Table 3.
Relationship between parental education levels and undernutrition in children—interaction effects (Model 3)
| Mother: non or incomplete primary | Mother: primary or incomplete secondary | Mother: secondary or higher | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stunting | Father: non or incomplete primary | Prevalence (%) | 40.37 | 37.05 | 32.72 |
| (n = 952 253) | 95% CI | (40.19, 40.55) | (36.62, 37.49) | (31.59, 33.84) | |
| n | 405 181 | 56 307 | 6656 | ||
| Father: primary or incomplete secondary | Prevalence (%) | 38.11 | 34.21 | 31.41 | |
| 95% CI | (37.83, 38.40) | (33.92, 34.50) | (30.87, 31.95) | ||
| n | 129 600 | 140 678 | 34 391 | ||
| Father: secondary or higher | Prevalence (%) | 35.61 | 31.84 | 30.30 | |
| 95% CI | (34.98, 36.23) | (31.41, 32.28) | (29.90, 30.69) | ||
| n | 27 910 | 56 192 | 95 338 | ||
| Underweight | Father: non or incomplete primary | Prevalence (%) | 23.65 | 20.30 | 18.71 |
| (n = 981 740) | 95% CI | (23.50, 23.81) | (19.95, 20.66) | (17.98, 19.45) | |
| n | 419 823 | 57 541 | 6833 | ||
| Father: primary or incomplete secondary | Prevalence (%) | 21.33 | 18.11 | 17.56 | |
| 95% CI | (21.09, 21.57) | (17.87, 18.35) | (17.19, 17.93) | ||
| n | 133 963 | 144 192 | 34 966 | ||
| Father: secondary or higher | Prevalence (%) | 19.43 | 16.81 | 16.76 | |
| 95% CI | (18.93, 19.92) | (16.48, 17.14) | (16.47, 17.06) | ||
| n | 28 955 | 57 825 | 97 642 | ||
| Wasting | Father: non or incomplete primary | Prevalence (%) | 9.76 | 8.62 | 8.12 |
| (n = 941 721) | 95% CI | (9.65, 9.87) | (8.37, 8.87) | (7.50, 8.74) | |
| n | 400 355 | 55 588 | 6602 | ||
| Father: primary or incomplete secondary | Prevalence (%) | 8.95 | 8.30 | 7.75 | |
| 95% CI | (8.78, 9.12) | (8.13, 8.46) | (7.46, 8.04) | ||
| n | 128 315 | 139 109 | 34 063 | ||
| Father: secondary or higher | Prevalence (%) | 8.49 | 7.75 | 7.80 | |
| 95% CI | (8.11, 8.86) | (7.50, 8.00) | (7.57, 8.02) | ||
| n | 27 689 | 55 652 | 94 348 | ||
The table presents unweighted predicted prevalences of undernutriton with 95% confidence intervals in parentheses below. All models include the depicted parental education levels and their interaction. We adjusted for local area characteristics (PSU-level fixed effects), child age, sex, birth order, whether the child was born in a multiple birth, maternal age and partnership status, urban location of household as well as its wealth quintile as measured by household asset ownership. All standard errors were clustered on the PSU level.