Table 2.
Multiple logistic regression analyses model for factors influencing unintended pregnancy in sexually active, single, in union or married Cambodian females 15–29 years old (countrywide model).
| Factors Influencing Unintended Pregnancy at Countrywide Level | Proportions Unintended Pregnancy (Yes) | Crude Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) with p-Values | Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) with p-Values, n = 3213, Model II before Multiple Imputations | Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) with p-Values, n = 3406, Model II after Multiple Imputations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Individual Level of Social Ecological Model | ||||
| Region | ||||
| Urban | 16.3% | 2 (1.5–2.5), *p = 0.001 | 1.6 (1.1–2.3), *p = 0.01 | 1.4 (1–1.8), * p = 0.04 |
| Rural (base) | 11% | |||
| Age Group | ||||
| 15–19 years | 10.4% | 0.9 (0.5–1.5), p = 0.7 | 2.2 (1.1–4.1), *p = 0.01 | 1.6 (1–2.7), * p = 0.04 |
| 20–24 years | 10.6% | 0.7 (0.5–0.9), *p = 0.01 | 1.2 (0.8–1.6), p = 0.3 | 1.3 (1–1.6), * p = 0.04 |
| 25–29 years (base) | 14% | |||
| Education | ||||
| No education | 11.3% | 1.2 (0.5–2.7), p = 0.6 | 0.9 (0.4–2.3), p = 0.9 | 0.8 (0.4–1.7), p = 0.6 |
| Primary | 13% | 1.5 (0.7–3.2), p = 0.2 | 1.6 (0.7–3.3), p = 0.2 | 1.2 (0.7–2.2), p = 0.4 |
| Secondary | 12% | 1.2 (0.6–2.6), p = 0.5 | 1.7 (0.7–3.7), p = 0.2 | 1.2 (0.7–2.2), p = 0.5 |
| Higher (base) | 10.6% | |||
| Parity | 1.9 (1.6–2.2),*p = 0.001 | 2.2 (1.8–2.6),*p = 0.001 | 2.1 (1.8–2.4),*p = 0.001 | |
| Current contraceptive use after having an unintended pregnancy | ||||
| Traditional methods | 12% | 1.3 (0.9–1.9), p = 0.2 | 1.2 (0.7–1.7), p = 0.4 | 1 (0.7–1.4), p = 0.9 |
| Modern methods | 14.2% | 1.3 (0.9–1.7), p = 0.08 | 1.3 (0.9–1.7), p = 0.1 | 1.4 (1–1.7), * p = 0.009 |
| No contraceptive use (base) | 10.5% | |||
| History of pregnancy termination | ||||
| Yes | 17.3% | 1.6 (1.2–2.2),*p = 0.002 | 1.4 (1–1.9), *p = 0.05 | 1.4 (1.1–1.8), *p = 0.002 |
| No (base) | 10.8% | |||
| Current employment | ||||
| Yes | 11.8% | 0.8 (0.6–1.01),p = 0.09 | 0.7 (0.5–1.03), p = 0.07 | 0.8 (0.7-1), p = 0.2 |
| No (base) | 13.3% | |||
| Wealth Index | ||||
| Poorest | 10% | 0.6 (0.4–0.9), *p = 0.01 | 0.6 (0.3–1.04), p=0.06 | 0.5 (0.3–0.7), *p = 0.001 |
| Poorer | 11.4% | 0.6 (0.4–0.9), *p = 0.02 | 0.6 (0.4–1.09), p = 0.1 | 0.6 (0.4–0.9), *p = 0.02 |
| Middle | 11.6% | 0.6 (0.4–0.9), *p = 0.01 | 0.7 (0.4–1.05), p = 0.08 | 0.7 (0.5–1), p = 0.09 |
| Richer | 11.8% | 0.6 (0.4–0.9), *p = 0.02 | 0.7 (0.4–1.1), p = 0.1 | 0.7 (0.5–1), p = 0.07 |
| Richest (base) | 16.2% | |||
| Microenvironment Level of Social Ecological Model | ||||
| Person deciding woman’s access to healthcare | ||||
| Respondent and husband/partner | 11.7% | 1 (0.8–1.4), p = 0.7 | 1.1 (0.8–1.4), p = 0.7 | 1 (0.8–1.3), p = 0.9 |
| Husband/partner alone | 18.4% | 1.5 (0.9–2.2), p = 0.06 | 1.3 (0.8–2.1), p = 0.2 | 1.7 (1.1–2.5), *p = 0.008 |
| Someone else in the family | 29.2% | 2.8 (1–7.8), *p = 0.04 | 3.2 (1.1–8.8), *p = 0.02 | 3.7 (1.5–9.5), *p = 0.005 |
| Respondent alone (base) | 11.5% | |||
| Macroenvironment Level of Social Ecological Model | ||||
| Participants heard about family planning messages on radio in the last few (3–4) months | ||||
| Yes | 11.2% | 0.7 (0.5–0.9), *p = 0.02 | 0.8 (0.6–1.2), p = 0.3 | 0.9 (0.7–1.2), p = 0.7 |
| No (base) | 13% | |||
| Participants heard about family planning messages on television in the last few (3–4) months | ||||
| Yes | 12% | 0.8 (0.6–1.1), p = 0.2 | 0.8 (0.6–1.2), p = 0.3 | 0.8 (0.6–1), p = 0.2 |
| No (base) | 12.7% |
Number of observations in the final Model II = 3406; p-value * significant if <0.05.