Table 5.
Results of multilevel logistic regression showing the factors associated with exclusive use of hygienic methods among adolescent women in rural India NFHS-5 (2019–21)
| Variables | Adjusted odds ratio | p-value | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
| Fixed effects | ||||
| Individual-level variables | ||||
| Age at menarche (in years) | ||||
| ≤ 12® | ||||
| 13–15 | 1.07 | 0.003 | 1.02 | 1.12 |
| ≥ 16 | 1.57 | < 0.001 | 1.41 | 1.76 |
| Age at marriage (in years) | ||||
| Not marriage® | ||||
| < 18 year | 0.86 | 0.002 | 0.78 | 0.95 |
| ≥ 18 year | 1.06 | 0.250 | 0.96 | 1.18 |
| Respondent’s education | ||||
| No education® | ||||
| Primary | 1.28 | < 0.001 | 1.12 | 1.45 |
| Secondary | 2.48 | < 0.001 | 2.23 | 2.75 |
| Higher | 3.20 | < 0.001 | 2.81 | 3.64 |
| Religion | ||||
| Hindu® | ||||
| Muslim | 0.62 | < 0.001 | 0.58 | 0.67 |
| Christian | 1.11 | 0.050 | 1.00 | 1.24 |
| Others | 1.44 | < 0.001 | 1.30 | 1.59 |
| Social group | ||||
| Scheduled Caste® | ||||
| Scheduled Tribe | 1.03 | 0.452 | 0.96 | 1.10 |
| Other Backward Classes | 0.96 | 0.109 | 0.91 | 1.01 |
| Others | 1.14 | < 0.001 | 1.07 | 1.21 |
| Household wealth | ||||
| Poorest® | ||||
| Poorer | 1.32 | < 0.001 | 1.25 | 1.40 |
| Middle | 1.80 | < 0.001 | 1.69 | 1.92 |
| Richer | 2.43 | < 0.001 | 2.27 | 2.61 |
| Richest | 3.98 | < 0.001 | 3.69 | 4.30 |
| Region of residence | ||||
| Central® | ||||
| North | 3.42 | < 0.001 | 3.17 | 3.70 |
| East | 3.22 | < 0.001 | 2.99 | 3.46 |
| West | 3.20 | < 0.001 | 2.91 | 3.52 |
| South | 6.45 | < 0.001 | 5.90 | 7.06 |
| North-east | 2.76 | < 0.001 | 2.51 | 3.04 |
| Type of home | ||||
| Marital® | ||||
| Natal | 0.91 | 0.059 | 0.83 | 1.00 |
| Other | 0.66 | 0.014 | 0.47 | 0.92 |
| Head of the household | 0.95 | 0.731 | 0.70 | 1.29 |
| Exposure to mass media | ||||
| No exposure® | ||||
| Low exposure | 1.26 | < 0.001 | 1.20 | 1.32 |
| Medium exposure | 1.43 | < 0.001 | 1.35 | 1.51 |
| High exposure | 1.35 | < 0.001 | 1.22 | 1.49 |
| Discussed menstrual hygiene with a healthcare worker | ||||
| No® | ||||
| Yes | 1.01 | 0.824 | 0.90 | 1.14 |
| Working status | ||||
| Not working® | ||||
| Working | 0.75 | < 0.001 | 0.66 | 0.87 |
| Owns a bank account | ||||
| No® | ||||
| Yes | 1.06 | 0.269 | 0.96 | 1.17 |
| Owns a mobile phone | ||||
| No® | ||||
| Yes | 1.25 | < 0.001 | 1.13 | 1.38 |
| Community-level variables | ||||
| Proportion of women with secondary education in PSU | ||||
| 0–25%® | ||||
| 26–50% | 1.33 | < 0.001 | 1.24 | 1.41 |
| > 50% | 1.68 | < 0.001 | 1.57 | 1.79 |
| Proportion of poor women in PSU | ||||
| 0–25%® | ||||
| 26–50% | 0.89 | 0.001 | 0.83 | 0.95 |
| > 50% | 0.76 | < 0.001 | 0.71 | 0.81 |
| Random effects | ||||
| Community (PSU) random variance (SE.) | 1.393 (0.286) | |||
| Community (PSU) VPC (%) | 30.0 | |||
Notes: CI confidence interval,® reference category, PSU primary sampling units, SE standard error, VPC variance partition coefficient