Skip to main content

Table 3 Effects of migration on intention to family planning use among women currently not using contraceptives 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 23·9 (446)   27·3 (491)   1·23 (0·81–1·87), p = 0·330
Migration status of husband
 Resident 26·6 (175) Referent 23·4 (207) Referent 1·04 (0·67–1·61), p = 0·878
 Migrant 31·8 (129) 1·46 (0·84–2·54), p = 0·178 36·6 (180) 1·83 (1·12–2·99), p = 0·015 1·25 (0·75–2·08), p = 0·387
Frequency of husband’s home visita
 Infrequent (Once or less in a year) 25·3 (43) Referent 31·7 (72) Referent 3·51 (0·32–38·9), p = 0·306
 Frequent (Multiple visits within a year) 35·1 (86) 1·62 (0·58–4·56), p = 0·357 39·9 (108) 1·19 (0·60–2·35), p = 0·617 1·81 (0·70–4·70), p = 0·222
Number of days husband stays during home visitsa
  < 30 days 30·4 (77) 1·29 (0·52–3·18), p = 0·581 45·4 (87) 2·14 (1·10–4·14), p = 0·025 4·49 (1·05–19·3), p = 0·043
 30+ days 33·9 (52) Referent 28·4 (93) Referent 1·03 (0·21–4·98), p = 0·973
Destination where husband is currently workinga
 Short distance destination 30·8 (25) Referent 39·3 (13) Referent 0·76 (0·11–5·15), p = 0·774
 Long distance destination 32·0 (104) 1·19 (0·36–3·97), p = 0·771 36·4 (167) 0·88 (0·23–3·33), p = 0·854 1·23 (0·70–2·16), p = 0·475
  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