Table 2.

Multiple Logistic regression model and Augmented Inverse-probability- weighted (AIPW) model for ARR and ARD of p-IPV on mothers’ perinatal wellbeing and infant health outcomes

A. Multiple Logistic regression model	Model 1: p-IPV victimization ARR (95% CI)	Model 2: Prenatal mental health ARR (95% CI)	Model 3: Attitude about spanking ARR (95% CI)	Model 4: Adverse birth outcomeARR (95% CI)
Individual factors
Mother’s education (secondary vs. higher)	0.78 (0.41–1.46)	1.61 (0.82–3.19)	1.72 (0.96–3.10)**
Father’s education (secondary vs. higher)	6.9 (1.63–29.20)**	2.79 (1.16–6.71)**		1.41 (0.99, 1.99)*
Lack of prenatal care (Yes vs. No)	3.35 (1.80–6.23)**
Combined forms of CM (Yes vs. No)	6.39 (1.69–24.23)***
Unplanned pregnancy			1.32 (0.86–1.99)
ACE score			1.07 (0.99–1.15)*
Interpersonal factors (Yes vs. No)
Family disruption		1.471 (1.04–2.481)		2.08 (1.19, 3.62)*
IPV witness as a child		2.13 (1.03–4.40)*		1.95 (0.95, 4.04)
At least one form of p-IPV		1.94 (1.20–3.15)*		2.45 (1.42, 4.25)*
Combined forms of IPV and CM				3.45 (1.40, 8.53)**
Structural factors (Yes vs. No)
Lack of intergenerational closure	0.46 (0.23–0.89)*		1.27 (0.96–1.68)
Lack of neighborhood cohesion			1.23 (0.96–1.56)
Fit indices
Pseudo R2/ VIF	0.30/ 1.14	0.16/ 1.15	0.13/ 1.07	0.12/ 1.25
Hosmer-Lemeshow chi2(8)	4.95	5.79	7.03 / 1.2	4.34
AIC/BIC	96.67/114.66	166.93/ 184.91	157.14/ 175.12	160.65/ 174.45
McFadden’s Adj R2/ Cragg & Uhler’s R2	0.20/ 0.39	0.25/ 0.09	0.06/ 0.199	0.05/ 0.19
B. Augmented Inverse-probability- weighted (IPW) model	Model 1: Risk of CM on p-IPV victimization (Yes vs. No)	Model 2: Rik of p-IPV on prenatal mental health (Yes vs. No)	Model 3: Risk of p-IPV on attitude about spanking (Yes vs. No)	Model 4: Risk of p-IPV on adverse birth outcome (Yes vs. No)
Adjusted risk difference (95%CI)	0.18 (0.09–0.27)***	0.40 (0.16–0.64)***	0.18 (−0.09–0.44)	0.77 (−2.60–4.15)

Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001