Association between intimate partner violence and nutritional status among Indian women: a latent class analysis approach

Table 5 Multinomial logistic regression showing odds ratio for of BMI categories for IPV latent class groups

IPV class membership	Underweight vs. Normal	Overweight vs. Normal
IPV class membership	OR (95% CI)	OR (95% CI)
*Model − 1*
Low physical & low sexual (LPLS)	ref.	ref.
High physical & low sexual (HPLS)	1.25 (1.17, 1.34)	0.82 (0.77, 0.86)
High sexual & low physical (HSLP)	1.24 (1.06, 1.46)	0.68 (0.58, 0.79)
High physical & high sexual (HPHS)	1.38 (1.20, 1.58)	0.88 (0.78, 1.00)
*Model − 2*
Low physical & low sexual (LPLS)	ref.	ref.
High physical & low sexual (HPLS)	1.24 (1.16, 1.33)	0.81 (0.77, 0.87)
High sexual & low physical (HSLP)	1.21 (1.02, 1.43)	0.70 (0.60, 0.82)
High physical & high sexual (HPHS)	1.40 (1.22, 1.62)	0.88 (0.77, 0.99)
*Model − 3*
Low physical & low sexual (LPLS)	ref.	ref.
High physical & low sexual (HPLS)	1.11 (1.03, 1.18)	1.01 (0.95, 1.07)
High sexual & low physical (HSLP)	1.13 (0.96, 1.33)	0.79 (0.67, 0.92)
High physical & high sexual (HPHS)	1.20 (1.04, 1.39)	1.10 (0.97, 1.25)
*Model − 4*
Low physical & low sexual (LPLS)	ref.	ref.
High physical & low sexual (HPLS)	1.11 (1.04, 1.20)	0.98 (0.92, 1.04)
High sexual & low physical (HSLP)	1.11 (0.94, 1.31)	0.80 (0.68, 0.94)
High physical & high sexual (HPHS)	1.24 (1.08, 1.44)	1.05 (0.92, 1.20)

ISSN: 2049-3258