. 2015 Jun 6;31(3):277–284. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czv054

Table 2.

Result of with three mixed regression models for facility delivery rate in the district, urban and rural area (TDHS, 1991–2010)

Covariates	Urban			Rural
Covariates	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Time point^a	1.01	1.01	1.02	0.96	0.96	0.96
Mean maternal age	0.99	0.99	0.99	1.10^*	1.10^*	1.11^*
Mean number of total live birth	1.08	1.08	1.07	0.74^*	0.74^*	0.73^*
Secondary education rate (women)^b	0.99	1.02	1.02	0.93	0.90	0.88
Secondary education rate (partner)	0.98	0.94	0.94	1.10	1.13	1.15
Media exposure rate	1.03	1.05^*	1.04^*	1.03	1.03	1.03
Proportion of nulliparous women	1.07	1.06	1.05	1.26^*	1.26^*	1.27^*
ANC ≥ 4 visits	1.05	1.05^*	1.05^*	0.93	0.94	0.94
AR(1)		P = 0.006	P < 0.001		P < .001	P = 0.029
AIC	23.2	17	17.9	67.1	60.9	64.6

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. All values are rounded down to second decimals.

ANC, antenatal care.

Model 1 indicates the random coefficient model without exploring the error (random coefficient model); Model 2 explores the correlation structures within the district and Model 3 contains the covariance between and within the district.

^aRisk ratio in timeframe, mean maternal age and mean number of total live birth means that increment of facility delivery rate with increment of the numbers by one.

^bRisk ratio in secondary education rate, ANC visits, media exposure and nulliparous women mean that increment of facility delivery rate with increment of the proportion by 10%.