Skip to main content

Table 3 Association of undernutritiona with various factors in univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis

From: Association of nutrition, water, sanitation and hygiene practices with children’s nutritional status, intestinal parasitic infections and diarrhoea in rural Nepal: a cross-sectional study

Undernutrition [N (cases)=760] Univariate logistic regressionb Multivariate logistic regressionc
OR 95% CI P-value aOR 95% CI P-value
Age of the participating child < 5 years 1.00    1.00   
> 5 years 0.98 0.78-1.23 0.83 1.01 0.72-1.42 0.95
Sex of the participating child Male 1.00    1.00   
Female 1.01 0.81-1.27 0.89 0.95 0.68-1.33 0.77
Number of children in the household < 5 1.00      
> 5 1.05 0.32-3.42 0.93    
Socioeconomic status Poor 1.00    1.00   
Intermediate 0.73 0.54-0.99 0.006 0.70 0.43-1.11 0.01
High 0.57 0.41-0.80   0.43 0.25-0.75  
Caregivers’ literacy Can neither read or write 0.75 0.30-1.88     
Can read only 1.10 0.80-1.52 0.60    
Can both read and write 1.00      
Occupation of the household head Agriculture 1.22 0.96-1.53 0.10 1.05 0.71-1.53 0.82
Business 0.90 0.62-1.29 0.55    
Daily labourer 1.11 0.88-1.40 0.37    
Government service 0.50 0.28-0.92 0.03 0.54 0.21-1.38 0.20
Other independent work 0.46 0.46-13.08 0.29    
None 0.38 0.11-1.32 0.13 0.49 0.12-2.04 0.33
Household involved in management of the water system "yes" vs. "no" 0.84 0.51-1.40 0.51    
Handwashing with soap <5 times 1.00      
5-10 times 0.93 0.72-1.20 0.85    
>10 times 1.04 0.21-5.29     
Animals inside home overnight "no" vs. "yes" 0.94 0.74-1.20 0.64    
Information received on WASH "yes" vs. "no" 0.91 0.71-1.18 0.49    
Heard about intestinal parasites "yes" vs. "no" 0.77 0.59-1.01 0.06 1.39 0.76-2.55 0.29
Awareness on measures against intestinal parasites Wash hands with soap 0.92 0.64-1.31 0.65    
Drink clean water 0.84 0.63-1.13 0.26    
Regular deworming 0.65 0.46-0.92 0.02 0.44 0.20-0.94 0.03
Complementary feeding of the participating child started <6months "yes" vs. "no" 0.64 0.33-1.23 0.18 1.95 0.60-6.36 0.27
Received additional meal (snacks) "yes" vs. "no" 0.65 0.51-0.83 <0.001 0.57 0.38-0.84 0.01
DDSd 1 1.00    1.00   
2 1.09 0.67-1.77   1.01 0.47-2.15  
3 1.41 0.89-2.25   0.85 0.41-1.74  
4 1.13 0.71-1.83   0.90 0.44-1.84  
5 1.35 0.84-2.18 0.16 0.84 0.40-1.75 0.03
6 1.02 0.64-1.64   0.50 0.24-1.04  
7 1.85 1.13-3.03   1.69 0.77-3.73  
8 1.26 0.78-2.05   0.84 0.40-1.77  
9 1.61 0.99-2.61   1.76 0.80-3.90  
Production of own food "yes" vs. "no" 0.86 0.68-1.07 0.18 0.67 0.46-0.97 0.03
Giardia lamblia "yes" vs. "no" 0.91 0.64-1.28 0.57    
Presence of intestinal helminths "yes" vs. "no" 1.27 0.94-1.70 0.12 1.36 0.93-1.98 0.11
Ascaris lumbricoides "yes" vs. "no" 1.15 0.82-1.62 0.41    
Trichuris trichiura "yes" vs. "no" 1.68 0.31-9.19 0.55    
Hymenolepsis nana "yes" vs. "no" 1.48 0.75-2.93 0.26    
Enterobius vermicularis "yes" vs. "no" 2.19 0.85-5.62 0.10 2.01 0.70-5.79 0.19
Latrine hygiene Lower category 1.00      
Intermediate category 1.11 0.85-1.45 0.64    
High category 1.12 0.85-1.47     
Kitchen hygiene Lower category 1.27 0.98-1.65   1.26 0.82-1.94  
Intermediate category 1.15 0.84-1.58 0.21 0.86 0.48-1.53 0.23
High category 1.00    1.00   
Personal hygiene of participating child and their caregivers Lower category 1.32 1.01-1.73   1.43 0.92-2.22  
Intermediate category 1.04 0.79-1.37 0.10 0.83 0.51-1.35 0.05
High category 1.00    1.00   
E. coli at POUe drinking water "yes" vs. "no" 1.48 0.84-2.59 0.17 0.87 0.34-2.24 0.77
E. coli at POCf drinking water "yes" vs. "no" 1.63 0.96-2.76 0.07 1.27 0.59-2.71 0.25
Total coliforms at POC drinking water "yes" vs. "no" 5.31 1.01-27.9 0.05 3.81 0.32-45.49 0.29
Total coliforms at POU drinking water "yes" vs. "no" 2.32 0.72-7.48 0.16 1.47 0.18-12.04 0.72
Presence of diarrhoea "yes" vs. "no" 1.08 0.81-1.46 0.59    
Presence of nutritional deficiencies "yes" vs. "no" 1.06 0.84-1.35 0.63    
  1. aUndernutrition included the presence or absence of stunting, BMI Z(thinness) or unerweight
  2. bOdds ratios were obtained from univariate mixed logistic regression models with random area intercepts, and P-values were obtained from Wald- and likelihood ratio tests. P-values <0.2 in the univariate analyses are marked in bold
  3. cAdjusted odds ratios were obtained from a multivariate mixed logistic regression model with random area intercepts including all variables with P-values < 0.2 in the univariate models along with gender and age group of the child and socio-economic category of the household. P-values were obtained from Wald- and likelihood ratio tests and values < 0.05 are marked in bold
  4. dDietary diversity score
  5. ePoint of use
  6. fPoint of collection