Skip to main content
. 2022 Feb 18;10:826295. doi: 10.3389/fped.2022.826295

Table 4.

Logistic regression models for factors associated with L-EBF.

Model 1 Model 2
Sociodemographic characteristics Global model
OR (95% CI) p OR (95% CI) p
Household food security
Secure 1 0.03
Marginally insecure 2.08
(0.88 - 4.96)
0.09
Moderately insecure 2.45
(0.82 - 7.30)
0.10
Severely insecure 9.93
(2.09 - 47.26)
0.01
Lived with the baby's father (yes) 4.93
(1.58, 15.37)
<0.01 3.83
(1.09, 13.37)
0.03
GDM or HDP (yes) 6.32
(1.41, 28.27)
0.02
No previous BF experience or EBF <1 mo 0.35
(0.12, 1.02)
0.05
Maternal BMI at the time of study 0.91
(0.84, 0.98)
0.02
Received other liquid in the hospital (yes) 0.32
(0.11, 0.92)
0.03
Vaginal delivery 3.21
(1.03, 9.93)
0.04
Attended health center at least three times postpartum (yes) 3.24
(1.06, 9.89)
0.04
Had pain or discomfort in breasts/nipples after hospital discharge (yes) 0.31
(0.12, 0.80)
0.01
Limits the duration of the feed (yes) 0.37
(0.13, 1.01)
0.05
Pacifier use after hospital discharge 0.31
(0.10, 0.94)
0.04
When the baby is not full, you should give her/him powdered milk or some other food, even if she/he is <6 months old” (agree) 0.22
(0.0.08, 0.55)
<0.01

Model 1. Sociodemographic characteristics: variables not included in the model: occupation (stay-at-home mother or work away from home).

Model 2. Global model variables not included in the final model: household food security, occupation, gestational age and baby had difficulty breastfeeding.

In both models, the predicted probability is for being in the L-EBF group.

Bold values indicate statistically significant differences (p <0.05) between study groups.