Table 6.
Linear mixed‐effects model predicting MUAC of pregnant women in Illu Aba Bor, Zone, Southwest Ethiopia, 2019/2020
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed effect | Estimate (SE) | 95% CI | Estimate (SE) | 95% CI | Estimate (SE) | 95% CI |
| Variables | ||||||
| Intercept | 23.35 (0.06) | 23.22, 23.47 | 22.03 (0.12) | 23.04, 23.48 | 22.304 (0.584) | 21.165, 23.442 |
| Couple group (Baseline MUAC) | −0.835 (0.285) | −1.395, −0.275 | −0.795 (0.281) | −1.392, −0.277 | ||
| Women alone (Baseline MUAC) | −0.473 (0.285) | −1.032, 0.087 | −0.448 (0.280) | −1.029, 0.084 | ||
| Intervention effect | ||||||
| Couple group | 0.975 (0.202) | 0.624, 1.419 | 0.926 (0.205) | 0.639, 1.443 | ||
| Women‐alone group | 0.469 (0.202) | 0.073, 0.865 | 0.458 (0.203) | 0.156, 0.953 | ||
| Age | −0.003 (0.014) | −0.030, 0.023 | ||||
| Maternal educational (Primary) | 0.249 (0.147) | −0.303, 0.254 | ||||
| Maternal education (Secondary) | 0.403 (0.178) | −0.038, 0.536 | ||||
| Maternal occupation (Merchant) | −0.454 (0.339) | −1.114, 0.206 | ||||
| Maternal occupation (farmer) | −0.267 (0.279) | −0.809, 0.276 | ||||
| Maternal occupation (Daily labourer) | −0.677 (0.396) | −1.448, 0.095 | ||||
| Family size (<5) | 0.327 (0.187) | −0.042, 0.695 | ||||
| Wealth status | ||||||
| Lowest | −0.631 (0.199) | −1.020, −0.242 | ||||
| Second | −0.411 (0.172) | −0.747, −0.075 | ||||
| Middle | −0.504 (0.192) | −0.880, −0.127 | ||||
| Fourth | −0.067 (0.182) | −0.424, 0.289 | ||||
| DDS (low) | −0.246 (0.131) | −0.502, 0.010 | ||||
| Random effect | ||||||
| Level two variance | 2.9072 (0.150) | 2.8535 (0.148) | 2.4396 (0.128) | |||
| AIC | 2925.692 | 2819.828 | 2812.488 | |||
| ICC | 0.681 | 0.652 | 0.412 | |||
Note: Model 1. Intercept‐only model; Model 2. Slope‐only model; Model 3. Intercept with slope.
Abbreviations: AIC, Akaike information criteria; CI, confidence interval; DDS, dietary diversity score; ICC, intracluster correlation; MUAC, mid‐upper arm circumference; SE, standard error.