Table 3.
OR (95% CI) N=3894 | |
---|---|
Sexual division of labour | |
Age | 0.99 (0.98 to 1.00) |
Education | |
No education | 0.76 (0.62 to 0.93)** |
Primary or higher | 1.00 |
Currently working | 1.18 (0.97 to 1.43) |
Urban area | 1.27 (0.90 to 1.79) |
Region | |
Monrovia | 1.00 |
North Western | 0.69 (0.39 to 1.22) |
South Central | 1.02 (0.66 to 1.58) |
South Eastern A | 0.90 (0.57 to 1.43) |
South Eastern B | 0.81 (0.52 to 1.27) |
North Central | 1.00 (0.66 to 1.51) |
Wealth index | 1.22 (1.10 to 1.36)** |
Sexual division of power | |
Percentage of household decisions in which respondent participates† | 1.10 (1.01 to 1.20)* |
Percentage of scenarios in which IPV is justifiable† | 0.97 (0.90 to 1.05) |
History of abuse | |
Physical abuse | 1.25 (0.93 to 1.69) |
Sexual abuse | 0.65 (0.45 to 0.95)* |
Structure of Social exposure and affective attachment | |
Older partner | 0.93 (0.67 to 1.29) |
Married | 0.69 (0.54 to 0.88)** |
Partner lives in the house | 1.07 (0.83 to 1.37) |
Partner’s education compared to respondent | |
Less education | 0.93 (0.61 to 1.42) |
Equal education | 1.05 (0.87 to 1.27) |
More education | 1.00 |
Additional controls | |
Number of household members | 0.95 (0.91 to 0.99)* |
Number of children 5 years old or younger in household | 1.23 (1.11 to 1.37)** |
p<0.05.
p<0.01.
Estimate is per 25% increase.
IPV, intimate partner violence.