Table 2 Multiple Logistic regression model and Augmented Inverse-probability- weighted (AIPW) model for ARR and ARD of p-IPV on mothers’ perinatal wellbeing and infant health outcomes

A. Multiple Logistic regression model

Model 1: p-IPV victimization

ARR (95% CI)

Model 2: Prenatal mental health ARR (95% CI)

Model 3: Attitude about spanking

ARR (95% CI)

Model 4: Adverse birth outcomeARR (95% CI)

 Mother’s education (secondary vs. higher)

0.78 (0.41–1.46)

1.61 (0.82–3.19)

1.72 (0.96–3.10)**

 Father’s education (secondary vs. higher)

6.9 (1.63–29.20)**

2.79 (1.16–6.71)**

1.41 (0.99, 1.99)*

 Lack of prenatal care (Yes vs. No)

3.35 (1.80–6.23)**

 Combined forms of CM (Yes vs. No)

6.39 (1.69–24.23)***

 Unplanned pregnancy

1.32 (0.86–1.99)

 ACE score

1.07 (0.99–1.15)*

 Family disruption

1.471 (1.04–2.481)

2.08 (1.19, 3.62)*

 IPV witness as a child

2.13 (1.03–4.40)*

1.95 (0.95, 4.04)

 At least one form of p-IPV

1.94 (1.20–3.15)*

2.45 (1.42, 4.25)*

 Combined forms of IPV and CM

3.45 (1.40, 8.53)**

 Lack of intergenerational closure

0.46 (0.23–0.89)*

1.27 (0.96–1.68)

 Lack of neighborhood cohesion

1.23 (0.96–1.56)

 Pseudo R2/ VIF

0.30/ 1.14

0.16/ 1.15

0.13/ 1.07

0.12/ 1.25

 Hosmer-Lemeshow chi2(8)

4.95

5.79

7.03 / 1.2

4.34

 AIC/BIC

96.67/114.66

166.93/ 184.91

157.14/ 175.12

160.65/ 174.45

 McFadden’s Adj R2/ Cragg & Uhler’s R2

0.20/ 0.39

0.25/ 0.09

0.06/ 0.199

0.05/ 0.19

B. Augmented Inverse-probability- weighted (IPW) model

Model 1: Risk of CM on p-IPV victimization

(Yes vs. No)

Model 2: Rik of p-IPV on prenatal mental health

(Yes vs. No)

Model 3: Risk of p-IPV on attitude about spanking

(Yes vs. No)

Model 4: Risk of p-IPV on adverse birth outcome

(Yes vs. No)

Adjusted risk difference (95%CI)

0.18 (0.09–0.27)***

0.40 (0.16–0.64)***

0.18 (−0.09–0.44)

0.77 (−2.60–4.15)