Skip to main content

Table 4 Multivariable logistic regression models for associations between sex education and self-poisoning, stratified by sex

From: Sex education and self-poisoning in Sri Lanka: an explorative analysis

  Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Female Male p Female Male p Female Male p
OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Receipt of sex education
 Yes 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 0.06
 No 1.12 (0.61-2.03) 2.58 (1.40-4.73) 0.94 (0.51-1.75) 2.25 (1.21-4.17) 1.15 (0.63-2.12) 2.58 (1.40-4.74)
Quality of sex education received through school
 Good quality 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.16
 Poor quality 0.83 (0.51-1.36) 0.68 (0.35-1.35) 0.81 (0.49-1.33) 0.71 (0.36-1.41) 0.81 (0.49-1.32) 0.68 (0.34-1.34)
 No sex education 1.04 (0.56-1.94) 2.27 (1.19-4.33) 0.87 (0.45-1.66) 2.01 (1.05-3.88) 1.06 (0.56-1.99) 2.27 (1.19-4.33)
Usefulness of sex education
 Useful 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.17
 Not useful 1.96 (0.88-4.37) 2.13 (0.77-5.87) 2.03 (0.90-4.56) 2.71 (0.95-7.75) 1.83 (0.82-4.08) 2.10 (0.76-5.79)
 No sex education 1.18 (0.65-2.16) 2.79 (1.50-5.18) 1.00 (0.54-1.86) 2.46 (1.31-4.63) 1.21 (0.66-2.22) 2.79 (1.50-5.18)
  1. Hospital controls, complete case analysis (Total N=681; Females N=402, Males N=279)
  2. Model 1: Adjusted for sex, age and religion
  3. Model 2: Adjusted for sex, age, religion, highest educational attainment of either parent
  4. Model 3: Adjusted for sex, age, religion, marital status
  5. OR Odds Ratio (if the OR>1, this suggests that exposed individuals were more likely to have self-poisoned than non-exposed individuals)
  6. CI Confidence Interval (if the CI overlaps 1, this suggests that there is no statistical evidence of a difference in risk between exposed and non-exposed individuals)
  7. p values are presented for the test of interaction by sex