Table 4 Logistic regression model results showing the association between adolescent girls’ social environment and sexual debut
Country | Social environment | Sexual debut | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | OR (95% CI) | p-value | AOR (95% CI) | p-value | ||
Botswana | Parental monitoring | Not monitored | 2.02 (1.37–2.97) | 0.002 | 1.88 (1.14–3.10) | 0.017 |
| Â | Â | Monitored (ref) | Â | Â | Â | Â |
|  | Parental connectedness | Not connected | 1.30 (0.93–1.83) | 0.113 | 1.12 (0.77–1.62) | 0.530 |
| Â | Â | Connected (ref) | Â | Â | Â | Â |
|  | Perceived peer support | Not supported | 1.12 (0.76–1.65) | 0.556 | 0.99 (0.57–1.72) | 0.960 |
| Â | Â | Supported (ref) | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Ghana | Parental monitoring | Not monitored | 1.55 (1.34–2.12) | 0.007 | 1.15 (0.83–1.60) | 0.386 |
Monitored (ref) | ||||||
Parental connectedness | Not connected | 1.43 (1.00–2.05) | 0.052 | 1.23 (0.77–1.96) | 0.379 | |
Connected (ref) | ||||||
Perceived peer support | Not supported | 1.54 (1.14–2.08) | 0.006 | 1.22 (0.83–1.79) | 0.309 | |
Supported (ref) | ||||||
Kenya | Parental monitoring | Not monitored | 0.98 (0.54–1.68) | 0.948 | 0.84 (0.41–1.74) | 0.628 |
Monitored (ref) | ||||||
Parental connectedness | Not connected | 1.12 (0.80–1.58) | 0.506 | 1.15 (0.76–1.73) | 0.502 | |
Connected (ref) | ||||||
Perceived peer support | Not supported | 1.38 (1.001–1.90) | 0.049** | 1.33 (0.98–1.79) | 0.063 | |
Supported (ref) | ||||||
Mauritania | Parental monitoring | Not monitored | 1.13 (0.69–1.85) | 0.612 | 1.26(0.73–2.18) | 0.379 |
Monitored (ref) | ||||||
Parental connectedness | Not connected | 1.01 (0.58–1.74) | 0.981 | 0.72 (0.4–1.29) | 0.244 | |
Connected (ref) | ||||||
Perceived peer support | Not supported | 1.48 (0.85–2.56) | 0.147 | 1.35 (0.7–2.62) | 0.341 | |
Supported (ref) | ||||||
Mozambique | Parental monitoring | Not monitored | 1.43 (1.07–1.89) | 0.018 | 1.28 (0.82–1.99) | 0.256 |
Monitored (ref) | ||||||
Parental connectedness | Not connected | 1.19 (0.81–1.75) | 0.360 | 0.99 (0.68–1.43) | 0.936 | |
Connected (ref) | ||||||
Perceived peer support | Not supported | 1.04 (0.59–1.82) | 0.886 | 0.98 (0.60–1.61) | 0.943 | |
Supported (ref) | ||||||
Namibia | Parental monitoring | Not monitored | 1.49 (1.12–1.99) | 0.009 | 1.24 (0.91–1.71) | 0.171 |
Monitored (ref) | ||||||
Parental connectedness | Not connected | 1.43 (1.05–1.93) | 0.024 | 1.34 (0.96–1.88) | 0.083 | |
Connected (ref) | ||||||
Perceived peer support | Not supported | 1.21 (0.95–1.55) | 0.116 | 1.25 (0.97–1.62) | 0.076 | |
Supported (ref) | ||||||
Senegal | Parental monitoring | Not monitored | 1.76 (0.92–3.38) | 0.084 | 1.09 (0.59–2.01) | 0.770 |
Monitored (ref) | ||||||
Parental connectedness | Not connected | 2.72 (1.29–5.72) | 0.013 | 2.36 (0.98–5.68) | 0.054 | |
Connected (ref) | ||||||
Perceived peer support | Not supported | 2.36 (1.31–4.25) | 0.008 | 1.73 (1.19–2.53) | 0.008 | |
Supported (ref) | ||||||
Seychelles | Parental monitoring | Not monitored | 2.30 (1.71–3.10) | 0.000 | 2.27 (1.61–3.20) | 0.000 |
Monitored (ref) | ||||||
Parental connectedness | Not connected | 1.53 (1.19–1.96) | 0.001 | 1.04 (0.76–1.40) | 0.818 | |
Connected (ref) | ||||||
Perceived peer support | Not supported | 1.21 (0.93–1.57) | 0.150 | 1.10 (0.84–1.44) | 0.485 | |
Supported (ref) | ||||||
Swaziland | Parental monitoring | Not monitored | 1.75 (1.33–2.30) | 0.000 | 1.59 (1.17–2.15) | 0.003 |
Monitored (ref) | ||||||
Parental connectedness | Not connected | 1.93 (1.48–2.51) | 0.000 | 1.35 (0.94–1.94) | 0.102 | |
Connected (ref) | ||||||
Perceived peer support | Not supported | 1.20 (0.89–1.62) | 0.229 | 0.99 (0.69–1.41) | 0.949 | |
Supported (ref) | ||||||
Tanzania | Parental monitoring | Not monitored | 1.50 (1.09–2.06) | 0.014 | 1.01 (0.69–1.48) | 0.946 |
| Â | Monitored (ref) | |||||
|  | Parental connectedness | Not connected | 1.90 (1.43–2.53) | 0.000 | 1.78 (1.25–2.53) | 0.003 |
| Â | Connected (ref) | |||||
|  | Perceived peer support | Not supported | 1.35 (0.99–1.83) | 0.761 | 1.23 (0.94–1.60) | 0.120 |
| Â | Â | Supported (ref) | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Uganda | Parental monitoring | Not monitored | 1.60 (1.02–2.53) | 0.044 | 1.41 (0.74–2.68) | 0.278 |
Monitored (ref) | ||||||
Parental connectedness | Not connected | 1.95 (1.44–2.63) | 0.000 | 1.92 (1.32–2.78) | 0.001 | |
Connected (ref) | ||||||
Perceived peer support | Not supported | 1.38 (0.94–2.04) | 0.098 | 1.04 (0.75–1.44) | 0.796 | |
Supported (ref) | ||||||
Zambia | Parental monitoring | Not monitored | 2.03 (1.01–4.09) | 0.047 | 0.92 (0.39–2.17) | 0.832 |
Monitored (ref) | ||||||
Parental connectedness | Not connected | 2.06 (1.18–5.71) | 0.021 | 2.12 (0.87–5.12) | 0.092 | |
Connected (ref) | ||||||
Perceived peer support | Not supported | 0.92 (0.50–1.67) | 0.761 | 0.81 (0.38–1.74) | 0.563 | |
Supported (ref) | ||||||
All countries | Parental monitoring | Not monitored | 1.29 (1.09–1.52) | 0.003 | 1.12 (0.93–1.35) | 0.231 |
Monitored (ref) | ||||||
Parental connectedness | Not connected | 1.30 (1.13–1.51) | 0.000 | 1.32 (1.14–1.53) | 0.000 | |
Connected (ref) | ||||||
Perceived peer support | Not supported | 1.16 (0.99–1.37) | 0.075 | 1.13 (0.97–1.31) | 0.119 | |
Supported (ref) | ||||||