Skip to main content

Table 4 Odds ratio obtained from binary logistic regression analysis showing the determinants of receipt of method choice

From: Choice of contraceptive methods in public and private facilities in rural India

Ā 

Model-1

Model-2

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

AOR (95% CI)

AOR (95% CI)

AOR (95% CI)

AOR (95% CI)

AOR (95% CI)

AOR (95% CI)

Factors

ā€ƒFacility readiness for type of methods

ā€ƒā€ƒOnly for short-acting methods

Ref.

Ā Ā Ā Ā 

Ref.

ā€ƒā€ƒLong-acting reversible and short- acting methods

3.63 (2.10ā€“6.24)

Ā Ā Ā Ā 

2.67 (1.48ā€“4.83)

ā€ƒā€ƒPermanent method and any other method

0.62 (0.27ā€“1.41)

Ā Ā Ā Ā 

0.55 (0.23ā€“1.35)

ā€ƒā€ƒPermanent, long-acting reversible and short-acting methods

2.45 (1.08ā€“5.55)

Ā Ā Ā Ā 

1.45 (0.62ā€“3.42)

Provider told client about the side-effects of the method

Ā 

9.52 (5.30ā€“17.11)

Ā Ā Ā 

7.40 (3.96ā€“13.86)

Provider told results of tests and examinations

Ā Ā 

1.22 (0.80ā€“1.87)

Ā Ā 

0.94 (0.57ā€“1.54)

Provider encouraged client to ask questions

Ā Ā Ā 

2.41 (1.54ā€“3.79)

Ā 

1.20 (0.71ā€“2.01)

Client felt respected

Ā Ā Ā Ā 

2.58 (1.17ā€“5.66)

1.78 (0.75ā€“4.18)

Confounders

ā€ƒAge groups

ā€ƒā€ƒLess than 25ā€‰years

2.01 (0.66ā€“6.12)

1.97 (0.60ā€“6.45)

1.95 (0.67ā€“5.70)

2.37 (0.79ā€“7.12)

1.93 (0.66ā€“5.64)

1.87 (0.54ā€“6.44)

ā€ƒā€ƒ25ā€“29ā€‰years

1.67 (0.65ā€“4.33)

2.32 (0.85ā€“6.30)

2.02 (0.80ā€“5.06)

2.52 (0.98ā€“6.48)

2.04 (0.82ā€“5.13)

1.94 (0.69ā€“5.48)

ā€ƒā€ƒ30ā€“34ā€‰years

1.73 (0.65ā€“4.64)

1.75 (0.63ā€“4.89)

1.93 (0.75ā€“5.01)

2.13 (0.81ā€“5.59)

1.88 (0.73ā€“4.87)

1.46 (0.50ā€“4.26)

ā€ƒā€ƒ35ā€‰years or above

Ref.

Ref.

Ref.

Ref.

Ref.

Ref.

ā€ƒSocial groups

ā€ƒā€ƒScheduled castes/tribes

0.70 (0.33ā€“1.49)

1.09 (0.50ā€“2.39)

0.71 (0.34ā€“1.47)

0.84 (0.40ā€“1.75)

0.73 (0.35ā€“1.51)

0.99 (0.44ā€“2.26)

ā€ƒā€ƒOther backward classes

1.05 (0.54ā€“2.02)

1.36 (0.68ā€“2.70)

1.15 (0.61ā€“2.15)

1.24 (0.65ā€“2.35)

1.14 (0.60ā€“2.14)

1.17 (0.57ā€“2.38)

ā€ƒā€ƒGeneral

Ref.

Ref.

Ref.

Ref.

Ref.

Ref.

ā€ƒClientā€™s education status

ā€ƒā€ƒNo education/lower than 5th standard

Ref.

Ref.

Ref.

Ref.

Ref.

Ref.

ā€ƒā€ƒ5thā€“9th standard

1.17 (0.71ā€“1.94)

1.14 (0.67ā€“1.93)

1.26 (0.78ā€“2.03)

1.19 (0.73ā€“1.94)

1.19 (0.74ā€“1.91)

1.11 (0.64ā€“1.94)

ā€ƒā€ƒ10th standard and higher

0.39 (0.19ā€“0.80)

0.55 (0.28ā€“1.10)

0.55 (0.29ā€“1.04)

0.56 (0.29ā€“1.07)

0.54 (0.28ā€“1.02)

0.42 (0.20ā€“0.89)

ā€ƒParity

ā€ƒā€ƒNo child/1 child

0.94 (0.36ā€“2.48)

0.92 (0.33ā€“2.55)

1.24 (0.50ā€“3.07)

1.12 (0.44ā€“2.84)

1.26 (0.51ā€“3.14)

0.78 (0.27ā€“2.27)

ā€ƒā€ƒ2 children

0.83 (0.44ā€“1.57)

0.67 (0.34ā€“1.33)

0.90 (0.49ā€“1.64)

0.79 (0.43ā€“1.46)

0.88 (0.48ā€“1.60)

0.63 (0.31ā€“1.30)

ā€ƒā€ƒ3 children

0.80 (0.44ā€“1.47)

0.63 (0.33ā€“1.19)

0.80 (0.45ā€“1.43)

0.70 (0.39ā€“1.28)

0.80 (0.45ā€“1.42)

0.62 (0.31ā€“1.21)

ā€ƒā€ƒ4 children or more

Ref.

Ref.

Ref.

Ref.

Ref.

Ref.

  1. Note: AOR Adjusted Odds Ratio, CI Confidence Interval, Ref. Reference category, AORs in bold are significant at pā€‰<ā€‰0.05
  2. Model 1a-e: Effect of each of the factors was estimated separately for (a) facility readiness for type of methods, (b) provider told client about the side-effects of the method, (c) provider told results of tests and examinations, (d) provider encouraged client to ask questions, and (e) client felt respected. All models were adjusted for clientā€™s age, parity, education, and social group
  3. Model 2: Effect of all factors were estimated together and adjusted for clientā€™s age, parity, education, and social group