Table 5 Logistic regression model for sufficient antenatal TTCV in women living in rural vs. urban areas, with adjustment for confoundersa
Unadjusted OR (95% CI) | P-valueb | Adjusted OR (95% CI)c | P-valueb | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Area of residence | 0.525 | 0.003 | ||
Urban | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Rural | 0.93 (0.75–1.16) | 1.62 (1.18–2.24) | ||
Mother’s age group | < 0.001 | 0.010 | ||
15–19 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
20–24 | 0.85 (0.60–1.20) | 1.26 (0.94–1.69) | ||
25–29 | 1.06 (0.76–1.49) | 1.24 (0.97–1.60) | ||
30–34 | 0.86 (0.62–1.19) | 1.29 (0.99–1.68) | ||
35–39 | 0.80 (0.57–1.13) | 1.34 (0.99–1.83) | ||
40–44 | 0.95 (0.65–1.40) | 0.99 (0.73–1.34) | ||
45–49 | 1.96 (1.15–3.36) | 0.88 (0.58–1.34) | ||
Number ANC visits | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||
None | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
1 | 0.79 (0.56–1.12) | 1.94 (1.55–2.42) | ||
2 | 0.87 (0.62–1.21) | 3.31 (2.67–4.10) | ||
3 | 0.55 (0.39–0.77) | 5.07 (3.87–6.64) | ||
4+ | 0.28 (0.21–0.37) | 4.64 (3.69–5.84) | ||
Combined wealth index | < 0.001 | 0.264 | ||
Poorest | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Poorer | 1.61 (0.73–3.53) | 0.87 (0.72–1.05) | ||
Middle | 1.14 (0.55–2.37) | 0.77 (0.59–0.99) | ||
Richer | 0.13 (0.06–0.27) | 0.94 (0.73–1.20) | ||
Richest | 0.01 (0.00–0.01) | 0.89 (0.62–1.29) | ||
Mother’s highest education leveld | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||
None | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Primary | 0.33 (0.26–0.41) | 1.90 (1.45–2.49) | ||
Secondary | 0.24 (0.16–0.34) | 2.35 (1.62–3.41) | ||
Higher | 0.12 (0.07–0.21) | 1.46 (0.71–3.03) | ||
Husband’s highest education level | < 0.001 | 0.011 | ||
None | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Primary | 0.49 (0.40–0.59) | 1.20 (1.02–1.42) | ||
Secondary | 0.40 (0.32–0.50) | 1.29 (1.10–1.51) | ||
Higher | 0.20 (0.15–0.28) | 1.41 (1.03–1.93) | ||
Distance to health facility | < 0.001 | 0.249 | ||
Big problem | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Not a big problem | 0.31 (0.24–0.38) | 1.09 (0.94–1.28) | ||
Getting permission to seek medical care | < 0.001 | 0.001 | ||
Big problem | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Not a big problem | 0.48 (0.39–0.59) | 1.28 (1.11–1.49) |