Table 2.
Results of binary logistic regression
| B | Sig | Odds ratio | 95% C.I. for odd | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||
| Constant | .271 | .242 | 1.311 | – | – |
| Age of women | |||||
| 15–19 | Reference | ||||
| 20–24 | −.170 | .434 | .843 | .550 | 1.292 |
| 25–29 | .013 | .950 | 1.013 | .673 | 1.524 |
| 30–34 | .145 | .484 | 1.156 | .770 | 1.736 |
| 35–39 | −.072 | .726 | .930 | .622 | 1.393 |
| 40–44 | −.711 | .001 | .491 | .328 | .735 |
| 45–49 | −1.130 | .000 | .323 | .216 | .484 |
| Women’s education | |||||
| No education | Reference | ||||
| Primary | .153 | .012 | 1.165 | 1.035 | 1.312 |
| Secondary | .121 | .052 | 1.128 | .999 | 1.275 |
| Higher | .082 | .001 | 1.026 | .916 | 1.575 |
| Wealth status of women’s household | |||||
| Poorest | Reference | ||||
| Poorer | .141 | .008 | 1.151 | 1.037 | 1.277 |
| Middle | -.063 | .283 | .939 | .837 | 1.053 |
| Richer | −.305 | .000 | .737 | .648 | .839 |
| Richest | −.391 | .000 | .677 | .584 | .783 |
| Women’s employment status | |||||
| Currently unemployed | Reference | ||||
| Currently employed | −.107 | .048 | .899 | .809 | .999 |
| Husband’s education | |||||
| No Education | Reference | ||||
| Primary | .145 | .016 | 1.156 | 1.028 | 1.300 |
| Secondary | .094 | .628 | 1.105 | .929 | 1.130 |
| Higher | .082 | .212 | 1.085 | .954 | 1.235 |
| Reason not using: husband opposed | |||||
| No opposed | Reference | ||||
| Opposed | .853 | .000 | 2.347 | 2.087 | 2.639 |
| Reason not using: religious prohibition | |||||
| No prohibition | Reference | ||||
| Prohibition | .151 | .089 | 1.163 | .977 | 1.383 |
| Decision maker for not using contraceptive | |||||
| Women | Reference | ||||
| Husband | .290 | .000 | 1.336 | 1.215 | 1.469 |