Skip to main content
. 2015 Mar 2;20(5):617–626. doi: 10.1111/tmi.12473

Table 2.

Results of the multilevel logistic regression (n = 1812)* – adjusted odds ratios

95% CI
Variable Odds ratio P-value Lower Higher
Non-facility-based delivery (outcome)
Predisposing factors
 Marital status
  Married (reference group) 1
  Unmarried 1.8754 0.0190 1.1086 3.1726
 Education
  Some formal education (reference group) 1
  No formal education 1.4337 0.0790 0.9594 2.1427
 Number of previous pregnancies 1.1428 0.0850 0.9817 1.3304
Enabling factor
 Socioeconomic status
  1- Poorest (reference group) 1
  2 0.6658 0.0830 0.4206 1.0540
  3 0.5114 0.0340 0.2750 0.9508
  4 = Least poor 0.4810 0.0040 0.2919 0.7928
 Village setting (urban/rural)
  Rural (reference group) 1
  Urban 0.3925 0.0010 0.2315 0.6655
 Model fit and diagnostics
Random effects
 Rho coefficient: SE 0.1455 0.0475
Diagnostics
 Wald χ2 (9); P > χ2 61.22 <0.0001
 Log- pseudo likelihood −490.2
 Likelihood ratio test of rho; PInline graphic 34.95 <0.0001
*

Following the model identification procedure outlined above, we did not include the variable under the determinant category of need factors; hence, the regression results table does not show ‘need factor’ category of determinants. Odds ratios, CI (confidence interval) and P-values obtained from a multivariate logistic regression model are adjusted for clustering of pregnancy outcomes within health centre catchment areas.