Table 4.
Crude and adjusted results for multinomial logit models* of the association between predictor variables and feeding type
| Predictor | Feeding type | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EBF now EFF/EFF | EBF now EFF/Combi | |||
| Crude RRR (95% CI) | Adjusted RRR (95% CI) | Crude RRR (95% CI) | Adjusted RRR (95% CI) | |
| Guilty about choice of feeding method | ||||
| Yes | 0.25 (0.15, 0.41) | 0.45 (0.25, 0.79) | 0.52 (0.31, 0.58) | 0.38 (0.21, 0.64) |
| No* | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Stigmatized about choice of feeding method | ||||
| Yes | 1.89 (1.04, 3.41) | 1.48 (0.78, 2.83) | 0.78 (0.47, 1.29) | 0.85 (0.50, 1.44) |
| No* | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Need to defend choice of feeding method | ||||
| Yes | 0.75 (0.40, 1.40) | 0.88 (0.44, 1.77) | 0.67 (0.39, 1.16) | 0.76 (0.43, 1.36) |
| No* | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Source of infant feeding information** | ||||
| Internet and Media | 1.02 (0.51, 2.04) | 1.17 (0.55, 2.50) | 0.69 (0.41, 1.17) | 0.73 (0.42, 1.27) |
| Family members | 2.99 (1.38, 6.51) | 2.74 (1.16, 6.44) | 0.74 (0.35, 1.57) | 0.93 (0.43, 2.04) |
| Other mothers | 1.66 (0.71, 3.84) | 1.50 (0.60, 3.78) | 1.00 (0.49, 1.99) | 1.10 (0.54, 2.27) |
| Own accord/previous experiences | 1.76 (0.88, 3.49) | 1.21 (0.57, 2.60) | 0.61 (0.34, 1.10) | 0.66 (0.38, 1.22) |
| Health professionals* | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Level of support from health professionals | ||||
| Not supported at all | 1.65 (0.59, 4.68) | 1.57 (0.52, 4.78) | 0.87 (0.32, 2.31) | 0.79 (0.28, 2.21) |
| Minimally supported | 1.70 (0.75, 3.90) | 1.52 (0.62, 3.70) | 1.18 (0.56, 2.47) | 1.02 (0.47, 2.22) |
| Moderately supported | 1.45 (0.71, 2.98) | 1.16 (0.54, 2.51) | 1.21 (0.64, 2.30) | 1.13 (0.58, 2.20) |
| Very supported | 0.62 (0.29, 1.34) | 0.71 (0.31, 1.63) | 0.81 (0.42, 1.59) | 0.73 (0.37, 1.47) |
| Extremely supported* | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Satisfaction with feeding method** | ||||
| Dissatisfied | 0.34 (0.15, 0.77) | 0.70 (0.30, 1.67) | 1.78 (1.04, 3.06) | 1.51 (0.87, 2.64) |
| Neutral | 0.39 (0.18, 0.85) | 0.48 (0.20, 1.13) | 1.70 (1.01, 2.91) | 1.42 (0.82, 2.48) |
| Satisfied* | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Respect in everyday environment** | ||||
| Disrespectful | 0.87 (0.43, 1.72) | 0.89 (0.41, 1.94) | 1.23 (0.67, 2.27) | 1.40 (0.74, 2.67) |
| Neutral | 0.57 (0.32, 1.02) | 0.70 (0.37, 1.33) | 0.93 (0.57, 1.53) | 0.94 (0.56, 1.58) |
| Respectful* | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Note. EBF = exclusive breastfeeding; EFF = exclusive formula feeding; combi = combination feeding (all types); RRR = relative risk ratio.
*
There are two referent categories in multinomial logit models, one for the exposure (indicated with *) and one for the outcome (exc BF now exc FF; to reflect the hypothesis).
**
Categories were collapsed to meet requirements of multinomial logistic regression; bold type indicates significant associations; models were adjusted for maternal age, marital status, and feeding.