What is the impact of rural-to-urban migration on exclusive breastfeeding: a population-based cross-sectional study

Table 2 Adjusted ORs for breastfeeding practices according to maternal rural-to-urban migrant status

Outcome	N (%)	Model A	Model B	Model C
Outcome	N (%)	AOR (95% CI)	AOR (95% CI)	AOR (95% CI)
Ever breastfeeding
Local	4276 (97.60)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
Migrant	2448 (97.34)	0.70 (0.50, 0.97)	0.70 (0.50, 0.97)	0.70 (0.50, 1.00)
EBF^a
Local	688 (30.32)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
Migrant	361 (28.95)	0.83 (0.70, 0.98)	0.79 (0.67, 0.94)	0.81 (0.68, 0.95)
Predominant breastfeeding^a
Local	1359 (60.03)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
Migrant	740 (59.63)	0.93 (0.81, 1.08)	0.92 (0.80, 1.07)	0.93 (0.80, 1.08)
Age-appropriate breastfeeding
Local	1990 (45.42)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
Migrant	1138 (45.25)	0.97 (0.87, 1.07)	0.96 (0.86, 1.06)	0.97 (0.87, 1.08)

AOR Adjusted odds ratio
Model A: odds ratio was adjusted for mother-infant sociodemographic characteristics (maternal age, maternal education levels, maternal occupation, maternal ethnicity, maternal residence, infant sex, infant birthweight, delivery method and preterm birth)
Model B: odds ratio was additionally adjusted for mother-infant health information (maternal illness during pregnancy, infant illness within 2 weeks after birth)
Model C: besides the covariates adjusted in model B, supportive information (maternal history of EBF, maternal knowledge about EBF, grandparents support EBF, grandparents in law support EBF, fathers support EBF and mothers’ best friends support EBF) were also adjusted in this model
^aprevalence and odds ratios for EBF and predominant breastfeeding were calculated among infants aged under 6 months

ISSN: 1746-4358