Table 2.
Multilevel logit model for underweight males in India, 2005–06
| Rural young males (15–24 years) n 11 425 | Rural mature males (25–54 years) n 23 058 | Urban young males (15–24 years) n 12 251 | Urban mature males (25–54 years) n 22 334 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed parameters† | OR | 95 % CI | OR | 95 % CI | OR | 95 % CI | OR | 95 % CI |
| Wealth | 0·78** | 0·73, 0·86 | 0·54** | 0·51, 0·58 | 0·71** | 0·66, 0·77 | 0·47** | 0·43, 0·50 |
| Education (years) | ||||||||
| 0 (ref.) | 1·00 | – | 1·00 | – | 1·00 | – | 1·00 | – |
| 1–5 | 0·91 | 0·77, 1·08 | 0·91* | 0·83, 0·99 | 1·15 | 0·93, 1·42 | 1·02 | 0·89, 1·17 |
| 6–8 | 1·01 | 0·86, 1·18 | 0·84* | 0·76, 0·93 | 1·11 | 0·91, 1·35 | 0·88 | 0·77, 1·01 |
| 9–10 | 0·88 | 0·74, 1·04 | 0·77** | 0·70, 0·86 | 1·02 | 0·84, 1·25 | 0·82* | 0·72, 0·95 |
| 11–12 | 0·57** | 0·47, 0·69 | 0·68** | 0·59, 0·79 | 0·73* | 0·59, 0·90 | 0·83* | 0·70, 0·99 |
| >12 | 0·46** | 0·36, 0·59 | 0·63** | 0·53, 0·74 | 0·58** | 0·46, 0·73 | 0·54** | 0·45, 0·65 |
| Age (years) | ||||||||
| 15–19 (ref.) | 1·00 | – | 1·00 | – | ||||
| 20–24 | 0·43** | 0·39, 0·47 | 0·45** | 0·41, 0·50 | ||||
| 25–29 (ref.) | 1·00 | – | 1·00 | – | ||||
| 30–34 | 0·83** | 0·76, 0·92 | 0·69** | 0·62, 0·78 | ||||
| 35–39 | 0·79** | 0·72, 0·87 | 0·51** | 0·45, 0·58 | ||||
| 40–44 | 0·79** | 0·71, 0·87 | 0·59** | 0·52, 0·67 | ||||
| 45–49 | 0·89* | 0·80, 0·99 | 0·62** | 0·54, 0·71 | ||||
| 50–54 | 0·92 | 0·82, 1·05 | 0·61** | 0·52, 0·71 | ||||
| Religion | ||||||||
| Hindu – general (ref.) | 1·00 | – | 1·00 | – | 1·00 | – | 1·00 | – |
| Muslim | 0·96 | 0·80, 1·15 | 0·94 | 0·82, 1·09 | 1·10 | 0·95, 1·27 | 0·97 | 0·85, 1·12 |
| Christian | 0·53** | 0·41, 0·68 | 0·59** | 0·48, 0·72 | 0·69* | 0·55, 0·87 | 0·71* | 0·56, 0·89 |
| Sikh | 0·78 | 0·51, 1·20 | 0·54* | 0·35, 0·81 | 0·93 | 0·57, 1·52 | 0·64 | 0·34, 1·19 |
| Hindu – caste | 0·99 | 0·87, 1·12 | 1·04 | 0·95, 1·14 | 1·15* | 1·02, 1·28 | 1·02 | 0·92, 1·14 |
| Other | 0·68* | 0·50, 0·93 | 0·82 | 0·65, 1·05 | 1·22 | 0·95, 1·57 | 1·14 | 0·91, 1·44 |
| Occupation | ||||||||
| Not working (ref.) | 1·00 | – | 1·00 | – | 1·00 | – | 1·00 | – |
| White collar | 0·57** | 0·49, 0·66 | 0·56** | 0·44, 0·71 | 0·67** | 0·59, 0·75 | 0·61** | 0·49, 0·76 |
| Manual labour | 0·59** | 0·53, 0·67 | 0·63** | 0·49, 0·79 | 0·72** | 0·64, 0·82 | 0·69* | 0·55, 0·85 |
| Toilet facilities | ||||||||
| Yes (ref.) | 1·00 | – | 1·00 | – | 1·00 | – | 1·00 | – |
| No (open defecation) | 1·16* | 1·03, 1·33 | 1·02 | 0·93, 1·13 | 0·92 | 0·78, 1·08 | 0·98 | 0·86, 1·12 |
| Tobacco | ||||||||
| No (ref.) | 1·00 | – | 1·00 | – | 1·00 | – | 1·00 | – |
| Yes | 0·96 | 0·85, 1·09 | 0·94 | 0·87, 1·01 | 1·01 | 0·89, 1·17 | 1·06 | 0·96, 1·17 |
| State per capita expenditure | 0·88* | 0·81, 0·95 | 0·88** | 0·83, 0·94 | 0·92* | 0·85, 0·99 | 0·91* | 0·86, 0·96 |
| State inequality | 1·44** | 1·24, 1·68 | 1·34** | 1·18, 1·52 | 1·22* | 1·04, 1·43 | 1·13* | 1·02, 1·27 |
| Neighbourhood inequality | 1·01* | 1·00, 1·01 | 1·00 | 0·99, 1·00 | 1·00 | 0·99, 1·00 | 0·99* | 0·99, 0·99 |
| Neighbourhood education | 1·00 | 0·99, 1·00 | 0·99 | 0·99, 1·00 | 1·00 | 0·99, 1·00 | 0·99 | 0·99, 1·00 |
| Constant | 3·38** | 1·78, 6·40 | 1·22 | 0·70, 2·13 | 3·30* | 1·27, 8·60 | 1·13* | 1·02, 4·17 |
| Random effects | ICC‡ | 95 % CI | ICC‡ | 95 % CI | ICC‡ | 95 % CI | ICC‡ | 95 % CI |
| State | 0·03* | 0·00, 0·05 | 0·02* | 0·01, 0·04 | 0·03* | 0·01, 0·05 | 0·02* | 0·01, 0·03 |
| State/PSU | 0·09** | 0·06, 0·11 | 0·06** | 0·05, 0·08 | 0·09** | 0·06, 0·11 | 0·05** | 0·04, 0·07 |
ref., reference category; PSU, primary sampling unit; NA, not applicable; ICC, intraclass correlation.
*P<0·05, **P<0·001.
†
From equation (1) we use exp(β 1), which is the effect of a one-unit increase in the covariate on the odds of being underweight.
‡
ICC measures the proportion of the total unexplained variance attributable to differences between states/PSU after considering all independent variables in the model.