Skip to main content

Table 3 Multilevel parameter estimates and odds of experience of spousal physical violence among ever-married women aged [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49] by individual and community level characteristics, ZDHS 2018 (N = 7,358)

From: Determinants of spousal physical violence against women in Zambia: a multilevel analysis

Variables

Model 0

Model I

Model II

Model III

aOR (95%CI)

aOR (95%CI)

aOR (95%CI)

Individual level factors

    

Age

    

15–19

 

2.35** [1.33, 4.14]

 

2.36** [1.34, 4.14]

20–24

 

2.17*** [1.42, 3.30]

 

2.11** [1.38, 3.22]

25–29

 

1.81** [1.21, 2.70]

 

1.78* [1.19, 2.66]

30–34

 

1.79* [1.19, 2.70]

 

1.74* [1.15, 2.63]

35–39

 

1.34 [0.86, 2.09]

 

1.32 [0.84, 2.01]

40–44

 

1.43 [0.88, 2.31]

 

1.43 [0.88, 2.32]

45–49

 

1

 

1

Education level

    

None

 

1

 

1

Primary

 

1.15 [0.85, 1.56]

 

1.18 [0.88, 1.60]

Secondary

 

1.21 [0.83, 1.76]

 

1.23 [0.84, 1.79]

Higher

 

0.98 [0.48, 2.03]

 

1.08 [0.52, 2.23]

Partner’s education

    

None

 

1

 

1

Primary

 

1.02 [0.73, 1.42]

 

1.02 [0.73, 1.42]

Secondary

 

0.87 [0.62, 1.23]

 

0.86 [0.61, 1.22]

Higher

 

0.62 [0.33, 1.15]

 

0.63 [0.34, 1.18]

Household wealth status

    

Poor

 

1

 

1

Middle

 

1.09 [0.86, 1.37]

 

0.93 [0.72, 1.19]

Rich

 

1.09 [0.82, 1.45]

 

0.82 [0.56, 1.20]

Age at first marriage

    

Less than 15

 

1

 

1

15–19

 

1.18 [0.88, 1.58]

 

1.20 [0.90, 1.61]

20+

 

1.18 [0.87, 1.60]

 

1.22 [0.90, 1.165]

Employment status

    

Not working

 

1

 

1

Working

 

0.92 [0.74, 1.13]

 

0.93 [0.74, 1.17]

Ownership of mobile phone

    

No

 

1.34* [1.07, 1.67]

 

1.36* [1.10, 1.69]

Yes

 

1

 

1

Exposure to media

    

No

 

0.98 [0.78, 1.23]

 

0.98 [0.78, 1.24]

Yes

 

1

 

1

Woman decision making autonomy

    

Low

 

1.37** [1.13, 1.65]

 

1.24* [1.01, 1.54]

High

 

1

 

1

Partner drinks alcohol

    

No

 

1

 

1

Yes

 

2.83*** [2.31, 3.47]

 

2.82***[2.30, 3.45]

Partner has more than one wife

    

No

 

1

 

1

Yes

 

1.48** [1.16, 1.88]

 

1.50** [1.18, 1.90]

Partner jealous

    

No

 

1

 

1

Yes

 

2.40*** [1.89, 3.05]

 

2.38***[1.88, 3.02]

Partner accuses wife of being unfaithful

    

No

 

1

 

1

Yes

 

2.65*** [2.18, 3.22]

 

2.65***[2.18, 3.22]

Contextual variables

    

Place of residence

    

Urban

  

1

1

Rural

  

0.64** [0.48, 0.84]

0.83 [0.59, 1.15]

Community education

    

Low

  

0.93 [0.69, 1.26]

0.83 [0.53, 1.20]

Moderate

  

1.16 [0.91, 1.48]

1.13 [0.83, 1.50]

High

  

1

1

Community wealth status

    

Low

  

1

1

Moderate

  

0.88 [0.68, 1.13]

1.34 [0.99, 1.81]

High

  

0.67* [0.47, 0.95]

1.20 [0.78, 1.87]

Community employment

    

Low

  

1

1

Moderate

  

0.96 [0.81, 1.15]

1.12 [0.91, 1.38]

High

  

0.95 [0.78, 1.17]

0.90 [0.70, 1.16]

Community woman autonomy status

    

Low

  

1.96*** [1.58,2.41]

1.66***[1.26, 2.19]

Moderate

  

1.70***[1.34, 2.15]

1.61** [1.23, 2.10]

High

  

1

1

Community young age at first marriage

    

Low

  

1

1

Moderate

  

1.14 [0.94, 1.38]

1.06 [0.85, 1.31]

High

  

1.30* [1.06, 1.60]

1.24 [0.96, 1.59]

Random effects

    

Variance (CI)

0.27 [0.19–0.38]

0.21 [0.12–0.36]

0.19 [0.12–0.29]

0.14 [0.07–0.28]

ICC (%)

7.6

5.9

5.5

4.1

PCV (%)

Ref

22.2

29.6

48.1

Wald chi-square

Ref

484.28***

66.31***

541.28***

Model fitness

    

Log-likelihood

-3360.8

-2187.3

-3327.8

-2167.4

AIC

6725.6

4426.6

6681.6

4408.8

BIC

6739.4

4599.8

6771.3

4655.3

N

7,358

7,358

7,358

7,358

  1. *** p < 0.001; ** = p < 0.01; * = p < 0.05; 1 = Reference Category; Model 0 contains no explanatory variables; Model I includes individual-level factors only; Model II includes both individual-level and community-level factors; Model III includes community-level factors only aOR adjusted odds ratio, CI confidence internal, ICC intraclass correlation coefficient, PCV Proportional change in variance, AIC Akaike information criterion, BIC Bayesian Information Criterion