| Literature DB >> 35409912 |
Xi Chen1, Hua Zhong2, Serena Yunran Zhang2.
Abstract
China has witnessed unprecedented rural-to-urban migration since the early 1980s. While trying to assimilate into the city, rural-to-urban migrants still maintain close ties with their home communities. This study examines how local ties and trans-local ties of rural-to-urban migrants affect their alcohol and tobacco use. Data were obtained from the 2016 and 2018 China Labor-force Dynamics Survey, a nationally representative sample of adults aged over 15 in 29 provinces in China. Participants included 1426 rural-to-urban migrant workers and 6438 urban residents in China. We found that compared to urban natives, rural-to-urban migrants had higher tobacco use prevalence (logit = 0.19, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.35]; p < 0.05) and more frequent alcohol use (logit = 0.27, 95% CI = [0.11, 0.42]; p < 0.001) after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. Migrants with more local social ties engaged in more frequent drinking (having >10 local friends vs. having 0 local friends: logit = 0.58, [0.10, 1.06], p < 0.05), whereas trans-local ties were not a significant correlate. In contrast, migrants who returned to their hometown more times (an indicator of trans-local ties) were more likely to be current tobacco users (logit = 0.01, 95% CI = [0.00, 0.02], p < 0.01) after adjusting for sociodemographic variables. These findings extended the research on social networks and health behaviors by identifying how local and trans-local ties differentially affected the vulnerabilities of tobacco and alcohol use among rural-to-urban migrants in China. The findings suggested that policies and interventions on reducing migrants' health risk behaviors should focus on the role of different types of social ties.Entities:
Keywords: China; alcohol use; local ties; rural-to-urban migrants; tobacco use; trans-local ties
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35409912 PMCID: PMC8998263 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19074233
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The rising number of rural migrants who left their rural hometown from 2000 to 2018 (million). Source: National Bureau of Statistics, China.
Descriptive statistics.
| Full Sample | Rural-to-Urban | Urban Native | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean/% | SD | Mean/% | SD | Mean/% | SD | ||
| Age, mean (SD) | 42.79 | −11.33 | 39.34 | −11.25 | 43.56 | −11.21 | 12.83 *** |
| Sex | |||||||
| Male | 53.08 | 52.1 | 53.29 | 0.66 | |||
| Female | 46.92 | 47.9 | 46.71 | ||||
| Marital status | |||||||
| Single | 13.83 | 17.81 | 12.95 | 42.39 *** | |||
| Cohabitate | 0.85 | 1.47 | 0.72 | ||||
| Married | 81.37 | 78.47 | 82.01 | ||||
| Divorced/widowed | 3.94 | 2.24 | 4.32 | ||||
| Education | |||||||
| Primary school or below | 12.35 | 17.56 | 11.19 | 50.34 *** | |||
| Secondary school | 52.74 | 62.99 | 50.47 | ||||
| College or above | 34.92 | 19.45 | 38.34 | ||||
| Occupation | |||||||
| Manufacturing industry | 27.9 | 35.2 | 26.28 | 50.38 *** | |||
| Service industry | 51.04 | 47.76 | 51.77 | ||||
| Other | 21.06 | 17.04 | 21.95 | ||||
| Annual income (logged), mean (SD) | 10.1 | −2.49 | 10.1 | −2.59 | 10.1 | −2.47 | −0.04 |
| Region | |||||||
| East | 53.62 | 61.36 | 51.91 | 42.23 *** | |||
| Middle | 21.43 | 18.3 | 22.12 | ||||
| West | 24.95 | 20.34 | 25.97 | ||||
| Current tobacco use | |||||||
| Yes | 24.42 | 26.95 | 23.86 | 6.02 * | |||
| No | 75.58 | 73.05 | 76.14 | ||||
| Frequency of drinking | |||||||
| Less than once per week | 78.44 | 76.05 | 78.97 | 12.49 ** | |||
| 1–2 times per week | 12.7 | 14.04 | 12.4 | ||||
| 3–4 times per week | 4.28 | 3.86 | 4.37 | ||||
| Almost everyday | 4.58 | 6.04 | 4.26 | ||||
|
| |||||||
| Number of local friends | |||||||
| 0 | 12.43 | 11.72 | 15.59 | 35.96 *** | |||
| 1—5 | 40.36 | 39.75 | 43.09 | ||||
| 6—10 | 27.11 | 27.41 | 25.74 | ||||
| >10 | 20.11 | 21.12 | 15.59 | ||||
| Perceived neighborhood cohesion, mean (SD) | 3.26 | −0.81 | 2.93 | −0.82 | 3.33 | −0.79 | 17.11 *** |
|
| |||||||
| Number of times going back to the home community, mean (SD) | 5.6 | −23.44 | |||||
| Donation to the home community | |||||||
| Yes | 23.29 | ||||||
| No | 76.71 | ||||||
| Help people in the home community | |||||||
| Yes | 37.48 | ||||||
| No | 62.52 | ||||||
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
The effect of migration status on tobacco use and alcohol use.
