Skip to main content

Table 4 Multivariate analysis results (odds ratio) of reported ideal number of children in rural Ethiopia, 2011

From: Promoting family planning use after childbirth and desire to limit childbearing in Ethiopia

  Mode I (gross effect) Model II (net effect)
  B S.E. Exp (β) B S.E. Exp (β)
Religion       
  Orthodox Christian@       
  Muslim 1.08 0.23 2.96*** 0.57 0.31 1.77
Education    **    
  Illiterate@       
  Only read and write 0.83 0.30 2.30** 0.60 0.37 1.82
  1-4 0.47 0.25 1.59 0.44 0.31 1.56
  5+ -0.63 0.35 0.53 -0.09 0.42 0.91
Exposure to media       
  Never@       
  Some times 0.17 0.16 1.18 -0.18 0.20 0.83
  Frequently 0.32 0.31 1.38 0.20 0.42 1.22
Knowledge of FP    *    
  Low@       
  Medium -0.46 0.39 0.63 -0.60 0.47 0.55
  High -0.98 0.43 0.38* -0.95 0.55 0.39
Livestock and land    ***    ***
  Low@       
  Medium 0.65 0.19 1.91*** 0.62 0.23 1.86**
  High 1.16 0.18 3.19*** 0.91 0.24 2.48***
Age group    ***    ***
  15-19@       
  20-34 0.37 0.33 1.43 0.06 0.69 1.06
  35-49 1.18 0.34 3.27*** 0.99 0.72 2.68
Duration of marriage    ***    ***
  Short@       
  Medium 0.64 0.19 1.89** 0.75 0.23 2.11**
  Long 1.33 0.19 3.77*** 1.19 0.27 3.27***
Living children composition       
  Sons > daughters@       
  Sons = daughters 0.15 0.20 1.16 0.44 0.24 1.55
  Sons < daughters 0.39 0.17 1.48* 0.44 0.2 1.56*
Number of living children    ***    
  0-2@       
  3-4 1.39 0.20 4.02***    
  5+ 1.71 0.20 5.50***    
Economic value of children    ***    ***
  High cost@       
  Medium benefit 0.76 0.25 2.17** 1.52 0.31 4.59***
  High benefit 0.85 0.16 2.33*** 1.73 0.232 5.61***
Constant     -1.05 0.85 0.35
  1. Note: Based on the couples’ record 2011 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey data was estimated.
  2. Notes: *** = P < 0.001; ** = P < 0.01; * = P < 0.05 (***,**,*Indicate level of significance at specified level).
  3. @ = reference category.