Table 5.

Logistic regression analysis of intimate partner violence (IPV) with interactions of food insecurity with marital status and children among respondents in the California Women’s Health Survey (1999–2001, 2003–2005)

	IPV
	Model 1†		Model 2†		Model 3†
	OR	95 % CI	OR	95 % CI	OR	95 % CI
Food security
Food secure	1·00	–	1·00	–	1·00	–
Low food insecurity	1·95*	1·47, 2·60	2·41*	1·39, 4·17	1·99*	1·45, 2·74
Very low food insecurity	4·74*	3·52, 6·40	6·72*	4·06, 11·14	5·77*	4·17, 7·97
Age (years)	0·95*	0·94, 0·96	0·95*	0·94, 0·96	0·95*	0·94, 0·96
Race/ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White	1·00	–	1·00	–	1·00	–
African-American	1·41	0·90, 2·21	1·46	0·94, 2·28	1·44	0·93, 2·24
Hispanic	0·85	0·64, 1·12	0·85	0·65, 1·12	0·88	0·67, 1·15
Other	1·18	0·84, 1·67	1·10	0·78, 1·55	1·19	0·84, 1·68
Educational attainment
High school or less	1·00	–	1·00	–	1·00	–
More than high school	0·96	0·75, 1·24	0·97	0·75, 1·25	0·97	0·75, 1·25
Income as indexed by the FPL
Above 200 %	1·00	–	1·00	–	1·00	–
Below 200 %	0·97	0·73, 1·29	1·04	0·78, 1·38	1·00	0·75, 1·32
Employment
Out of workforce	1·00	–	1·00	–	1·00	–
In workforce	1·28	1·05, 1·57	1·30	1·06, 1·59	1·27	1·04, 1·55
Children present in home
No	1·00	–	1·00	–	–	–
Yes	1·35	1·06, 1·71	1·35	1·02, 1·80	–	–
Marital status
Married	1·00	–	–	–	1·00	–
Unmarried couple	2·02*	1·58, 2·60	–	–	2·37*	1·67, 3·37
Food insecurity×marital status
Food secure and married	–	–	–	–	1·00	–
Low food security and unmarried	–	–	–	–	0·89	0·51, 1·55
Very low food security and unmarried	–	–	–	–	0·48*	0·27, 0·86
Food insecurity×children
Food secure and no children	–	–	1·00	–	–	–
Low food security and children	–	–	0·78	0·43, 1·42	–	–
Very low food security and children	–	–	0·66	0·37, 1·17	–	–

FPL, federal poverty level.

*P<0·01.

^†Models adjusted for age, race, education, poverty, employment, children, marital status and survey year.