Table 4.
Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses of SBA use for births (weighted n = 6748 in Tanzania), Tanzania DHS 2010
| Variables | Model 1 unadjusted (bivariate) | Model 2 adjusted | Model 3 final adjusted | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | p | CI | OR | p | CI | OR | p | CI | |||||
| Independent variable | (Ref.=Primary edu) | ||||||||||||
| Highest education | No education | 0.457 | <.001 | 0.386 | 0.542 | 0.667 | <.001 | 0.546 | 0.814 | 0.702 | <.001 | 0.574 | 0.858 |
| Secondary or above | 5.564 | <.001 | 4.088 | 7.573 | 1.515 | 0.009 | 1.111 | 2.066 | 1.428 | 0.024 | 1.047 | 1.946 | |
| Control variables | |||||||||||||
| Age at childbirth | 0.986 | 0.007 | 0.976 | 0.996 | 1.049 | <.001 | 1.032 | 1.067 | 1.040 | <.001 | 1.021 | 1.060 | |
| Household wealth | (Ref.=Poorest) | ||||||||||||
| Poorer | 1.160 | 0.155 | 0.942 | 1.451 | 1.024 | 0.835 | 0.816 | 1.286 | 1.013 | 0.914 | 0.805 | 1.274 | |
| Middle | 1.844 | <.001 | 1.487 | 2.286 | 1.531 | <.001 | 1.217 | 1.925 | 1.528 | <.001 | 1.214 | 1.923 | |
| Richer | 3.612 | <.001 | 2.862 | 4.557 | 2.140 | <.001 | 1.659 | 2.759 | 2.170 | <.001 | 1.680 | 2.803 | |
| Richest | 21.612 | <.001 | 15.681 | 29.787 | 6.72 | <.001 | 4.033 | 9.141 | 5.836 | <.001 | 3.895 | 8.744 | |
| Parity | (Ref.=4th or more) | ||||||||||||
| First birth | 2.757 | <.001 | 2.315 | 3.283 | 3.134 | <.001 | 2.297 | 4.274 | 2.936 | <.001 | 2.120 | 4.066 | |
| Second or third | 1.731 | <.001 | 1.502 | 1.996 | 1.901 | <.001 | 1.537 | 2.350 | 1.778 | <.001 | 1.422 | 2.223 | |
| Employment | (Ref.= not employed) | 2.163 | <.001 | 1.867 | 2.506 | 1.230 | 0.017 | 1.038 | 1.457 | 1.197 | 0.039 | 1.009 | 1.420 |
| Household head | (Ref.= not head) | 0.836 | 0.235 | 0.622 | 1.124 | 1.196 | 0.313 | 0.845 | 1.693 | 1.114 | 0.545 | 0.785 | 1.583 |
| Urban residence | (Ref.=Rural) | 7.305 | <.001 | 5.617 | 9.499 | 2.182 | <.001 | 1.582 | 3.011 | 2.183 | <.001 | 1.589 | 2.999 |
| Marital relationship | (Ref.=monogamous) | ||||||||||||
| Polygamous as 1st wife | 0.401 | <.001 | 0.314 | 0.513 | 0.541 | <.001 | 0.414 | 0.707 | 0.566 | <.001 | 0.433 | 0.739 | |
| 2nd or lower | 0.560 | <.001 | 0.449 | 0.699 | 0.639 | <.001 | 0.494 | 0.827 | 0.672 | 0.003 | 0.519 | 0.870 | |
| Having son(s) | (Ref.=No living son) | 0.550 | <.001 | 0.482 | 0.627 | 0.849 | 0.098 | 0.699 | 1.031 | 0.852 | 0.105 | 0.701 | 1.034 |
| Perceived difficulty in accessing health care | 0.607 | <.001 | 0.561 | 0.657 | 0.732 | <.001 | 0.672 | 0.798 | 0.739 | <.001 | 0.678 | 0.805 | |
| (scored 0–4) | |||||||||||||
| Women’s empowerment proxy measures | |||||||||||||
| Household decision-making power (0–3) | 1.208 | <.001 | 1.140 | 1.280 | 1.129 | <.001 | 1.056 | 1.206 | |||||
| Perceptions against violence (0–5) | 1.112 | <.001 | 1.072 | 1.153 | 1.018 | 0.421 | 0.975 | 1.062 | |||||
| Perceptions for sex negotiation (0–2) | 1.376 | <.001 | 1.256 | 1.507 | 1.108 | 0.053 | 0.999 | 1.230 | |||||
| Age at first marriage | 1.102 | <.001 | 1.075 | 1.130 | 1.022 | 0.120 | 0.994 | 1.050 | |||||
| Intercept (coefficient) | −1.983 | <.001 | −2.477 | <.001 | |||||||||
| Model statistics | |||||||||||||
| LR (Chi-square) | 1635.0332 | 1683.3702 | |||||||||||
| Wald (Chi-square) | 751.1497 | 755.8300 | |||||||||||
| DF | 16 | 20 | |||||||||||
| p | <.001 | <.001 | |||||||||||
Model 1 (simple binary regression model) was assessed by each explanatory variable, and the model statistics of each model are not reported in the table. For the overall association, wald chi-square tests (from Type 3 Analysis of Effects) were assessed with education, wealth, parity, and marital relationship, showing significance at p < .001