Table 2

Multivariate logistic regression odds ratios (confidence intervals) examining the effect of community mean sexual or physical IPV on whether first sex was premarital or in union among young women (ages 20-29) by country

Premarital vs. First sex in union

Model 1a (full sample)

Premarital vs. first sex in union

Model 2b (IPV sample; currently in union)

Premarital vs. first sex in union

Model 3c (IPV sample; currently in union)


Liberia, 2007

Community mean IPV

0.55 (0.30-1.00)*

0.59 (0.29-1.19)

0.47 (0.22-1.01) †

Own IPV experience (Yes vs. no)

NA

NA

1.25 (0.87-1.79)

Zimbabwe, 2005/06

Community mean IPV

0.65 (0.34-1.23)

1.24 (0.62-2.49)

1.08 (0.52-2.27)

Own IPV experience (Yes vs. no)

NA

NA

1.14 (0.87-1.48)

Mali, 2006

Community mean IPV

4.50 (2.29-8.84)***

5.60 (2.62-11.97)***

4.30 (1.93-9.56)***

Own IPV experience (Yes vs. no)

NA

NA

1.29 (0.92-1.79)

DRC, 2007

Community mean IPV

1.01 (0.54-1.89)

0.98 (0.43-2.21)

0.88 (0.37-2.09)

Own IPV experience (Yes vs. no)

NA

NA

1.11 (0.75-1.64)

Kenya, 2003

Community mean IPV

1.82 (1.05-3.15)*

2.82 (1.49-5.32)***

2.30 (1.15-4.61)*

Own IPV experience (Yes vs. no)

NA

NA

1.24 (0.97-1.58)†


Notes: Reference group is first sex in union. All models controlled for age, urban residence, educational status, wealth quintile and exposure to the radio and television. † p ≤ 0.10; * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001. Models 2 and 3 use domestic violence weights including only women currently in union who responded to the question on IPV experience. Unweighted sample sizes for IPV samples: Liberia - 1341; Zimbabwe - 2068; Mali - 3772; DRC - 1036; Kenya - 1776. aModel 1, full sample; bModels 2 with reduced domestic violence sample; cModel 3 with reduced domestic violence sample and inclusion of women's own IPV experience.

Gómez and Speizer Reproductive Health 2010 7:11   doi:10.1186/1742-4755-7-11

Open Data