Table 5.
Crude and adjusted results for multinomial logit models* of the association between predictor variables and feeding intention
| Predictor | Feeding intention | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I‐EBF/I‐EFF | I‐EBF/I‐combi | |||
| Crude RRR (95% CI) | Adjusted RRR (95% CI) | Crude RRR (95% CI) | Adjusted RRR (95% CI) | |
| Guilty about choice of feeding method | ||||
| Yes | 0.14 (0.08, 0.26) | 0.13 (0.06, 0.28) | 0.48 (0.29, 0.79) | 0.47 (0.28, 0.78) |
| No* | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Stigmatized about choice of feeding method | ||||
| Yes | 2.63 (1.31, 5.27) | 1.81 (0.79, 4.19) | 1.75 (1.03, 2.96) | 1.65 (0.96, 2.84) |
| No* | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Need to defend choice of feeding method | ||||
| Yes | 0.95 (0.47, 1.91) | 0.86 (0.36, 2.03) | 1.55 (0.86, 2.79) | 1.51 (0.82, 2.77) |
| No* | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Source of infant feeding information** | ||||
| Internet and Media | 0.84 (0.36, 1.92) | 0.47 (0.17, 1.35) | 1.21 (0.67, 2.19) | 1.15 (0.63, 2.10) |
| Family members | 2.50 (1.04, 6.02) | 1.50 (0.50, 4.53) | 0.82 (0.43, 1.57) | 1.63 (0.76, 3.49) |
| Other mothers | 1.75 (0.68, 4.53) | 1.60 (0.51, 4.98) | 1.50 (0.71, 3.18) | 1.40 (0.66, 2.99) |
| Own accord/previous experiences | 3.78 (1.74, 8.21) | 1.33 (0.48, 3.66) | 2.51 (1.35, 4.68) | 2.22 (1.12, 4.38) |
| Health Professionals* | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Level of support from health professionals | ||||
| Not supported at all | 0.76 (0.21, 2.72) | 0.37 (0.08, 1.74) | 0.76 (0.28, 2.05) | 0.74 (0.27, 2.02) |
| Minimally supported | 1.20 (0.45, 3.25) | 0.69 (0.20, 2.32) | 0.79 (0.37, 1.67) | 0.79 (0.37, 1.71) |
| Moderately supported | 1.61 (0.71, 3.63) | 1.80 (0.67, 4.78) | 0.82 (0.43, 1.58) | 0.85 (0.44, 1.65) |
| Very supported | 0.60 (0.25, 1.46) | 0.60 (0.20, 1.77) | 0.72 (0.37, 1.42) | 0.76 (0.38, 1.51) |
| Extremely supported* | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Satisfaction with feeding method** | ||||
| Dissatisfied | 0.07 (0.02, 0.30) | 0.13 (0.06, 0.28) | 0.24 (0.12, 0.49) | 0.26 (0.13, 0.52) |
| Neutral | 0.27 (0.10, 0.68) | 0.54 (0.18, 1.60) | 0.55 (0.31, 0.98) | 0.58 (0.21, 1.04) |
| Satisfied* | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Respect in everyday environment** | ||||
| Disrespectful | 1.65 (0.74, 3.70) | 3.25 (1.12, 9.38) | 0.71 (0.37, 1.38) | 0.75 (0.39, 1.47) |
| Neutral | 0.67 (0.34, 1.32) | 0.88 (0.38, 2.04) | 0.67 (0.40, 1.12) | 0.70 (0.41, 1.20) |
| Respectful* | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Note. I‐EBF = exclusive breastfeeding intention; I‐EFF = exclusive formula feeding intention; I‐combi = combination feeding intention (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; 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, birth order, and feeding type