Table 3.
Mixed-Effect Logistic Regression Models of Past-Year IPVAW on Independent and Joint Effects of Partner Alcohol Use and Acceptance of IPVAW in 19 Low- and Middle-Income Countries (n = 166,621), 2010 to 2019.
| Partner Alcohol Use | Acceptance of IPVAW | Unadjusted OR [95% CI] |
Adjustedd OR [95% CI] |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Model 1: Total effects | ||||
| Reference | No alcohol use | No acceptance | ref | ref |
| Partner alcohol usea | No alcohol use | Any acceptance | 3.27 [3.14, 3.41] | 3.20 [3.07, 3.33] |
| Justification of IPVAWa | Any alcohol use | No acceptance | 1.94 [1.87, 2.01] | 1.83 [1.76, 1.89] |
| Partner Alcohol Use × Justification of IPVAWb | — | — | 0.97 [0.91, 1.02] | 0.97 [0.91, 1.02] |
| Joint effect c | Any alcohol use | Any acceptance | 6.12 [5.86, 6.39] | 5.65 [5.41, 5.90] |
| Model 2: Within- and between-community effects | ||||
| Within-community effects | ||||
| Reference | Community-mean alcohol use | Community-mean acceptance | ref | ref |
| Partner alcohol usea | Community-mean alcohol use | Higher vs. lower acceptance | 3.06 [2.96, 3.17] | 2.98 [2.88, 3.08] |
| Justification of IPVAWa | Higher vs. lower alcohol use | Community-mean acceptance | 1.66 [1.61, 1.71] | 1.60 [1.55, 1.65] |
| Partner Alcohol Use × Justification of IPVAWb | — | — | 0.87 [0.80, 0.94] | 0.86 [0.79, 0.94] |
| Joint effect c | Higher vs. lower alcohol use | Higher vs. lower acceptance | 4.40 [4.02, 4.83] | 4.1 1 [3.75, 4.50] |
| Between-community effects | ||||
| Partner alcohol usea | No community alcohol use | 10% increase in community acceptance | 1.15 [1.13, 1.16] | 1.15 [1.13, 1.16] |
| Justification of IPVAWa | 10% increase in community alcohol use | No community acceptance | 1.14 [1.12, 1.15] | 1.12 [l.l 1, 1.13] |
| Partner Alcohol Use × Justification of IPVAWb | — | — | 1.002 [0.99988, 1.004] | 1.002 [1.0002, 1.005] |
| Joint effect c | 10% increase in community alcohol use | 10% increase in community acceptance | 1.31 [1.28, 1.33] | 1.29 [1.26, 1.31] |
| Model 3: Contextual effects | ||||
| Reference | No community alcohol use | No community acceptance | ref | ref |
| Contextual effect of partner alcohol usea | No community alcohol use | 10% increase in community acceptance | 1.02 [1.01, 1.04] | 1.03 [1.01, 1.04] |
| Contextual effect of justification of IPVAWa | 10% increase in community alcohol use | No community acceptance | 1.08 [1.07, 1.09] | 1.07 [1.06, 1.08] |
| Partner Alcohol Use × Justification of IPVAWb | — | — | 1.003 [1.0005, 1.005] | 1.003 [1.0007, 1.005] |
| Joint effect c | 10% increase in community alcohol use | 10% increase in community acceptance | 1.11 [1.08, 1.13] | 1.10 [1.08, 1.12] |
| STRATIFIED MODELS | ||||
| Model 4a: Within-community effects in communities with lower partner alcohol use and lower IPVAW acceptance | ||||
| Reference | Community-mean alcohol use | Community-mean acceptance | ref | ref |
| Partner alcohol usea | Community-mean alcohol use | Higher vs. lower acceptance | 4.37 [3.91, 4.89] | 4.29 [3.83, 4.80] |
| Justification of IPVAWa | Higher vs. lower alcohol use | Community-mean acceptance | 1.73 [1.59, 1.89] | 1.65 [1.52, 1.80] |
| Partner Alcohol Use × Justification of IPVAWb | — | — | 0.70 [0.52, 0.96] | 0.72 [0.53, 0.98] |
| Joint effect c | Higher vs. lower alcohol use | Higher vs. lower acceptance | 5.32 [3.86, 7.32] | 5.10 [3.70, 7.03] |
| Model 4b: Within-community effects in communities with lower partner alcohol use and higher IPVAW acceptance | ||||
| Reference | Community-mean alcohol use | Community-mean acceptance | ref | ref |
| Partner alcohol usea | Community-mean alcohol use | Higher vs. lower acceptance | 3.94 [3.52, 4.41] | 3.84 [3.43, 4.30] |
| Justification of IPVAWa | Higher vs. lower alcohol use | Community-mean acceptance | 1.57 [1.49, 1.67] | 1.52 [1.44, 1.61] |
| Partner Alcohol Use × Justification of IPVAWb | — | — | 0.996 [0.76, 1.30] | 0.98 [0.75, 1.29] |
| Joint effect c | Higher vs. lower alcohol use | Higher vs. lower acceptance | 6.17 [4.62, 8.24] | 5.75 [4.31, 7.68] |
| Model 4c: Within-community effects in communities with higher partner alcohol use and lower IPVAW acceptance | ||||
| Reference | Community-mean alcohol use | Community-mean acceptance | ref | ref |
| Partner alcohol usea | Community-mean alcohol use | Higher vs. lower acceptance | 2.78 [2.63, 2.93] | 2.68 [2.54, 2.83] |
| Justification of IPVAWa | Higher vs. lower alcohol use | Community-mean acceptance | 1.73 [1.62, 1.85] | 1.64 [1.53, 1.76] |
| Partner Alcohol Use × Justification of IPVAWb | — | — | 0.83 [0.72, 0.97] | 0.83 [0.71, 0.96] |
| Joint effect c | Higher vs. lower alcohol use | Higher vs. lower acceptance | 4.01 [3.42, 4.70] | 3.62 [3.09, 4.25] |
| Model 4d: Within-community effects in communities with higher partner alcohol use and higher IPVAW acceptance | ||||
| Reference | Community-mean alcohol use | Community-mean acceptance | ref | ref |
| Partner alcohol usea | Community-mean alcohol use | Higher vs. lower acceptance | 2.82 [2.68, 2.96] | 2.72 [2.59, 2.86] |
| Justification of IPVAWa | Higher vs. lower alcohol use | Community-mean acceptance | 1.67 [1.58, 1.76] | 1.59 [1.51, 1.68] |
| Partner Alcohol Use × Justification of IPVAWb | — | — | 0.87 [0.77, 0.98] | 0.87 [0.77, 0.98] |
| Joint effect c | Higher vs. lower alcohol use | Higher vs. lower acceptance | 4.08 [3.58, 4.65] | 3.77 [3.31, 4.30] |
Note. IPVAW = intimate partner violence against women; CI = confidence interval.
a
Main effect of partner alcohol use/acceptance of IPVAW (i.e., independent effect).
b
Interaction between partner alcohol use and attitudes toward IPVAW.
c
Joint effect represents the linear combination of partner alcohol use (main effect), acceptance of IPVAW (main effect), and their multiplicative interaction.
d
Models adjusted for woman’s age, woman’s education, sex of the household head, relative wealth index, and urban vs. rural residence.