Table 2.
Factors associated with MDD‐W in Ouagadougou and Bobo‐Dioulasso in the 2009‐2001 years period*
| Interaction term year of survey | Overall | Ouagadougou | Bobo‐Dioulasso | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N=12277 | Structured (n=3871) | Unstructured (n=2114) | Structured (n=5090) | Unstructured (n=1202) | ||
| Explanatory terms | AdjOR (CI 95%) | AdjOR (CI 95%) | Adj OR (CI 95%) | Adj OR (CI 95%) | Adj OR (CI 95%) | |
| Year of survey | p=0.0028 | |||||
| 2009 | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| 2010 | 0.7(0.5‐1.1) | 1.1 (0.7‐2.0) | 0.4 (0.1‐1.1) | 0.8 (0.4‐1.3) | 1.5(0.3‐6.2) | |
| 2011 | 1.0(0.7‐1.3) | 1.4 (1.0‐2.2) | 0.7(0.3‐1.6) | 0.8(0.5‐1.4) | 0.5(0.1‐1.9) | |
| Total expenses (quintiles) | ||||||
| 1st quintile | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| 2nd quintile | 1.5(1.2‐1.9) | 1.6(1.1‐2.3) | 1.2(0.8‐1.6) | 1.7(1.2‐2.6) | 1.6(1.0‐2.6) | |
| 3rd quintile | 2.1(1.7‐2.6) | 1.8(1.2‐2.7) | 1.3(0.9‐1.9) | 3.1(2.2‐4.5) | 3.0(1.1‐7.7) | |
| 4th quintile | 2.8(2.2‐3.4) | 2.4(1.6‐3.7) | 1.8(1.3‐2.6) | 4.2(3.0‐6.0) | 2.3(0.6‐8.4) | |
| 5th quintile | 4.2(3.3‐5.4) | 3.6(2.3‐5.7) | 2.2(1.3‐3.5) | 6.8(4.6‐10.1) | 2.8(0.9‐8.5) | |
| Socioeconomic score | ||||||
| Low | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Middle | 1.0(0.9‐1.2) | 1.1(0.9‐1.4) | 0.9(0.8‐1.1) | 1.1(0.9‐1.4) | 0.6(0.5‐5.2) | |
| High | 1.3(1.1‐1.6) | 1.4(1.1‐2.1) | 1.5(1.1‐2.3) | 1.3(1.0‐1.7) | 1.0(0.6‐1.7) | |
| Household dependence ratio score | ||||||
| Low | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Middle | 0.9(0.8‐1.0) | 0.9 (0.7‐1.2) | 0.8(0.6‐1.1) | 0.7(0.6‐0.9) | 1.0(0.6‐1.7) | |
| High | 0.7(0.6‐0.8) | 0.8(0.7‐1.0) | 0.6(0.5‐0.8) | 0.6(0.5‐0.7) | 0.9(0.5‐1.5) | |
| Age of head of household | ||||||
| <30 years | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| 30‐39 years | 0.9(0.8‐1.0) | 0.8 (0.7‐1.0) | 1.1(0.7‐1.6) | 1.0(0.7‐1.2) | 0.5(0.2‐0.8) | |
| 40‐49 years | 0.7(0.6‐0.9) | 0.7 (0.6‐0.9) | 0.8(0.5‐1.2) | 0.9(0.7‐1.2) | 0.4(0.2‐0.8) | |
| >50 years | 0.4(0.3‐0.7) | 0.6 (0.5‐0.8) | 0.8(0.5‐1.2) | 0.9(0.6‐1.2) | 0.3(0.1‐1.0) | |
| Household food security‐HFIAS | ||||||
| Food secure | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Severely food insecure | 2009 | 0.8(0.6‐0.9) | 1.1(0.8‐1.6) | 0.5(0.3‐0.7) | 0.7(0.5‐1.0) | 0.5(0.3‐1.1) |
| 2010 | 0.8(0.7‐0.9) | 0.7(0.5‐0.9) | 1.2(0.8‐1.9) | 0.9(0.6‐1.2) | 0.4(0.2‐0.6) | |
| 2011 | 0.8(0.7‐0.9) | 0.7(0.5‐0.9) | 1.0(0.6‐1.5) | 0.8(0.6‐1.1) | 0.6(0.2‐1.6) | |
