Skip to main content

Table 3 Relationship between multivariate multinominal logistic analysis and POP

From: Female genital mutilation/cutting in sudan and subsequent pelvic floor dysfunction

  

Comparison between group 1 POP and group 2 POP

Comparison between group 1 POP and group 3 POP

Adjusted OR

CI %95

P value

Adjusted OR

CI %95

P value

Lower

Upper

Lower

Upper

Age (year)

contious

1.01

0.98

1.04

0.451

1.054

1.018

1.092

0.003

BMI (Kg/m2)

BMI < 25

1.32

0.63

2.79

0.453

0.442

0.178

1.098

0.079

 

BMI ≥ 25

1

   

1

   

Smoking

No

0.202

0.021

1.571

0.127

0.177

0.023

1.387

0.099

 

Yes

1

   

1

   

Menopause status

No

0.595

0.293

1.214

0.154

0.857

0.404

1.819

0.688

 

Yes

1

   

1

   

Parity

No

0.634

0.212

1.94

0.403

0.425

0.126

1.552

0.195

 

Yes

1

   

1

   

Live in

Rural

1.19

0.663

2.125

0.556

1.161

0.628

2.145

0.634

 

Urban

1

   

1

   

Job

No

1.08

0.569

1.781

0.978

0.564

0.312

1.02

0.058

 

Yes

1

   

1

1.01

62.2

 

FGM/C status

No FGM/C

0.599

0.178

2.02

0.409

0.851

0.216

3.349

0.817

 

FGM/C type 1

0.643

0.193

2.145

0.473

1.675

0.432

6.503

0.456

 

FGM/C type 2

0.671

0.337

1.334

0.255

0.419

0.206

0.851

0.016

 

FGM/C type 3

1

   

1

   
  1. Statistically significant p values are numbered in italics and bolditalics
  2. POP: Pelvik organ prolapsus, FGM/C: female genital mutilation/Cutting, BMI: body mass ındex, SE: standart error, B: coefficient
  3. Adjusted odds ratio: was used for; age, job (yes, no), parity (yes, no), smoking (yes, no), BMI (< 25, ≥ 25), Menopausal Status (yes,no), Residence (rural, urban), The reference category is: Group 1
Back to article page

BMC Women's Health

ISSN: 1472-6874

Contact us