Table 3.
Multiple logistic regression analyses showing comparison of adjusted odds ratios (AOR) in urban and rural models (without multiple imputations) for factors influencing unintended pregnancy amongst Cambodian sexually active, single, in union or married females (15–29 years).
| Factors Influencing Unintended Pregnancy | Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) (95% CI) with p-Values Urban Model (n = 811) *# |
Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) (95% CI) with p-Values Rural Model (n = 2366) *## |
|---|---|---|
| Individual Level of Social Ecological Model | ||
| Age Group | ||
| 15–19 years | 2.6 (0.9–7.3), p = 0.07 | 2 (1–4.3), * p = 0.04 |
| 20–24 years | 1.3 (0.7–2.7), p = 0.4 | 1.1 (0.7–1.6), p = 0.6 |
| 25–29 years (base) | ||
| Education | ||
| No education | 0.9 (0.1–6.9), p = 0.9 | 1.7 (0.2–15), p = 0.6 |
| Primary | 1.3 (0.4–4.1), p = 0.6 | 3.1 (0.4–25.7), p = 0.3 |
| Secondary | 1.4 (0.6–3.1), p = 0.4 | 2.8 (0.3–23.1), p = 0.3 |
| Higher (base) | ||
| Parity (continuous variable) | 2.1 (1.3–3.4), * p = 0.002 | 2.2 (1.8–2.6), * p = 0.001 |
| Current use of contraceptive methods after having an unintended pregnancy | ||
| Traditional methods | 1 (0.5–2.2), p = 0.9 | 1.2 (0.7–1.9), p = 0.4 |
| Modern methods | 1.4 (0.8–2.5), p = 0.2 | 1.2 (0.8–1.8), p = 0.2 |
| No contraceptive methods (base) | ||
| History of pregnancy termination | ||
| Yes | 1.8 (0.2–3.8), p = 0.1 | 1.3 (0.8–1.9), p = 0.2 |
| No (base) | ||
| Employment | ||
| Yes | 0.6 (0.3–1), * p = 0.05 | 0.8 (0.5–1.2), p = 0.4 |
| No (base) | ||
| Wealth Index | ||
| Poorest | 0.7 (0.3–1.5), p = 0.3 | 0.7 (0.4–1.2), p = 0.2 |
| Poorer | 1.4 (0.6–3.2), p = 0.3 | 0.6 (0.4–1.2), p = 0.1 |
| Middle | 1.1 (0.4–2.9), p = 0.7 | 0.6 (0.4–1), p = 0.08 |
| Richer | 2 (0.8–4.8), p = 0.09 | 0.8 (0.5–1.4), p = 0.4 |
| Richest (base) | ||
| Microenvironment Level of Social Ecological Model | ||
| Person deciding woman’s access to healthcare | ||
| Respondent and husband/partner | 1.3 (0.8–2.4), p = 0.2 | 0.9 (0.7–1.4), p = 0.9 |
| Husband/partner alone | 1.8 (0.8–4.1), p = 0.1 | 1.3 (0.7–2.3), p = 0.4 |
| Someone else in the family | 3.8 (0.9–16.4), p = 0.07 | 3.4 (0.1–13.1), p = 0.06 |
| Respondent alone (base) | ||
| Macroenvironment Level of Social Ecological Model | ||
| Participants heard about family planning messages on radio in the last few (3–4) months | ||
| Yes | 0.8 (0.5–1.5), p = 0.6 | 0.8 (0.5–1.3), p = 0.5 |
| No (base) | ||
| Participants heard about family planning messages on television in the last few (3–4) months | ||
| Yes | 1.9 (1–3.6), * p = 0.04 | 0.7 (0.5–1), p = 0.1 |
| No (base) |
*# Urban model: Number of strata = 19; number of PSUs = 183; number of observations = 811, degrees of freedom (DFs) = 164, prob > F = 0.0000; *## Rural model: Number of strata = 19; number of PSUs = 419; number of observations = 2366, DFs = 400, prob > F = 0.000; p-value * significant if <0.05.