Table 3. Multiple logistic regression analysisa of individual perceived family support items associated with depression and suicidal ideation among participants (N = 292b).
| Itemc | Depression(BDI-Ia≥20) | Suicidal ideation(BDI-Ia item #9>0) | ||
| AOR | (95% CI) | AOR | (95% CI) | |
| Emotional support | ||||
| Feeling shown love and caring by family | 0.68 | (0.46, 0.99)* | 0.64 | (0.41, 0.99)* |
| Feeling have an important role in family | 0.94 | (0.64, 1.38) | 0.70 | (0.46, 1.09) |
| Feeling involved in family decision making | 0.88 | (0.64, 1.22) | 0.69 | (0.47, 1.02) |
| Feeling able to share feelings with family | 0.69 | (0.50, 0.96)* | 0.99 | (0.66, 1.46) |
| Total emotional support score | ||||
| High (10–12) | 0.44 | (0.17, 1.12) | 0.48 | (0.15, 1.58) |
| Moderate (7–9) | 0.60 | (0.27, 1.36) | 0.93 | (0.36, 2.41) |
| Low (0–6) (Ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Instrumental support | ||||
| Feeling basic needs (food/clothes) met in family | 0.87 | (0.54, 1.41) | 0.67 | (0.41, 1.12) |
| Feeling supported by family when sick | 0.84 | (0.58, 1.20) | 0.68 | (0.45, 1.03) |
| Total instrumental support score | ||||
| High (6) | 0.63 | (0.27, 1.44) | 0.58 | (0.22, 1.55) |
| Moderate (5) | 0.77 | (0.32, 1.87) | 0.44 | (0.14, 1.42) |
| Low (0–4) (Ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Negative interaction | ||||
| Feeling disliked by family | 1.43 | (0.97, 2.10) | 2.08 | (1.37, 3.18)** |
| Feeling (emotionally) distant from family | 1.37 | (0.91, 2.05) | 2.01 | (1.27, 3.18)** |
| Having been physically (beaten) hurt by family member(s) | 0.53 | (0.23, 1.18) | 0.89 | (0.40, 2.00) |
| Feeling exploited (for housework and farming) by family | 1.95 | (1.30, 2.91)** | 1.90 | (1.21, 2.99)** |
| Total negative interaction score | ||||
| High (2–12) | 3.70 | (1.68, 8.18)** | 5.58 | (2.08, 14.96)** |
| Moderate (1) | 0.87 | (0.30, 2.51) | 1.48 | (0.41, 5.33) |
| Low (0) (Ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
AOR, adjusted odds ratio. CI, confidence interval. BDI, Beck Depression Inventory.
a
Separate analyses were carried out for each of the ten individual items on the family support scale, adjusting as well for all variables listed in Table 2.
b
After accounting for the collective set of missing values associated with the variables included in the multivariable models, data from 292 participants were analyzed in each case.
c
Each individual item was assessed as a continuous variable, with responses ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 3 (All the time).
*p<0.05;
**p<0.01.