Skip to main content

Table 2 Logistic regression analyses of the relationship between proximity to conflict, girl child marriage, and past year sexual, physical, and emotional intimate partner violence (IPV) among currently partnered women aged 18–49 who participated in the 2016 Sri Lankan DHS Domestic Violence module (N = 13,691)

From: A mediation analysis of the role of girl child marriage in the relationship between proximity to conflict and past-year intimate partner violence in post-conflict Sri Lanka

 

C path (outcome: IPV = yes)

A path (outcome: Child Marriage = yes)

C' and B path (outcome: IPV = yes)

Variable of interest

aOR

CI

p value

aOR

CI

p value

aOR

CI

p value

Relationships between proximity to conflict, girl child marriage, and past year sexual IPV (SIPV)

Proximity to conflict

 Distal

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

 Proximal

0.34

0.09, 1.23

0.10

1.28

0.83, 1.97

0.30

–

–

–

 Central

4.19

2.08, 8.41

 < 0.01*

1.89

1.22, 2.93

 < 0.01*

4.03

2.00, 8.12

 < 0.01*

Girl child marriage

 No

–

–

–

–

–

–

ref

ref

ref

 Yes

–

–

–

–

–

–

1.55

1.15, 2.09

 < 0.01*

Relationships between proximity to conflict, girl child marriage, and past year physical IPV (PIPV)

Proximity to conflict

 Distal

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

 Proximal

0.51

0.29, 0.91

0.02*

1.28

0.83, 1.97

0.30

–

–

–

 Central

2.15

1.36, 3.41

 < 0.01*

1.89

1.22, 2.93

 < 0.01*

2.07

1.30, 3.30

 < 0.01*

Girl child marriage

 No

–

–

–

–

–

–

ref

ref

ref

 Yes

–

–

–

–

–

–

1.62

1.37, 1.93

 < 0.01*

Relationships between proximity to conflict, girl child marriage, and past year emotional IPV (EIPV)

Proximity to conflict

 Distal

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

 Proximal

0.31

0.18, 0.54

 < 0.01*

1.28

0.83, 1.97

0.30

–

–

–

 Central

1.88

1.30, 2.70

 < 0.01*

1.89

1.22, 2.93

 < 0.01*

1.82

1.26, 2.63

 < 0.01*

Girl child marriage

 No

–

–

–

–

–

–

ref

ref

ref

 Yes

–

–

–

–

–

–

1.45

1.23, 1.71

 < 0.01*

  1. Regression models included as covariates age, education, household wealth quintile, parity, age difference between woman and partner, religion, urban setting, and district
  2. Confidence intervals and p-values are weighted according to the survey's complex sampling design
  3. aOR: adjusted odds ratio; CI: 95% confidence interval
  4. *: p < 0.05