Skip to main content

Table 2 Unadjusted regression model of logged household expenditures for food, education and healthcare

From: Tobacco use and household expenditures on food, education, and healthcare in low- and middle-income countries: a multilevel analysis

 

Food

Education

Healthcare

Variables

Random-slope

Random-intercept

Fixed-effects

Random-slope

Random-intercept

Fixed-effects

Random-slope

Random-intercept

Fixed-effects

 

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

Current tobacco use (ref. No use)

         

Daily

−0.064**

−0.051**

−0.052**

−0.208**

−0.183**

−0.184**

−0.137**

−0.121**

−0.122**

Occasional

−0.083**

−0.050**

−0.050**

−0.138**

−0.065**

−0.066**

−0.093*

−0.043

−0.043

Constant

4.666**

4.657**

4.656**

1.517**

1.498**

1.547**

1.584**

1.574**

1.455**

SD (Daily)

.081 (.015)a

—

—

.137 (.027)a

—

—

.148 (.028)a

—

—

SD (Occasional)

.103 (.029)a

—

—

.120 (.035)a

—

—

.143 (.044)a

—

—

SD (Constant)

.517 (.058)a

.520 (.059)a

—

.699 (.079)a

.691 (.078)a

—

.662 (.075)a

.652 (.074)a

—

Hausman testb

—

[χc(2) = 4.05 (p = 0.132)]

—

[χc(2) = 7.59 (p = 0.023)]

—

[χc(2) = 5.82 (p = 0.055)]

Likelihood ratio testc

[χc(2) = 59.86 (p < 0.001)]

—

[χc(2) = 43.86 (p < 0.001)]

—

[χc(2) = 47.16 (p < 0.001)]

—

Observations (countries)

53,185 (40)

50,732 (40)

50,602 (40)

  1. Notes: **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05; SD, standard deviation of estimated coefficient; astandard error in parentheses; bRejecting the null hypothesis would favor fixed-effects to random-intercept; cRejecting the null hypothesis would favor random-slope over random-intercept