| Household food stocks | ||||||
| None | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| At least 5 kgs of cereals | 2009 | 0.8(0.7‐1.0) | 1.0(0.7‐1.5) | 0.8(0.4‐1.8) | 0.9(0.6‐1.3) | 0.4(0.1‐1.3) |
| 2010 | 1.1(0.9‐1.3) | 1.0(0.7‐1.5) | 1.5(0.8‐2.8) | 1.0(0.7‐1.5) | 0.6(0.2‐1.5) | |
| 2011 | 1.1(0.9‐1.3) | 1.0(0.7‐1.5) | 1.8(1.2‐2.9) | 0.9(0.6‐1.2) | 1.8(0.8‐4.2) | |
| At least 20 kgs of cereals | 2009 | 0.9(0.8‐1.2) | 1.0(0.7‐1.5) | 1.0(0.5‐2.2) | 0.9(0.6‐1.4) | 0.9(0.3‐2.8) |
| 2010 | 1.1(0.9‐1.3) | 1.2(0.7‐2.1) | 4.8(2.3‐10.2) | 0.8(0.5‐1.2) | 0.8(0.4‐1.8) | |
| 2011 | 1.0(0.8‐1.2) | 0.9(0.6‐1.4) | 1.6(0.7‐4.0) | 0.9(0.6‐1.2) | 1.8(0.6‐5.7) | |
| Household owns small livestock | ||||||
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Yes | 2009 | 0.9(0.7‐1.1) | 1.0(0.6‐1.5) | 0.7(0.3‐1.5) | 0.7(0.5‐0.9) | 1.9(0.9‐4.2) |
| 2010 | 1.0(0.9‐1.3) | 0.9(0.7‐1.2) | 0.8(0.3‐2.0) | 1.3(0.9‐1.9) | 1.1(0.4‐3.6) | |
| 2011 | 1.0(0.8‐1.2) | 0.9(0.7‐1.3) | 0.8(0.5‐1.3) | 1.1(0.8‐1.7) | 1.8(1.0‐3.2) | |
| Household owns home garden | ||||||
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | ||
| Yes | 1.1(0.9‐1.3 | 0.9 (0.7‐1.2) | 1.3(0.7‐2.3) | 1.2(0.9‐1.4) | 1.7(1.0‐2.9) | |
| HH reports montly expenses on meat | ||||||
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Yes | 4.2(3.5‐5.1) | 3.9(3.8‐5.4) | 3.9(2.8‐5.5) | 4.4(3.3‐5.9) | 3.8(1.3‐11.1) | |
| HH reports monthly expenses on fish | ||||||
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Yes | 2.5(2.2‐2.9) | 2.3(1.8‐2.9) | 2.1(1.7‐2.8) | 2.6(2.1‐3.2) | 4.4(2.9‐6.8) | |
| HH reports monthly expenses on prepared dishes | ||||||
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Yes | 1.2(1.0‐1.3) | 1.3(1.1‐1.6) | 1.3(1.0‐1.6) | 0.9(0.7‐1.1) | 2.1(1.7‐2.7) | |
| Place of choice to purchase food | ||||||
| Other | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Market | 1.1(1.0‐1.3) | 1.4(1.1‐1.7) | 0.9(0.7‐1.1) | 1.7(1.1‐2.7) | 2.0(1.0‐3.7) | |
| Reason to choose place of food purchase‐large choice | ||||||
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Yes | 1.4(1.2‐1.7) | 1.5(1.2‐2.0) | 1.4(0.9‐2.4) | 1.3(1.0‐1.6) | 2.0(1.4‐2.7) | |
| Reason to choose place of food purchase‐proximity | ||||||
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| Yes | 1.0(0.9‐1.1) | 1.0(0.8‐1.3) | 0.7(0.6‐0.9) | 1.1(0.9‐1.3) | 1.4(0.8‐2.6) | |
*
Multivariable models are run with registries that have no missing data for any of the covariates included, thus N does not match with initial number.