library(gtsummary)
library(dplyr)
library(tidyverse)
library(readr)`maternal.&.child.health`%>%
tbl_summary()| Characteristic | N = 2001 |
|---|---|
| respondent_id | 101 (51, 151) |
| age | 33 (24, 42) |
| education_level | |
| Higher | 21 (11%) |
| No education | 29 (15%) |
| Primary | 72 (36%) |
| Secondary | 78 (39%) |
| residence | |
| Rural | 114 (57%) |
| Urban | 86 (43%) |
| parity | |
| 0 | 24 (12%) |
| 1 | 34 (17%) |
| 2 | 34 (17%) |
| 3 | 37 (19%) |
| 4 | 32 (16%) |
| 5 | 39 (20%) |
| antenatal_visits | 5 (2, 7) |
| delivery_place | |
| Home | 59 (30%) |
| Private Facility | 42 (21%) |
| Public Facility | 99 (50%) |
| child_alive | 182 (91%) |
| contraceptive_use | 120 (60%) |
| household_income | 46,360 (25,560, 62,864) |
| 1 Median (Q1, Q3); n (%) | |
Interpretation
A total of 200 respondents participated in the study. The median respondent ID was 101 (IQR: 51–151). Participants had a median age of 33 years (IQR: 24–42).
In terms of education, most had secondary (39%) or primary (36%) education, while 15% had no education and 11% had higher education. Over half of respondents lived in rural areas (57%).
Regarding parity (number of children), distribution was fairly even, with the largest group having 5 children (20%). The median number of antenatal visits was 5 (IQR: 2–7).
For place of delivery, half delivered in public facilities (50%), 30% at home, and 21% in private facilities. Most respondents had a living child (91%) and 60% reported using contraception.
The median household income was 46,360 (IQR: 25,560–62,864).
`maternal.&.child.health`%>%
tbl_summary(
by = residence)| Characteristic | Rural N = 1141 |
Urban N = 861 |
|---|---|---|
| respondent_id | 101 (53, 155) | 100 (43, 144) |
| age | 34 (25, 42) | 33 (24, 42) |
| education_level | ||
| Higher | 16 (14%) | 5 (5.8%) |
| No education | 17 (15%) | 12 (14%) |
| Primary | 45 (39%) | 27 (31%) |
| Secondary | 36 (32%) | 42 (49%) |
| parity | ||
| 0 | 16 (14%) | 8 (9.3%) |
| 1 | 20 (18%) | 14 (16%) |
| 2 | 18 (16%) | 16 (19%) |
| 3 | 19 (17%) | 18 (21%) |
| 4 | 17 (15%) | 15 (17%) |
| 5 | 24 (21%) | 15 (17%) |
| antenatal_visits | 5 (2, 7) | 6 (3, 8) |
| delivery_place | ||
| Home | 33 (29%) | 26 (30%) |
| Private Facility | 22 (19%) | 20 (23%) |
| Public Facility | 59 (52%) | 40 (47%) |
| child_alive | 103 (90%) | 79 (92%) |
| contraceptive_use | 72 (63%) | 48 (56%) |
| household_income | 47,346 (26,209, 60,360) | 45,025 (25,407, 66,833) |
| 1 Median (Q1, Q3); n (%) | ||
Interpretation
Among 1,141 rural and 861 urban respondents, the median age was similar — 34 years (IQR: 25–42) in rural areas and 33 years (24–42) in urban areas.
Education level differed: rural women had more primary education (39%), while urban women were more likely to have secondary education (49%). Higher education was relatively uncommon in both groups (14% rural vs. 5.8% urban).
Parity patterns were broadly similar, though rural women had slightly more children (21% had 5 children vs. 17% urban).
Antenatal visits were slightly higher among urban women — median 6 (IQR: 3–8) vs. 5 (2–7) in rural areas.
For place of delivery, about half in both groups delivered in public facilities (52% rural, 47% urban), while around 30% delivered at home.
The majority of children were alive (90% rural; 92% urban). Contraceptive use was somewhat higher among rural women (63% vs. 56%).
Median household income was comparable: 47,346 (26,209–60,360) in rural and 45,025 (25,407–66,833) in urban households.
model <- glm( factor(household_income) ~ age + education_level + residence, data = `maternal.&.child.health`, family = binomial)
tbl_regression(model)| Characteristic | log(OR) | 95% CI | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| age | -0.06 | -0.47, 0.17 | 0.6 |
| education_level | |||
| Higher | — | — | |
| No education | -0.32 | -2,630, 2,630 | >0.9 |
| Primary | -19 | >0.9 | |
| Secondary | -0.72 | -2,257, 2,256 | >0.9 |
| residence | |||
| Rural | — | — | |
| Urban | 18 | -1,551, |
>0.9 |
| Abbreviations: CI = Confidence Interval, OR = Odds Ratio | |||
Interpretation
None of the predictors (age, education level, or residence) showed a statistically significant association with the outcome (all p > 0.05).
Age had a log(OR) of –0.06 (95% CI: –0.47 to 0.17; p = 0.6), indicating no meaningful effect.
Compared to those with higher education, other education levels (no education, primary, secondary) did not significantly differ in odds of the outcome.
Similarly, urban versus rural residence was not significantly associated with the outcome (p > 0.9).