Table 1.
Characteristics of the MHFUS cohort at Wave 3 (2020).
| Wave 3 cohort |
Rural-origin resident at Wave 3 |
Migrant at Wave 3 |
p-value |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 2971) |
(n = 1434) |
(n = 1537) |
||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | |||
| Migration status between Wave 2 and 3 | Rural-stayer | 1236 | 41.6% | 1236 | 86.2% | ∼ | ∼ | n/a |
| Continuing migrant | 1372 | 46.2% | ∼ | ∼ | 1372 | 89.3% | ||
| New migrant | 165 | 5.6% | ∼ | ∼ | 165 | 10.7% | ||
| Return migrant | 198 | 6.7% | 198 | 13.8% | ∼ | ∼ | ||
| Age | Mean (SD) | 30.6 (5.7) | 30.4 (5.9) | 30.8 (5.6) | NS | |||
| Min, Max | 20, 43 | 20, 43 | 20, 43 | |||||
| Sex | Male | 1496 | 50.4% | 604 | 42.1% | 892 | 58.0% | p< 0,001 |
| Female | 1475 | 49.6% | 830 | 57.9% | 645 | 42.0% | ||
| Education Status | Primary school or lower | 118 | 4.0% | 87 | 6.1% | 31 | 2.0% | p< 0,001 |
| High school incomplete | 885 | 29.8% | 541 | 37.7% | 344 | 22.4% | ||
| Matric or post school | 1966 | 66.2% | 804 | 56.1% | 1162 | 75.6% | ||
| Missing | 2 | 0.1% | 2 | 0.1% | 0 | 0.0% | ||
| Employment status | Not in labour force | 320 | 10.8% | 170 | 11.9% | 150 | 9.8% | p< 0,001 |
| Unemployed | 1423 | 47.9% | 932 | 65.0% | 491 | 31.9% | ||
| Employed | 1228 | 41.3% | 332 | 23.2% | 896 | 58.3% | ||
| Employment Sector | Permanent | 728 | 59.3% | 131 | 39.5% | 597 | 66.6% | p< 0,001 |
| (Among those who were employed in Wave 3) | Fixed period/contract | 450 | 36.6% | 163 | 49.1% | 287 | 32.0% | |
| Occasional/Irregular | 46 | 3.7% | 36 | 10.8% | 10 | 1.1% | ||
| Don't know | 4 | 0.3% | 2 | 0.6% | 2 | 0.2% | ||
| Self-reported health | Good/Very good | 2873 | 96.7% | 1374 | 95.8% | 1499 | 97.5% | p< 0,01 |
| Average/Poor | 98 | 3.3% | 60 | 4.2% | 38 | 2.5% | ||
| Suffering from at least 1 chronic condition | Yes | 452 | 15.2% | 296 | 20.6% | 156 | 10.1% | p< 0,001 |
| No | 2519 | 84.8% | 1138 | 79.4% | 1381 | 89.9% | ||
| On medication for chronic condition | Yes | 310 | 68.6% | 206 | 69.6% | 104 | 66.7% | NS |
| (Among those reporting chronic condition) | No | 141 | 31.2% | 89 | 30.1% | 52 | 33.3% | |
| Missing | 1 | 0.2% | 1 | 0.3% | 0 | 0.0% | ||
| Used health services | Yes | 1596 | 53.7% | 811 | 56.6% | 785 | 51.1% | p< 0,01 |
| No | 1374 | 46.2% | 622 | 43.4% | 752 | 48.9% | ||
| Missing | 1 | 0.0% | 1 | 0.1% | 0 | 0.0% | ||
| Type of health service used | Government hospital/clinic | 1352 | 84.7% | 775 | 95.6% | 577 | 73.5% | p< 0,001 |
| (Among those who used services - | Private facility | 340 | 21.3% | 66 | 8.1% | 274 | 34.9% | p< 0,001 |
| categories not mutually exclusive) | Traditional | 127 | 8.0% | 78 | 9.6% | 49 | 6.2% | p< 0,05 |
| Shortage of food in past 3 months | Yes | 478 | 16.1% | 305 | 21.3% | 173 | 11.3% | p< 0,001 |
| No | 2486 | 83.7% | 1124 | 78.4% | 1362 | 88.6% | ||
| Missing | 7 | 0.2% | 5 | 0.3% | 2 | 0.1% | ||
| Sent remittances | Yes | 491 | 31.9% | ∼ | ∼ | 491 | 31.9% | n/a |
| (Migrants only) | No | 1033 | 67.2% | ∼ | ∼ | 1033 | 67.2% | |
| Missing | 13 | 0.8% | ∼ | ∼ | 13 | 0.8% | ||
| Province of residence | Mpumalanga | 2113 | 71.1% | 1434 | 100% | 679 | 44.2% | n/a |
| Gauteng | 668 | 22.5% | ∼ | ∼ | 668 | 43.5% | ||
| Limpopo | 102 | 3.4% | ∼ | ∼ | 102 | 6.6% | ||
| North West | 51 | 1.7% | ∼ | ∼ | 51 | 3.3% | ||
| Other | 37 | 1.2% | ∼ | ∼ | 37 | 2.4% | ||
| Settlement type | Rural | 1841 | 62.0% | 1434 | 100% | 407 | 26.5% | n/a |
| Urban | 1125 | 37.9% | ∼ | ∼ | 1125 | 73.2% | ||
| Missing | 5 | 0.2% | ∼ | ∼ | 5 | 0.3% | ||
| Residence type | Village (trust) | 1691 | 56.9% | 1434 | 100% | 257 | 16.7% | n/a |
| Informal settlement/Township | 874 | 29.4% | ∼ | ∼ | 874 | 56.9% | ||
| City | 85 | 2.9% | ∼ | ∼ | 85 | 5.5% | ||
| Town | 209 | 7.0% | ∼ | ∼ | 209 | 13.6% | ||
| Other | 112 | 3.8% | ∼ | ∼ | 112 | 7.3% | ||