Table 3 Marginal effects from multilevel logistic regression model on the use of modern contraceptives among women in Uganda, UDHS 2016
Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
Individual-level | Community-level | Individual/Community-level | |
dy/dx | dy/dx | dy/dx | |
Age at survey | Â | Â | Â |
 <=19 (Ref) |  |  |  |
 20–29 | -0.063(0.035)* |  | -0.064(0.035)* |
 30–39 | -0.066(0.041) |  | -0.068(0.041) |
 40+ | -0.053(0.045) |  | -0.056(0.045) |
Marital Status | Â | Â | Â |
 Single (Ref) |  |  |  |
 Married | 0.084(0.034)** |  | 0.090(0.034)** |
 Living together | 0.072(0.032)** |  | 0.072(0.032)** |
 Previous married | -0.011(0.039) |  | -0.10(0.039) |
Sex of household head | Â | Â | Â |
 Male (Ref) |  |  |  |
 Female | -0.073(0.0.018)*** |  | -0.073(0.017)*** |
Children ever born | Â | Â | Â |
 1 (Ref) |  |  |  |
 2 | 0.006(0.027) |  | 0.005(0.027) |
 3 | -0.009(0.028) |  | -0.010(0.028) |
 4+ | 0.007(0.030) |  | 0.009(0.030) |
Ever terminated pregnancy | Â | Â | Â |
 No (Ref) |  |  |  |
 Yes | -0.040(0.017)** |  | 0.039(0.017)** |
Level of Education | Â | Â | Â |
 No education (Ref) |  |  |  |
 Primary | 0.055(0.027)** |  | 0.054(0.027)** |
 Secondary | 0.059(0.030)* |  | 0.056(0.030)* |
Media | Â | Â | Â |
 Low (Ref) |  |  |  |
 Medium | -0.020(0.017) |  | -0.020(0.017) |
 High | 0.000(0.020) |  | 0.001(0.021) |
Wanted last child | Â | Â | Â |
 Wanted then (Ref) |  |  |  |
 Wanted later | 0.009(0.015) |  | 0.010(0.015) |
 Wanted no more | -0.026(0.025) |  | -0.026(0.025) |
Wealth Index | Â | Â | Â |
 Poor (Ref) |  |  |  |
 Middle | 0.045(0.019)** |  | 0.036(0.019)** |
 Rich | 0.048(0.021)** |  | 0.038(0.022)** |
Religion | Â | Â | Â |
 Anglican (Ref) |  |  |  |
 Catholic | -0.020(0.018) |  | -0.019(0.018) |
 Muslim | -0.055(0.026)** |  | -0.058(0.026)** |
 Other’s | -0.037(0.018)** |  | -0.039(0.018)** |
Employment Status | Â | Â | Â |
 Unemployed (Ref) |  |  |  |
 Employed | 0.024 (0.017) |  | 0.027(0.017) |
Place of Residence | Â | Â | Â |
 Urban (Ref) |  |  |  |
 Rural |  | 0.004(0.018) | 0.001(0.021) |
Community Age Group | Â | Â | Â |
 Young (Ref) |  |  |  |
 Old |  | 0.006(0.019) | 0.011(0.021) |
Community socio-economic status | Â | Â | Â |
 Low (Ref) |  |  |  |
 High |  | 0.025(0.028) | 0.028(0.030) |
Community Media access to FP | Â | Â | Â |
 Low (Ref) |  |  |  |
 High |  | 0.004(0.024) | 0.009(0.028) |
Community level of education | Â | Â | Â |
 Low (Ref) |  |  |  |
 High |  | 0.015(0.025) | 0.024(0.030) |
Community access to health facility | Â | Â | Â |
 Low (Ref) |  |  |  |
 High |  | -0.030(0.018)* | -0.038(0.021)* |
Random effect results | Â | Â | Â |
 PSU Variance (95%CI) | 0.08(0.04–0.13) | 0.10(0.06–0.17) | 0.07(0.86–1.28) |
 ICC | 0.023 | 0.030 | 0.021 |
 Wild chi-square and p-value | Ref | 139.59, p < 0.000 | 10.53, p < 0.000 |
Model fitness | Â | Â | Â |
 Log-likelihood | -6357.67 | -4276.47 | -6352.37 |
 AIC | 12719.34 | 8596.94 | 12712.73 |
 PSU | 112 | 112 | 112 |
N | 6385 | 6385 | 6385 |