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