| Literature DB >> 25074067 |
Erick G Guerrero1, Jorge Ameth Villatoro, Yinfei Kong, Clara Fleiz, William A Vega, Steffanie A Strathdee, Maria Elena Medina-Mora.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined Mexican migrants' perceived barriers to entering substance abuse treatment and potential differences by gender.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25074067 PMCID: PMC4118628 DOI: 10.1186/1747-597X-9-30
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy ISSN: 1747-597X
Individual characteristics for those who have used drugs by migrant status using 2011 data
| Individual Factors | | | |
| Female* | 21.6 | 24.5 | 8.7 |
| Age ( | 32.9 (10.9) | 36.6 (11.1) | 38.0 (10.8) |
| Married* | 35.6 | 36.5 | 39.9 |
| Less than High school* | 85.0 | 58.0 | 92.9 |
| Num of dependents ( | 3.8 (1.7) | 3.5 (1.7) | 3.7 (1.9) |
| Public insurance | 29 | 15.1 | 31.6 |
| Private insurance* | 1.6 | 11.9 | 2.4 |
| Drug dependence* | 13.2 | 11.9 | 16.2 |
| Depression scale* | 1.8 (0.8) | 1.6 (0.7) | 1.7 (0.8) |
| | | | |
| Cost or insurance | 5.9 | 5.6 | 5.3 |
| Solve it by their own | 19.7 | 16.1 | 17.1 |
| No access to the treatment | 5.5 | 4.3 | 4.5 |
| Stigma | 7.4 | 6.5 | 6.3 |
| Denied problem | 53.2 | 52.9 | 55.3 |
| Mean number of barriers | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.8 |
| | | | |
| Northcentral | 14.8 | 32.1 | 24.9 |
| Northwest* | 14.2 | 23.9 | 15.0 |
| Northeast* | 10.2 | 14.5 | 8.7 |
| East | 17.1 | 11.9 | 21.7 |
| Central | 9.4 | 4.4 | 9.5 |
| Mexico City* | 13.9 | 7.5 | 4.0 |
| Southcentral* | 10.2 | 2.5 | 13.4 |
| South* | 10.3 | 3.1 | 2.8 |
Note. Figures represent percentage unless otherwise noted.
*Means or frequencies are different across groups at p < .05.
Negative binomial regression on number of barriers to treatment in Mexico, 2011
| Traveling to U.S.a | 0.992 | 0.164 | 0.961 | 0.717, 1.373 |
| Transnationala | 1.015 | 0.143 | 0.917 | 0.770, 1.337 |
| Drug dependence | 1.937 | 0.249 | 0.000 | 1.504, 2.494 |
| Traveling to U.S. x femaleb | 0.311 | 0.115 | 0.002 | 0.150, 0.643 |
| Transnational x femaleb | 0.656 | 0.172 | 0.109 | 0.392, 1.099 |
| Drug dependence x femaleb | 1.084 | 0.610 | 0.886 | 0.358, 3.276 |
| Female | 1.014 | 0.173 | 0.935 | 0.725, 1.417 |
| Age | 0.993 | 0.005 | 0.875 | 0.983, 1.003 |
| Less than High school | 1.085 | 0.155 | 0.986 | 0.818, 1.437 |
| | | | | |
| North central | 1.657 | 0.381 | 0.028 | 1.055, 2.602 |
| Northwest | 1.618 | 0.383 | 0.043 | 1.016, 2.576 |
| Northeast | 2.522 | 0.557 | 0.000 | 1.634, 3.892 |
| West | 3.364 | 0.794 | 0.000 | 2.116, 5.348 |
| Central | 1.989 | 0.409 | 0.001 | 1.327, 2.980 |
| South central | 2.386 | 0.625 | 0.001 | 1.426, 3.992 |
| South | 2.008 | 0.667 | 0.036 | 1.046, 3.857 |
Note. CI, confidence interval; IRR, incidence rate ratio; SE, standard error. IRRs can be interpreted as the estimated rate ratio for a 1-unit increase in the independent variable, given the other variables are held constant in the model. For example, compared to non-dependent, individuals reporting drug dependence are associated with an increased ratio for number of barriers of IRR = 1.937, while holding all other variables in the model constant. The corresponding p-value is less than 0.001.
aMexicans who have not visited the United States was reference category.
bInteraction term.
cMexico City was reference category.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Figure 1Predicted values of interaction term (gender and migrant status) on number of barriers.