Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2012 Nov 13;44(4):252–261. doi: 10.1363/4425212

TABLE 4.

Odds ratios (and 95% confidence intervals) from bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses assessing associations between selected characteristics and pregnancy-related attitudes and behavior

Characteristic Positive pregnancy attitudes Nonuse of effective method at last sex

Bivariate Multivariate Bivariate Multivariate
Male 2.31 (1.29–4.13)* 4.81 (2.29–10.13)* 0.46 (0.26–0.82)* 0.77 (0.34–1.78)
Race/ethnicity
 White (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 Black 1.45 (0.75–2.81) na 0.50 (0.26–0.99)* 0.53 (0.25–1.14)
 Hispanic 1.26 (0.61–2.59) na 0.98 (0.47–1.97) 1.16 (0.53–2.55)
High school graduate/GED 1.23 (0.70–2.14) na 0.85 (0.49–1.48) na
No. in network who attend school 0.92 (0.85–0.99) 0.82 (0.74–0.92)* 0.92 (0.85–0.99)* 1.00 (0.88–1.14)
No. in network who attend school x gender na na na 0.86 (0.72–1.02)
No. of years since first left home§ 1.40 (1.06–1.83)* 1.55 (1.15–2.09)* 1.09 (0.83–1.43) na
Slept outdoors in past month 1.11 (0.62–1.98) na 1.70 (0.95–3.04) 1.30 (0.64–2.63)
Had lived in ≥2 states since leaving home 0.85 (0.47–1.53) na 0.75 (0.42–1.34) na
Frequency of depressive symptoms 1.01 (0.72–1.42) na 0.85 (0.60–1.19) na
Alcohol use 0.95 (0.93–0.98)* 0.94 (0.91–0.98)* 1.01 (0.99–1.04) na
Commitment to recent partner 1.47 (1.05–2.06)* 1.79 (1.23–2.61)* 1.62 (0.17–2.25)* 1.54 (1.08–2.20)*
No. in network who are relatives 1.10 (1.01–1.19)* 1.11 (1.00–1.24)* 0.97 (0.89–1.06) na
No. in network who have risky sex
 0 (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 1–2 0.29 (0.13–0.65)* 0.42 (0.16–1.06) 0.68 (0.31–1.51) na
 ≥3 0.33 (0.17–0.72)* 0.52 (0.23–1.20) 0.73 (0.35–1.54) na
Would be pleased by pregnancy na na 1.64 (0.93–2.88) 1.48 (0.77–2.84)
*

p<.05.

p<.10.

Dichotomous measure. All other characteristics for which no reference category is shown are continuous or scaled.

§

Divided by age and standardized. Notes: Gender interactions with each independent variable were tested; none of the interaction terms was associated with positive pregnancy attitudes. For nonuse of effective method, gender had a significant interaction with Hispanic ethnicity (p=.03) and a marginally significant interaction with number of network members who attend school (p=.07). The interaction between gender and Hispanic ethnicity was not included because the associations were not significant in the full sample or for either gender.

ref=reference group. na=not applicable, because item was not included in the analysis.