Skip to main content

Table 2 Multilevel logistic analysis of factors associated with contraceptive use in Cambodia

From: Multilevel analysis of the role of women’s empowerment on use of contraceptive methods among married Cambodian women: evidence from demographic health surveys between 2005 and 2014

Variables

2005

2010

2014

 

Any method vs. no method

aOR (95% CI)

Any method vs. no method

aOR (95% CI)

Any method vs. no method

aOR (95% CI)

Individual-level factors

Educational level

 No formal education

1.00

1.00

1.00

 Primary

1.12 (0.85–1.47)

1.14 (1.01–1.29)

1.17 (1.02–1.34)

 Secondary+

1.34 (0.91–1.96)

1.43 (1.22–1.68)

1.23 (1.05–1.44)

Decision-making

 Low

1.00

1.00

1.00

 Middle

1.08 (0.65–1.80)

0.94 (0.72–1.23)

1.17 (0.89–1.54)

 High

1.09 (0.66–1.77)

0.99 (0.77–1.25)

1.21 (0.94–1.54)

Workforce participation

 Low

1.00

1.00

1.00

 Medium

1.27 (0.99–1.62)

1.14 (1.01–1.28)

1.27 (1.13–1.43)

 High

1.28 (0.97–1.69)

1.12 (1.00–1.26)

1.44 (1.29–1.60)

Age (years)

 15–24

1.00

1.00

1.00

 25–34

1.21 (0.88–1.68)

1.36 (1.18–1.57)

1.25 (1.08–1.43)

 ≥ 35

0.79 (0.54–1.14)

0.71 (0.61–0.84)

0.57 (0.49–0.67)

Religion

 Buddhist

1.00

1.00

1.00

 Muslim

0.88 (0.41–1.91)

0.93 (0.64–1.37)

0.89 (0.63–1.26)

 Other

0.74 (0.39–1.41)

0.78 (0.57–1.08)

1.15 (0.87–1.53)

Residence

 Urban

1.00

1.00

1.00

 Rural

0.89 (0.67–1.18)

0.97 (0.80–1.16)

1.25 (1.05–1.49)

Region

 Plains

1.00

1.00

1.00

 Tonle Sap

1.49 (1.13–1.96)

1.04 (0.89–1.23)

1.11 (0.96–1.27)

 Plateau / Mountain

1.69 (1.23–2.32)

0.99 (0.83–1.18)

1.05 (0.90–1.23)

 Phnom Penh

1.29 (0.76–2.18)

0.92 (0.68–1.25)

0.80 (0.60–1.05)

Age at first marriage

 ≤ 16

1.00

1.00

1.00

 17–20

0.93 (0.72–1.20)

0.91 (0.81–1.02)

0.87 (0.77–0.97)

 ≥ 21

0.70 (0.52–0.94)

0.75 (0.66–0.86)

0.66 (0.59–0.75)

Total children ever born

 0

1.00

1.00

1.00

 1–2

6.40 (2.84–14.43)

13.19 (8.70–19.99)

13.58 (9.57–19.27)

 ≥ 3

6.89 (3.00–15.81)

14.98 (9.79–22.92)

16.94 (11.80–24.32)

Wealth

 Poor

1.00

1.00

1.00

 Middle

1.23 (0.93–1.62)

1.09 (0.96–1.24)

0.96 (0.84–1.09)

 Rich

1.36 (0.99–1.87)

0.87 (0.75–1.01)

0.89 (0.77–1.03)

Media exposure

 No

1.00

1.00

1.00

 Yes

1.14 (0.90–1.46)

1.06 (0.96–1.17)

0.98 (0.88–1.08)

Perceived distance to HF

 Big problem

1.00

1.00

1.00

 No problem

0.98 (0.79–1.21)

1.03 (0.93–1.13)

1.03 (0.92–1.11)

Health insurance

 No

1.00

1.00

 Yes

0.90 (0.79–1.03)

1.25 (1.10–1.41)

Partner education

 No formal education

1.00

1.00

1.00

 Primary

1.22 (0.90–1.66)

1.16 (1.00–1.34)

0.99 (0.85–1.37)

 Secondary and higher

1.19 (0.84–1.71)

1.15 (0.98–1.36)

1.04 (0.88–1.23)

Community-level factors

Community wealth

 Low

1.00

1.00

1.00

 Middle

1.05 (0.79–1.39)

0.92 (0.78–1.09)

1.02 (0.88–1.18)

 High

0.92 (0.62–1.38)

0.87 (0.68–1.10)

1.10 (0.87–1.39)

Community education

 Low

1.00

1.00

1.00

 Middle

1.15 (0.87–1.52)

0.92 (0.78–1.08)

0.84 (0.72–0.97)

 High

0.97 (0.72–1.34)

0.83 (0.69–0.99)

0.78 (0.66–0.91)

Community decision-making

 Low

1.00

1.00

1.00

 Middle

1.03 (0.78–1.36)

1.05 (0.90–1.23)

1.01 (0.88–1.17)

 High

1.09 (0.82–1.45)

1.04 (0.88–1.23)

0.96 (0.83–1.11)

Community workforce participation

 Low

1.00

1.00

1.00

 Middle

1.38 (1.06–1.81)

1.08 (0.92–1.27)

0.95 (0.82–1.09)

 High

1.32 (0.99–1.76)

1.12 (0.94–1.23)

0.96 (0.74–1.04)

Measures of variation

 Area variance (95% CI)

0.23 (0.10–0.57)

0.28 (0.23–0.36)

0.18 (0.13–0.24)

 ICC (%)

6.53

8.00

5.22

 PCV (%)

23.33

3.45

14.29

 MOR

1.58

1.66

1.50

Model fit statistic

 AIC

2770.24

13,127.01

13,487.78

  1. borderline p-value, bold means p-value < 0.05
  2. aOR Adjusted odds ratio, CI Confidence internal, ICC Intraclass correlation coefficient, MOR Median odds ratio, PVC Proportional change in variance, AIC Akaike information criterion