Skip to main content
. 2025 Nov 21;25:4075. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-25131-8

Table 2.

Multilevel analysis of odd ratios on the effect of Individual, household and community level factors in influencing non-institutional delivery among women in Uganda, UDHS 2016

Variables Model 1
Null model
Model 2
(AOR 95%CI)
Model 3
(AOR 95%CI)
Model 4
(AOR 95%CI)
Individual variables
Age at last birth
 <=19 1.00 1.00
 20–29 0.91 (0. 69-1.21.21) 0.93 (0.70–1.23)
 30–39 0.83 (0.60–1.14) 0.84 (0.61–1.16)
 40+ 0.97 (0.66–1.42) 0.99 (0.67–1.44)
Marital Status
 Married 1.00 1.00
 Never married 0.99(0.68–1.46) 0.95 (0.65–1.41)
 Living together 1.02(0.68–1.50) 1.06 (0.88–1.26)
 Previous married 1.31 (1.02–1.67)** 1.58 (1.19–2.11)**
Household Head
 Male 1.00 1.00
 Female 0.95 (0.79–1.13) 0.94 (0.78–1.12)
Family Size
 1–4 1.00 1.00
 5–9 0.90 (0.76–1.07) 0.90 (0.75–1.07)
 10+ 0.88 (0.67–1.15) 1.13 (0.67–1.15)
Parity
 1 1.00 1.00
 2 2.08 (1.58–2.72)*** 2.03 (1.55–2.66)***
 3 2.07 (1.51–2.83)*** 2.03 (1.47–2.78)***
 4+ 3.44 (2.53–4.68)*** 3.34 (2.45–4.56) ***
Level of Education
 No education 1.00 1.00
 Primary 0.97 (0.79–1.18) 1.01(0.82–1.24)
 Secondary or Higher 0.52(0.39–0.68)*** 0.58 (0.44–0.78)***
Wealth Index
 Poor 1.00 1.00
 Middle 0.73 (0.62–0.87)*** 0.75 (0.63–0.90)***
 Rich 0.56 (0.45–0.69)*** 0.67 (0.52–0.85)***
Religion
 Anglican 1.00 1.00
 Catholic 1.03 (0.87–1.21) 1.04 (0.88–1.23)
 Muslim 0.95 (0.72–1.26) 0.97 (0.73–1.29)
 Other’s 0.96 (0.75–1.22) 0.95 (0.75–1.21)
Employment Status
 Unemployed 1.00 1.00
 Employed 1.11 (0.93–1.32) 1.18 (0.99–1.42)*
Pregnancy intention
 Wanted then 1.00 1.00
 Wanted later 1.20 (1.03–1.39)* 1.21 (1.04–1.41) **
 Wanted no more 1.16 (0.92–1.46) 1.15 (0.91–1.45)
Number of ANC visits
 1–3 1.00 1.00
 4+ 0.59 (0.52–0.67)*** 0.59 (0.52–0.68) ***
Quality of content of ANC
 Low 1.00 1.00
 High 0.52 (0.44–0.61)*** 0.53 (0.45–0.62)***
Community variables
Place of Residence
 Urban 1.00 1.00
 Rural 1.41(1.02–1.94)** 1.33 (0.96–1.83) *
Region of residence
 Central 1.00 1.00
 Eastern 1.01(0.68–1.50) 0.96 (0.65–1.44)
 Northern 0.38 (0.23–0.65)*** 0.34 (0.21–0.56)***
 Western 1.18 (0.75–1.86) 1.09 (0.70–1.71)
Community Distance to Health Facility
 Inaccessible 1.00 1.00
 Accessible 0.58 (0.48–0.70)*** 0.72 (0.67–0.94)**
Community Ethnicity Diversity Index
 Less Diverse 1.00 1.00
 More Diverse 0.91(0.68–1.21) 0.89 (0.67–1.18)
Community Socioeconomic status
 Advantaged 1.00 1.00
 Disadvantaged 0.54 (0.39–0.74)*** 0.75 (0.55–1.02)*
Community Media Saturation
 Less Saturated 1.00 1.00
 Saturated 0.47(0.34–0.65)*** 0.56 (0.42–076.42)***
Community level of autonomy
 Low 1.00 1.00
 High 0.75 (0.54–1.03)* 0.82 (0.61–1.11)
Random effect results:
 PSU Variance (95% CI) 2.28(1.83–2.84) 1.72(1.38–2.14) 1.46(1.17–1.83) 1.44(1.16–1.78)
 ICC 0.41 0.34 0.31 0.30
 Wild chi-square and p-value Ref χ2 = 332.10, p < 0.003 χ2 = 198.89,p < 0.000 χ2 = 459.00, p < 0.000
Model fitness:
 Log-likelihood −1693935.8 −1518822.8 −1663282.5 −1502350.5
 AIC 3,387,890 3,037,698 3,326,587 3,004,771
 PSU 649 649 649 649
N 9,630 9,630 9,545 9,333

The Null model contains no predictor variables, but it partitioned the variance into two component parts

AIC Akaike Information Criterion, CI Confidence Interval, ® Reference category, AOR Adjusted Odd Ratio Significant level

***, **, and * denote 1%, 5% and 10% respectively