Skip to main content

Table 2 Adjusted ORs for breastfeeding practices according to maternal rural-to-urban migrant status

From: What is the impact of rural-to-urban migration on exclusive breastfeeding: a population-based cross-sectional study

Outcome N (%) Model A Model B Model C
AOR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)
Ever breastfeeding
 Local 4276 (97.60) 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference)
 Migrant 2448 (97.34) 0.70 (0.50, 0.97) 0.70 (0.50, 0.97) 0.70 (0.50, 1.00)
EBFa
 Local 688 (30.32) 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference)
 Migrant 361 (28.95) 0.83 (0.70, 0.98) 0.79 (0.67, 0.94) 0.81 (0.68, 0.95)
Predominant breastfeedinga
 Local 1359 (60.03) 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference)
 Migrant 740 (59.63) 0.93 (0.81, 1.08) 0.92 (0.80, 1.07) 0.93 (0.80, 1.08)
Age-appropriate breastfeeding
 Local 1990 (45.42) 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference)
 Migrant 1138 (45.25) 0.97 (0.87, 1.07) 0.96 (0.86, 1.06) 0.97 (0.87, 1.08)
  1. AOR Adjusted odds ratio
  2. Model A: odds ratio was adjusted for mother-infant sociodemographic characteristics (maternal age, maternal education levels, maternal occupation, maternal ethnicity, maternal residence, infant sex, infant birthweight, delivery method and preterm birth)
  3. Model B: odds ratio was additionally adjusted for mother-infant health information (maternal illness during pregnancy, infant illness within 2 weeks after birth)
  4. Model C: besides the covariates adjusted in model B, supportive information (maternal history of EBF, maternal knowledge about EBF, grandparents support EBF, grandparents in law support EBF, fathers support EBF and mothers’ best friends support EBF) were also adjusted in this model
  5. aprevalence and odds ratios for EBF and predominant breastfeeding were calculated among infants aged under 6 months