Table 3.

Factors associated with repeat abortion of participants

Variablesa	Repeat abortion (0 = no, 1 = yes)			P-valueb
	β	S.E.	OR (95% CI)
Age of participants (ref = ≤30 years)
31–35 years	0.31	0.12	1.37 (1.08–1.73)	0.009
≥ 36 years	0.60	0.18	1.82 (1.29–2.57)	0.001
Education of participants (ref = bachelor or above)
≤ Senior high school	0.62	0.14	1.86 (1.42–2.43)	< 0.001
Junior college	0.38	0.12	1.46 (1.17–1.83)	0.001
Occupation of participants (ref = student)
Jobless	0.90	0.38	2.46 (1.18–5.13)	0.017
Parity of participants (ref = no children)
One child	0.43	0.17	1.54 (1.10–2.17)	0.013
≥ Two children	0.34	0.19	1.40 (0.96–2.03)	0.077
Cognition of adverse health effects of having an abortion of participants (ref = know well)
General	0.47	0.11	1.60 (1.28–1.98)	< 0.001
Don’t know	0.92	0.11	2.51 (2.02–3.11)	< 0.001
Age of participants’ sexual partners (ref = ≤30 years)
31–35 years	0.29	0.12	1.33 (1.06–1.68)	0.015
≥ 36 years	0.76	0.16	2.13 (1.56–2.91)	< 0.001
Education of participants’ sexual partners (ref = bachelor or above)
≤ Senior high school	0.50	0.13	1.66 (1.28–2.15)	< 0.001
Junior college	0.32	0.12	1.38 (1.10–1.74)	0.004
Income per month of participants’ sexual partners (ref = ≤4500 Yuan)
4501–6000 Yuan	0.08	0.10	1.08 (0.89–1.31)	0.450
≥ 6001 Yuan	0.29	0.11	1.34 (1.08–1.65)	0.007
Willingness to use contraception of participants’ sexual partners (ref = very strong)
Strong	0.14	0.09	1.14 (0.95–1.37)	0.148
General	0.17	0.12	1.19 (0.94–1.50)	0.145
Weak or very weak	1.92	0.53	6.84 (2.42–19.33)	< 0.001
Contraceptive use at the time of conception (ref = nonuse)
Condom	0.28	0.10	1.33 (1.09–1.61)	0.004
Rhythm	0.12	0.13	1.12 (0.88–1.44)	0.360
Withdrawal	0.36	0.13	1.43 (1.12–1.84)	0.005
Emergency	0.39	0.15	1.48 (1.09–1.99)	0.011
Other	0.13	0.26	1.14 (0.68–1.91)	0.615

^aIndependent variables in the logistic regression model included participants’ age, education, residence status, migrant status, occupation, marital status, parity, and cognition of possible adverse health effects of having an abortion, participants’ sexual partners’ age, education, occupation, income per month, and willingness to use contraception, and contraceptive use at the time of conception. However, considering the table size, here we just reported the results for these significant variables

^b Model fit information: p-value of omnibus tests of model coefficients < 0.001, −2LL = 4048.481, Cox & Snell R² = 0.147, Nagelkerke R² = 0.197, p-value of Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test = 0.152