Skip to main content

Table 4 Effects of migration on access to family planning services 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 22·4 (446)   20·3 (491)   0·65 (0·40–1·04), p = 0·073
Migration status of husband
 Resident 19·2 (266) Referent 23·0 (280) Referent 0·95 (0·53–1·70), p = 0·860
 Migrant 27·1 (180) 1·29 (0·77–2·16), p = 0·333 17·0 (211) 0·46 (0·29–0·72), p = 0·001 0·31 (0·14–0·71), p = 0·005
Frequency of husband’s home visita
 Infrequent (Once or less in a year) 27·1 (62) Referent 13·2 (84) Referent 0·10 (0·01–0·78), p = 0·028
 Frequent (Multiple visits within a year) 27·0 (118) 0·67 (0·28–1·61), p = 0·369 19·4 (127) 1·58 (0·63–3·94), p = 0·331 0·32 (0·11–0·92), p = 0·034
Number of days husband stays during home visitsa
  < 30 days 31·6 (105) 1·31 (0·58–2·97), p = 0·512 22·2 (97) 3·76 (1·45–9·76), p = 0·006 0·24 (0·06–1·02), p = 0·054
 30+ days 20·8 (75) Referent 12·6 (114) Referent 0·12 (0·02–0·74), p = 0·023
Destination where husband is currently workinga
 Short distance destination 17·9 (36) Referent 3·3 (19) Referent 0·32 (0·01–10·6), p = 0·522
 Long distance destination 29·3 (145) 2·62 (0·76–9·05), p = 0·129 18·3 (192) 3·79 (0·24–60·8), p = 0·346 0·28 (0·10–0·78), p = 0·015
  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