Influence of education on sexual and reproductive health service utilization for persons with disabilities in nationwide Bangladesh: an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study

Table 4 Logistic regression models for education on family planning utilization

	Family planning
	Model 1		Model 2
	Odds ratio		Odds ratio
Education
Primary education (vs. no formal education)	2.029	(1.619–2.542)	2.088	(1.652–2.639)
Secondary education (vs. no formal education)	1.709	(1.333–2.192)	1.719	(1.317–2.245)
Post-secondary education (vs. no formal education)	3.361	(1.973–5.726)	3.523	(2.022–6.138)
Residence
Urban (vs. rural)			0.795	(0.647–0.976)
Household wealth quintile
Poor (vs. poorest)			1.369	(1.04–1.801)
Medium (vs. poorest)			1.467	(1.093–1.969)
Wealthy (vs. poorest)			1.335	(0.985–1.809)
Wealthiest (vs. poorest)			1.360	(0.973–1.902)
Age			1.008	(0.999–1.018)

Model 1 is the unadjusted logistic regression for education on family planning use. Model 2 is the logistic regression for education on family planning use adjusting for type of residence, wealth quintile, and age. Values of 95% confidence intervals are given in brackets. The analysis was performed on all 1954 persons with disabilities (1239 male and 715 female) in Bangladesh who responded to the survey’s family planning questions

ISSN: 1742-4755