 1·52 (0·56–4·16), p = 0·413 12·9 (192) 0·46 (0·14–1·52), p = 0·201 0·41 (0·13–1·28), p = 0·126
  1. aComputed only among women with migrant husbands
  2. AOR Adjusted Odds Ratio, CI Confidence interval; AORs and CIs were estimated from multiple logistic regression models adjusted for age, education, caste, working status, membership in self-help group, ownership of phone, daily mass media exposure, monthly household income and number of children