Skip to main content

Table 4 Unadjusted and adjusted relationship of explanatory variables with essential neonatal care utilization

From: Patterns and determinants of essential neonatal care utilization among underprivileged ethnic groups in Midwest Nepal: a mixed method study

Variables Neonatal care utilization Unadjusted OR (95% CI) Adjusted OR (95% CI)
Yes (%) No (%)
Birth order
 1–2 179 (63.0) 105 (37.0) 2.32 (1.39–3.87) 2.06 (1.13–3.75)a
 3 and more 33 (42.3) 45 (57.7)   Ref
Ethnicity
 Tharu 166 (69.2) 74 (30.8) 3.71 (2.35–5.86) 2.28 (1.33–3.91)a
 Non-Tharu 46 (37.7) 76 (62.3)   Ref.
Mothers autonomy
 High 80 (66.1) 41 (33.9) 2.23 (1.33–3.75) 1.248 (0.69–2.27)
 Medium 76 (62.8) 45 (37.2) 1.93 (1.15–3.23) 1.226 (0.68–2.21)
 Low 56 (46.7) 64 (53.3)   Ref.
Religion
 Hindu 201 (62.4) 121 (37.6) 4.38 (2.11–9.09) 2.37 (1.03–5.46)a
 Others 11 (27.5) 29 (72.5)   Ref.
Wealth Quintile
 Rich 49 (65.3) 26 (34.7) 2.09 (1.18–3.70) 1.04 (0.53–2.06)
 Medium 90 (67.7) 43 (32.3) 2.32 (1.44–3.76) 1.411 (0.87–2.60)
 Poor 73 (47.4) 81 (52.6)   Ref.
Education of mother
 Secondary & higher 86 (69.4) 38 (30.6) 2.01 (1.27–3.18) 1.16 (0.65–2.06)
 Below secondary 126 (52.9) 112 (47.1)   Ref.
Education of father
 Secondary & higher 119 (64.0) 67 (36.0) 1.59 (1.04–2.42) 1.11 (0.65–1.92)
 Below secondary 93 (52.8) 83 (47.2)   Ref.
Perceived quality of MNCH services
 Good quality services 155 (66.0) 80 (34.0) 2.38 (1.53–3.70) 2.66 (1.61–4.39)a
 Poor quality services 57 (44.9) 70 (55.1)   Ref.
Awareness of immediate essential neonatal care
 ≥ 3 neonatal cares 94 (73.4) 34 (26.6) 2.72 (1.70–4.34) 2.22 (1.28–3.87)a
 < 3 neonatal cares 118 (50.4) 116 (49.6)   Ref.
Awareness of newborn danger signs
 ≥ 3 danger signs 55 (68.8) 25 (31.3) 1.75 (1.03–2.97) 1.12 (0.64–2.26)
 < 3 danger signs 157 (55.7) 125 (44.3)   Ref.
Distance to HF
 ≤ 60 min 155 (62.0) 95 (38.0) 1.57 (1.00–2.47) 1.40 (0.89–2.54)
 > 60 min 57 (50.9) 55 (49.1)   Ref.
  1. aStatistically significant at 95% CI