| Tobacco Use | Alcohol Use | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logit | [95% CI] | Logit | [95% CI] | |
| Rural-to-urban migrants | 0.19 * | [0.03, 0.35] | 0.27 *** | [0.11, 0.42] |
| Age | 0.01 *** | [0.01, 0.02] | 0.02 *** | [0.01, 0.02] |
| Sex (ref: male) | ||||
| Female | −4.06 *** | [−4.34, −3.77] | −2.52 *** | [−2.70, −2.35] |
| Marital status (ref: single) | ||||
| Cohabitate | −0.05 | [−0.73, 0.62] | 0.19 | [−0.44, 0.82] |
| Married | −0.02 | [−0.23, 0.19] | 0.06 | [−0.14, 0.27] |
| Divorced/widowed | 0.43 * | [0.04, 0.83] | 0.33 | [−0.03,0.69] |
| Education (ref: primary or below) | ||||
| Secondary | 0.14 | [−0.06, 0.35] | 0.13 | [−0.07, 0.33] |
| College or above | −0.52 *** | [−0.76, −0.29] | −0.10 | [−0.32, 0.13] |
| Annual income (logged) | 0.01 | [−0.02, 0.04] | 0.04 ** | [0.01, 0.07] |
| Occupation (ref: other) | ||||
| Manufacturing industry | 0.27 ** | [0.10, 0.44] | 0.19 * | [0.02, 0.35] |
| Service industry | 0.19 * | [0.02, 0.36] | 0.07 | [−0.09, 0.24] |
| Region (ref: East) | ||||
| Middle | −0.09 | [−0.25, 0.06] | 0.03 | [−0.12, 0.18] |
| West | 0.11 | [−0.04, 0.26] | 0.21 ** | [0.07, 0.35] |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
The association between sociodemographic variables and tobacco use and alcohol use among migrants and urban native residents.
| Current Tobacco Use | Frequency of Drinking | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1a | Model 1b | Model 2a | Model 2b | |||||
| Logit | [95% CI] | Logit | [95% CI] | Logit | [95% CI] | Logit | [95% CI] | |
| Age | 0.01 | [−0.01, 0.02] | 0.01 *** | [0.01, 0.02] | 0.01 | [−0.01, 0.02] | 0.02 *** | [0.01, 0.03] |
| Sex (ref: male) | ||||||||
| Female | −4.51 *** | [−5.24, −3.79] | −3.97 *** | [−4.28, −3.65] | −2.62 *** | [−3.01, −2.22] | −2.50 *** | [−2.70, −2.31] |
| Marital status (ref: single) | ||||||||
| Cohabitate | 0.72 | [−0.58, 2.02] | −0.40 | [−1.22, 0.42] | 0.80 | [−0.24, 1.84] | −0.17 | [−0.97, 0.63] |
| Married | −0.02 | [−0.47, 0.43] | −0.02 | [−0.26, 0.22] | 0.09 | [−0.33, 0.51] | 0.06 | [−0.18, 0.29] |
| Divorced/widowed | 0.31 | [−1.02, 1.64] | 0.44 * | [0.02, 0.86] | −0.24 | [−1.47, 0.99] | 0.37 | [−0.02, 0.76] |
| Education (ref: primary or below) | ||||||||
| Secondary | −0.21 | [−0.65, 0.22] | 0.25 * | [0.01, 0.49] | −0.13 | [−0.52, 0.26] | 0.21 | [−0.02, 0.44] |
| College or above | −0.62 * | [−1.18, −0.06] | −0.45 ** | [−0.71, −0.18] | −0.35 | [−0.85, 0.16] | −0.02 | [−0.28, 0.24] |
| Annual income (logged) | 0.02 | [−0.04, 0.09] | 0.01 | [−0.02, 0.04] | 0.02 | [−0.04, 0.08] | 0.05 ** | [0.01, 0.08] |
| Occupation (ref: other) | ||||||||
