Table 2 Multilevel logistic regression analysis of factors associated with poor tetanus toxoid immunization among pregnant women in Ethiopia, 2016
Variables | Model I | Model II AOR 95% CI | Model III AOR 95% CI | Model IV AOR 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Maternal education | ||||
No formal education | – | 0.88(0.61,1.27) | – | 0.91(0.64–1.30) |
Primary education | – | 0.80 (0.56–1.13) | – | 0.86(0.61–1.20) |
Secondary education | – | 0.98 (0.69–1.39) | – | 1.02(0.72–1.44) |
Higher education | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 |
Maternal occupation | ||||
Working | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 |
Not working | – | 1.17(1.02–1.34) | – | 1.15(1.10–1.31)* |
Wealth status | ||||
Poor | – | 1.25(1.05–1.51) | – | 1.26(1.03–1.54)* |
Middle | – | 1.12(0.91–1.37) | – | 1.15(0.93–1.42) |
Rich | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 |
Wanted pregnancy | ||||
Then | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 |
Later | – | 0.98(0.83–1.17) | – | 0.99(0.83–1.18) |
No more | – | 0.97(0.75–1.26) | – | 1.01(0.77–1.29) |
Distance from the health facility | ||||
Big problem | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 |
Not big problem | – | 0.89(0.78–1.03) | – | 0.89(0.78–1.03) |
Media exposure | ||||
Yes | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 |
No | – | 1.32(1.13–1.53) | – | 1.29(1.10–1.51)** |
Husband education | ||||
No | – | 1.13(0.91–1.41) | – | 1.13(0.90–1.41) |
Primary | – | 1.08(0.87–1.34) | – | 1.11(0.89–1.38) |
Secondary | – | 0.99(0.77–1.26) | – | 0.99(0.77–1.26) |
Higher | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 |
Health care decision | ||||
Self | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 |
Husband | – | 1.01(0.87–1.18) | – | 1.01(0.87–1.18) |
Health insurance coverage | ||||
Yes | – | 1.31(0.94–1.82) | – | 1.32(0.95–1.84) |
No | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 |
Maternal age at first birth | ||||
15–19 | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 |
> 20 | – | 1.28(0.84–1.25) | – | 1.24(0.83–1.21) |
Place of delivery | ||||
Home | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 |
Health facility | – | 0.91(0.78–1.06) | – | 0.91(0.78–1.06) |
ANC visit | ||||
No visit | – | 5.94(2.76–7.61) | – | 5.64(2.48–7.30)*** |
One-three | – | 1.51(1.20–1.83) | – | 1.50(1.19–1.82)*** |
Four and above | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 |
Iron supplementation | ||||
Yes | 0.59(.52–0.67) | 0.59(0.51–0.68) *** | ||
No | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 |
Parity | ||||
Primiparous | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 |
Multiparous | – | 1.05(0.90–1.24) | – | 1.05(0.90–1.24) |
Grand multiparous | – | 0.99(0.80–1.21) | – | 0.99(0.81–1.22) |
Community ANC utilization | ||||
Low | – | – | 2.61(2.17–3.14) | 1.03(0.84–1.27) |
high | – | – | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Residence | ||||
Urban | – | – | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Rural | – | – | 1.08(0.87–1.34 | 1.13(1.08–1.72)* |
Community media exposure | ||||
Low | – | – | 1.55(1.28–1.87) | 1.17(0.94–1.44) |
High | – | – | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Community illiteracy level | ||||
Low | – | – | 1.00 | 1.00 |
High | – | – | 1.58(1.31–1.91) | 1.28(1.03–1.58) * |
Community poverty level | ||||
Low | – | – | 1.00 | 1.00 |
High | – | – | 1.14(0.94–1.39) | 0.97(0.77–1.23) |
Random effects | ||||
Community variance (SE) | 1.14(0.11) | 0.51(0.07) | 0.45(0.05) | 0.40(0.03) |
ICC (%) | 26 | 17 | 13 | 11 |
PCV (%) | Reference | 55.3 | 60.5 | 64.91 |
Model fitness | ||||
Deviance | 8961.60 | 6828.90 | 8608.71 | 6819.43 |