Differences in Contraceptive Use Across Generations of Migration Among Women of Mexican Origin
- 293 Downloads
Objectives To explore differences in contraceptive use among women of Mexican origin across generations of migration. Methods Logit models were used to assess contraceptive use among 1,830 women of Mexican origin in Cycles 5 (1995) and 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). Analyses were stratified by age. Initial models controlled for survey year and underlying differences across generations of migration in age and parity; subsequent models added a range of potential mediating variables. Models account for significant interactions between generation of migration and parity. Results Among women under age 30 who have not yet had any children, women in their twenties with parity 3 or more, and women 30 or older with parity 1 or 2, those born in the US are much more likely to use contraception than immigrant women. For other levels of parity, there are no significant differences in contraceptive use across generations of migration. Generational differences in marital status, socio-economic status, health insurance coverage, and catholic religiosity did little to mediate the association between generation of migration and contraceptive use. Conclusions Among women of Mexican origin, patterns of contraceptive use among first-generation immigrants and women of generation 1.5 are similar to those of women in Mexico, with very low rates of contraceptive use among young women who have not yet had a child. Further research is needed to investigate the extent to which this pattern is due to fertility preferences, contraceptive access, or concerns about side effects and infertility. Patterns of contraceptive use appear to change more slowly with acculturation than many other factors, such as education, income, and work force participation.
KeywordsContraception Acculturation Immigration Mexican Hispanic
This project was supported in part under a cooperative agreement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through the Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine. William Dow and Edward Norton provided invaluable methodological guidance.
- 1.U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). The American community—Hispanics: 2006. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hispanic/cps2006/CPS_Powerpoint_2006.pdf.
- 4.Guendelman, S., & English, P. B. (1995). Effect of United States residence on birth outcomes among Mexican immigrants: An exploratory study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 14(9 Suppl), S30–S38.Google Scholar
- 15.Hirsch, J. S. (2003). A courtship after marriage: Sexuality and love in Mexican transnational families. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- 21.Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation. (2002). 2002 National survey of latinos: Summary of findings. Menlo Park, CA and Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- 23.Groves, R. M., Benson, G., Mosher, W. D., et al. (2005). Plan and operation of cycle 6 of the National Survey of Family Growth. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital & health statistics, 1(42). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_01/sr01_042.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2008.
- 26.Shorto, R. (2006). Contra-contraception: A growing number of conservatives see birth control as part of an ailing culture that overemphasizes sex and devalues human life. Is this the beginning of the next culture war? The New York Times Magazine, 76(2), 48–55, 68, 83.Google Scholar
- 27.Allison, P. D. (1984). Event history analysis: Regression for longitudinal event data. Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- 29.Norton, E. C., Wang, H., & Ai, C. (2004). Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. The Stata Journal, 4(2), 154–167.Google Scholar
- 30.Consejo Nacional de Población. (2000). Cuadernos de Salud Reproductiva: República de México. Mexico: CONAPO.Google Scholar
- 31.Chandra, A., Martinez, G. M., Mosher, W. D., Abma, J. C., & Jones, J. (2005). Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of U.S. women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics, 23(25), 175 pp. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_025.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2007.
- 33.Institute of Medicine. (1995). In S. S. Brown & L. Eisenberg (eds.), The best intentions: Unintended pregnancy and the well-being of children and families. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- 34.Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- 36.Amuchástegui, A. (1998). La dimensión moral de la sexualidad y de la virginidad en las culturas híbridas mexicanas. Relaciones, 19(74), 101–138.Google Scholar
- 37.González-López, G. (2005). Erotic journeys: Mexican immigrants and their sex lives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- 38.Zavella, P. (1997). Playing with fire: The gendered construction of Chicana/Mexicana sexuality. In R. N. Lancaster & M. di Leonardo (Eds.), The gender sexuality reader: Culture, history, political economy (pp. 392–408). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 39.Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (1994). Gendered transitions: Mexican experiences of immigration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar