The fertility of internal migrants to Kinshasa

Genus

Journal of Population Sciences

Table 4 Logistic regression results for differences in current contraceptive use between migrants and non-migrants, PMA2020 Project, Kinshasa 2013

	Using any method of contraception		Modern contraception		Traditional contraception
	Odds	SE	Odds	SE	Odds	SE
Migrant	0.95	0.13	0.70**	0.13	1.28*	0.20
Number of births	1.21***	0.05	1.22***	0.06	1.09**	0.05
Age	1.38***	0.06	1.26***	0.07	1.33***	0.07
Age²	0.99***	0.00	0.99***	0.00	0.99***	0.00
Level of education
No education (ref.)	----	----	----	----	----	----
Primary school	0.97	0.23	1.11	0.34	0.88	0.23
Middle secondary	1.30	0.31	1.91**	0.60	0.83	0.23
Advanced secondary +	2.13**	0.63	2.56**	0.94	1.24	0.42
Marital status
Married/in union (ref.)	----	----	----	----	----	----
Separated/divorced/widowed	0.22***	0.08	0.30**	0.16	0.27***	0.13
Never married	0.98	0.13	0.99	0.17	0.98	0.16
Household wealth
Quintile 1 (lowest, ref.)	----	----	----	----	----	----
Quintile 2	1.13	0.19	0.84	0.18	1.37	0.28
Quintile 3	1.40**	0.23	0.88	0.18	1.82***	0.37
Quintile 4	1.23	0.21	1.05	0.22	1.29	0.28
Quintile 5 (highest)	1.51**	0.27	1.26	0.27	1.41	0.31
N=	2010		2010		2010

Notes: *p ≤ 0.10; **p ≤ 0.05; ***p ≤ 0.01. We remove all pregnant women from this analysis (n = 187, 160 non-migrants and 27 migrants)