Table 2.
Last 12-Month exposure to prevention messages among Mexican im/migrants by migration context and phase, Tijuana, 2009–2010 (n=3,149)
| Sending Communities | Border | Receiving Communities | pa | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Pre-departure Phase (Weighted N=139,395) | Return Phase (Weighted N=100,809) | Transit Phase (Weighted N=284,642) | Destination Phase (Weighted N=414,490) | Interception Phase (Weighted N=37,727) | ||
| Exposed to prevention messageb, % | 75.3 | 57.2 * | 68.0 | 61.9 ** | 62.7 ** | <0.001 |
| Exposure by Message Content: | ||||||
| Condom use, % | 73.2 | 54.1 ** | 61.3 | 53.8 ** | 56.4 ** | <0.001 |
| STI testing, % | 60.1 | 45.0 | 52.3 | 50.5 ** | 47.3 * | 0.005 |
| HIV/AIDS testing, % | 59.7 | 45.2 | 57.0 | 52.0 * | 47.2 * | 0.084 |
| Monogamous relationship, % | 55.5 | 40.7 | 49.8 | 40.5 ** | 45.0 * | <0.001 |
| Reducing number of sex partners, % | 54.9 | 38.7 | 44.8 | 41.3 ** | 42.3 * | 0.003 |
| Number of messages by content, Mean (SD) | 3.0 (2.1) | 2.2 (2.2) | 2.7 (2.2) | 2.4 (2.2) ** | 2.4 (2.1) ** | <0.001 |
| Exposure by Interpersonal Source: | ||||||
| Family member, % | 45.1 | 58.7 ** | 58.3 ** | 60.3 ** | 67.0 ** | <0.001 |
| Friends, % | 43.1 | 55.7 ** | 59.6 ** | 59.0 ** | 66.7 ** | <0.001 |
| Health professional, % | 40.1 | 31.0 | 38.5 | 32.4 ** | 45.5 | 0.006 |
| Religious leader, % | 27.2 | 48.2 ** | 36.9 ** | 43.1 ** | 43.0 ** | <0.001 |
| Other personal sources, % | 27.0 | 18.7 | 33.5 ** | 27.0 | 34.6 ** | <0.001 |
| Number of interpersonal sources, Mean (SD) | 1.8 (1.3) | 2.1 (1.2) ** | 1.7 ** | 2.2 (1.3) ** | 2.6 (1.1) ** | <0.001 |
| Exposure by Media Channel: | ||||||
| Television, % | 68.5 | 47.0 § | 61.9 | 55.7 ** | 57.0 ** | <0.001 |
| Radio, % | 38.2 | 24.7 | 39.4 | 31.2 * | 38.3 | <0.001 |
| Posters/billboards, % | 38.3 | 23.9 ** | 31.3 | 24.7 * | 27.2 ** | <0.001 |
| Otherc, % | 43.0 | 32.5 | 40.5 * | 34.0 | 41.3 | <0.001 |
| Number of media sources, Mean (SD) | 1.9 (1.5) | 1.3 (1.5)* | 1.7 (1.5) | 1.5 (1.5) ** | 1.6 (1.6) | <0.001 |
| Exposure by Setting: | ||||||
| Clinic, % | 48.4 | 35.6 | 45.3 | 40.4 ** | 50.4 | <0.001 |
| Consulate, % | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.4 R | 5.6 | 8.8 ** | <0.001 |
| School, % | 9.1 | 8.5 | 19.5 ** | 11.8 * | 21.2 ** | <0.001 |
| Street, % | 53.4 | 63.3 | 60.5 * | 62.9 ** | 64.3 ** | <0.001 |
| Other, % | 36.3 | 25.3 | 40.0 | 32.8 | 35.7 | 0.021 |
| Number of settings, Mean (SD) | 1.5 (1.0) | 1.3 (0.9) | 1.7 (1.2) ** | 1.5 (1.1) | 1.8 (1.2) ** | <0.001 |
Reference category,
p<0.05 for comparison to the reference category based on adjusted regression models,
p<0.01 for comparison to the reference category based on adjusted regression models
P value for overall effect of migration phase, based on logistic (for binary outcomes) and multiple linear (for continuous outcomes) regression models. Models were adjusted for age, gender, marital status, education, ethnicity, and time in the key context during last 12 months. The referent category was pre-departure unless otherwise indicated.
Exposure in key migration context during the last 12-months. Key context refers to the migration environment represented by each flow: sending communities for pre-departure and return migrants, Mexican border region for transit migrants, and receiving communities for migrants at destination and interception phases.
Other media sources include newspapers, magazines, internet, fliers, comic books, and other written media.