Dear all users,
I am interested to examine the effect of emotional IPV on ANC visits differ by women educational status or not.
Outcome variable: (adequate ANC service (1) or inadequate ANC service (0))
Main exposures: spousal emotional IPV (Yes/No or 1/0)
Moderators: (Education status) - Lower education (1) & Higher education (2).
Hypothesis 1:
The effect of emotional IPV on adequate ANC services will be moderated by education and wealth.
I have fitted the model using the following commands:
xtmelogit anc_adequacy i.emotional_viol1##1.educ_mom i.age_catgorey i.husband_educ i.wealth_hh i.mediae_expo i.dma i.birth_order i.V102 i.contextual_regions || psu :,or nolog
Output:
Mixed-effects logistic regression Number of obs = 2,863
Group variable: psu Number of groups = 618
Obs per group:
min = 1
avg = 4.6
max = 12
Integration points = 7 Wald chi2(17) = 263.01
Log likelihood = -1571.0285 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
anc_adequacy | Odds Ratio Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
emotional_viol1 |
Yes | 1.154874 .4641096 0.36 0.720 .525366 2.538676
|
educ_mom |
Primary or no education | .6540172 .13108 -2.12 0.034 .4415592 .9687003
|
emotional_viol1#educ_mom |
Yes#Primary or no education | .6461428 .2718937 -1.04 0.299 .2832351 1.474042
Note: results of all other covariates excluded
Therefore, there is no main effect of emotional violence (p = 0.720) on ANC and statistical insignificant interaction on this model between emotional IPV and low education (p = 0.299), while adjusted for all covariate. But using these same variables the model fitted without interaction terms found that the effect of emotional IPV (p= 0.021) on ANC visits depends on women’s low education. Here, the commands and the finding using stat 16:
. xtmelogit anc_adequacy emotional_viol1 i.age_catgorey i.husband_educ i.wealth_hh i.mediae_expo i.birth_order i.dma i.V102 i.contextu al_regions if educ_mom==1 || psu :,or nolog
d-effects logistic regression Number of obs = 2,548
Group variable: psu Number of groups = 580
Obs per group:
min = 1
avg = 4.4
max = 12
Integration points = 7 Wald chi2(15) = 160.53
Log likelihood = -1384.4623 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
anc_adequacy | Odds Ratio Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
emotional_viol1 | .7387078 .0969917 -2.31 0.021 .571098 .9555089
|
age_catgorey |
25 – 34 | 1.433873 .2368658 2.18 0.029 1.037285 1.982089
35 – 49 | 1.446263 .3013516 1.77 0.077 .9613604 2.175748
My question is why these two models finding vary? Is there any mistakes I have made in the commands to fit the models? If not, both the main effects and interaction terms are insignificant, why the stratified analyses become sig. for the main effect emotional IPV (p = 0.021)? Why the number of participants are different (2863 vs. 2548) in the two models?
Thank you so much in advance for your quick responses.
Related Posts with Main effects significance and Interaction terms using logistic regression in stat 16
Moderating Vs. average marginal effects of the modelsHi, Statalisters: I am not so much good in posting on the forum, please excuse me for not adhering t…
Is Stata freaking out?This question is perhaps a bit weird. I've run the same do-file on the same .dta file multiple times…
Event study with thin trading and many events(clustering)I am doing an event study on the transfer market in football. However during this research, I have e…
Help with summary tableI want to create a table like the one in the attached photo, showing the average values of my variab…
Endless iteration using Panel Data ppml zero-inflated poissonI have a dataset of 5 years panel data of more than 30,000 cities. However, when I run regression pp…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 Response to Main effects significance and Interaction terms using logistic regression in stat 16
Post a Comment