| Manufacturing industry | 0.35 | [−0.09, 0.79] | 0.25 ** | [0.06, 0.44] | 0.15 | [−0.26, 0.55] | 0.17 | [−0.01, 0.36] |
| Service industry | 0.53 * | [0.09, 0.97] | 0.12 | [−0.06, 0.31] | 0.05 | [−0.35, 0.45] | 0.06 | [−0.12, 0.24] |
| Region (ref: East) | ||||||||
| Middle | −0.37 | [−0.78, 0.03] | −0.04 | [−0.21, 0.13] | −0.17 | [−0.55, 0.21] | 0.08 | [−0.08, 0.24] |
| West | 0.16 | [−0.21, 0.53] | 0.11 | [−0.06, 0.27] | 0.24 | [−0.08, 0.57] | 0.22 ** | [0.06, 0.37] |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
The effect of local ties and trans-local ties on tobacco use.
| Rural-to-Urban Migrants | Native Urban Residents | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 3a | Model 3b | Model 4 | ||||
| Logit | [95% CI] | Logit | [95% CI] | Logit | [95% CI] | |
|
| ||||||
| Number of local friends (ref: =0) | ||||||
| 1—5 | −0.03 | [−0.48, 0.41] | −0.18 | [−0.67, 0.31] | 0.09 | [−0.14, 0.32] |
| 6—10 | −0.24 | [−0.72, 0.24] | −0.28 | [−0.81, 0.24] | 0.10 | [−0.14, 0.34] |
| >10 | 0.30 | [−0.22, 0.82] | 0.12 | [−0.46, 0.70] | 0.36 ** | [0.11, 0.61] |
| Perceived neighborhood cohesion | −0.00 | [−0.19, 0.18] | 0.04 | [−0.16, 0.25] | 0.00 | [−0.09, 0.09] |
|
| ||||||
| Number of times going back to the sending community | 0.01 ** | [0.00, 0.02] | ||||
| Donation to the sending communities (ref: no) | ||||||
| Yes | −0.02 | [−0.42, 0.39] | ||||
| Help people in the sending community (ref: no) | ||||||
| Yes | 0.15 | [−0.21, 0.51] | ||||
** p < 0.01. All models adjusted for sociodemographic variables, including age, sex, marital status, education, annual income, occupation, and region.
The effect of local ties and trans-local ties on alcohol use.
| Rural-to-Urban Migrants | Native Urban Residents | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 5a | Model 5b | Model 6 | ||||
| b | [95% CI] | b | [95% CI] | b | [95% CI] | |
|
| ||||||
| # of local friends (ref: =0) | ||||||
| 1—5 | 0.18 | [−0.24, 0.60] | 0.06 | [−0.40, 0.52] | 0.18 | [−0.05, 0.41] |
| 6—10 | 0.06 | [−0.40, 0.52] | 0.01 | [−0.49, 0.51] | 0.43 *** | [0.19, 0.67] |
| >10 | 0.58 * | [0.10, 1.06] | 0.47 | [−0.06, 0.99] | 0.54 *** | [0.29, 0.79] |
| Perceived community cohesion | −0.06 | [−0.23, 0.11] | 0.00 | [−0.18, 0.19] | −0.14 ** | [−0.23, −0.06] |
|
| ||||||
| Number of times going back to the sending community | 0.00 | [−0.00, 0.01] | ||||
| Donation to the sending communities (ref: no) | ||||||
| Yes | −0.09 | [−0.45, 0.28] | ||||
| Help people in the sending community (ref: no) | ||||||
| Yes | 0.15 | [−0.18, 0.48] | ||||
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. All models adjusted for sociodemographic variables, including age, sex, marital status, education, annual income, occupation, and region.