Table 3.
Binary logistic regression analysis (models 1–4) showing the associations between antenatal care (ANC) interventions and neonatal mortality in Kenya, crude odds ratios (cOR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95 percent confidence intervals (CI).
| Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Model 4 |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables /variable classifications | Categories | cOR | (95% CI) | aOR | (95% CI) | aOR | (95% CI) | aOR | (95% CI) |
| ANC visits | 0 visits | 4.2 | (2.7–6.7) | 3.9 | (2.3–6.3) | 4.4 | (2.5–7.6) | 4.0 | (1.7–9.1) |
| 1–3 visit(s) | 1.4 | (1.0–1.9) | 1.3 | (1.0–1.8) | 1.4 | (1.0–1.9) | 1.8 | (1.1–3.0) | |
| 4 or more | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | |
| ANC assistance | Unskilled | 3.8 | (2.5–5.8) | 3.4 | (2.1–5.3) | 3.7 | (2.4–5.9) | 3.0 | (1.4–6.1) |
| Skilled | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | |
| TT injection | 0 TT | 2.4 | (1.1–5.6) | 2.4 | (1.0–5.7) | 2.3 | (1.0–5.5) | 2.5 | (1.0–6.0) |
| 1 TT | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | |
| 2 or more | 0.9 | (0.5–1.4) | 0.9 | (0.6–1.5) | 0.9 | (0.6–1.5) | 0.9 | (0.5–1.4) | |
| Complications check | Yes | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. |
| No | 2.7 | (1.7–4.3) | 2.4 | (1.5–3.9) | 2.4 | (1.5–4.1) | 2.4 | (1.5–4.0) | |
| Maternal age | 15–24 | 1.1 | (0.8–1.5) | 1.0 | (0.7–1.5) | 1.2 | (0.6–2.4) | 0.9 | (0.5–1.8) |
| 25–34 | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | |
| 35–49 | 1.8 | (1.3–2.6) | 1.7 | (0.9–3.3) | 1.5 | (1.1–2.3) | 2.1 | (1.2–3.7) | |
| Education level | No education | 1.4 | (1.1–1.8) | 1.9 | (1.3–2.9) | 2.1 | (0.9–4.5) | 2.4 | (0.8–6.6) |
| Primary | 1.6 | (1.2–2.4) | 1.2 | (1.0–2.4) | 1.3 | (1.0–2.4) | 1.2 | (0.7–2.1) | |
| Secondary | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | |
| Parity | Nulliparous | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. |
| Para 1–3 | 0.9 | (0.6–1.3) | 1.2 | (0.7–2.1) | 1.0 | (0.5–2.0) | 0.8 | (0.3–2.5) | |
| Para 4+ | 1.6 | (1.1–2.3) | 1.4 | (0.9–2.3) | 1.2 | (0.7–2.0) | 1.5 | (0.4–6.2) | |
| Place of residence | Rural | 1.1 | (0.8–1.4) | 1.2 | (0.9–2.0) | 1.5 | (1.1–2.2) | 1.4 | (0.9–2.5) |
| Urban | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | |
| Wealth index | Poor | 1.2 | (0.9–1.7) | 1.2 | (0.8–2.1) | 1.3 | (1.0–1.9) | 1.8 | (1.0–3.6) |
| Middle | 1.4 | (0.9–2.0) | 1.3 | (0.8–2.3) | 1.3 | (0.9–2.1) | 1.6 | (1.0–3.5) | |
| Rich | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | ||
| Cesarean birth | Yes | 1.7 | (1.1–2.5) | 1.6 | (1.1-3.4) | 1.4 | (0.7–3.0) | ||
| No | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | |||
| Birth assistance | Unskilled | 0.9 | (0.7–1.2) | 1.2 | (0.7–2.1) | 0.7 | (0.6–1.5) | ||
| Skilled | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | |||
| Low birth weight | Yes (< 2500 g) | 1.9 | (0.8–4.2) | 2.0 | (0.9–4.5) | ||||
| No (≥ 2500 g) | 1.0 | Ref. | 1.0 | Ref. | |||||
Notes: Ref. – reference. Model 1: shows crude odds ratios. Model 2: Adjusted for maternal and socio-demographic variables. Model 3: Adjusted for maternal/socio-demographic variables plus birth-related variables (cesarean and skilled birth attendance). Model 4: Adjusted for maternal/socio-demographic variables, birth-related variables plus low birth weight. Variables in each model were mutually adjusted for each other.