Anthropometric Characteristics of Underprivileged Adolescents: A Study from Urban Slums of India

Table 4

Stunting-regression coefficients (β) and 90% confidence intervals under the mixed effects logistic regression model for stunting by sex. Log odds of stunting versus no stunting were modeled. Each model included age and an additional covariate.

		Boys		Girls
		β (CI)	exp(β) (CI)	β (CI)
Age		0.12 (0.01, 0.24)	1.13 (1.01, 1.27)	−0.18 (−0.35, −0.02)	0.83 (0.70, 0.98)
Household size	4 or less	Reference		Reference
	5	0.28 (−0.41, 0.99)	1.33 (0.66, 2.69)	−0.88 (−1.87, 0.11)	0.41 (0.15, 1.12)
	More than 5	0.42 (−0.26, 1.11)	1.53 (0.77, 3.03)	−0.76 (−1.56, 0.03)	0.47 (0.21, 1.03)
Mother’s education	Primary or no	Reference		Reference
	Secondary or higher	−0.89 (−1.46, −0.33)^1	0.41 (0.23, 0.72)	−1.42 (−2.32, −0.52)^3	0.24 (0.10, 0.59)
Income	Standardized	0.11 (−0.15, 0.38)	1.12 (0.86, 1.46)	−1.02 (−1.64, −0.41)	0.36 (0.19, 0.66)
Consumption of	Oil	−0.89 (−3.62, 1.85)	0.41 (0.03, 6.36)	1.41 (−1.88, 4.69)	4.08 (0.15, 108.85)
	Dal/pulses	−0.90 (−7.68, 5.88)	0.41 (0.0005, 357.81)	3.84 (−2.78, 10.46)	46.53 (0.06, 34891.55)
	Egg/meat/fish	−2.93 (−6.23, 0.36)^2	0.05 (0.002, 1.43)	0.49 (−3.53, 4.52)^4	1.64 (0.03, 91.84)

Age effect did not remain significant.
²Age effect became stronger, regression coefficient and CI were 0.14 (0.03, 0.27), value = 0.05.
³Age effect became stronger, regression coefficient and CI were −0.22 (−0.40, −0.05), value = 0.04.
⁴Age effect did not remain significant.
0.01 ≤ -value ≤ 0.10, and -value < 0.01.