Ó£»¨ÊÓÆµ

Skip to main content

Table 5 Logistic regression analysis of determinants of parents’ PFSE practice [adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence intervals)]

From: Theory of planned behavior-based cross-sectional study of family sex education for preschoolers in China: rural-urban comparative analysis

Variables

Rural

Urban

Total

Left-behind children(ref: No)

0.75(0.59 ~ 0.96)*

-

-

PFSE-A positive

1.35(1.03 ~ 1.77)*

1.62(1.33 ~ 1.97)**

1.49 (1.28 ~ 1.75)**

Awareness of family responsibilities (ref: No)

2.23 (1.33 ~ 3.74)*

1.56(1.00 ~ 2.45)

1.85(1.32 ~ 2.60)**

In favor of PFSE(ref: No)

1.46(1.13 ~ 1.89)*

1.66(1.37 ~ 2.02)**

1.59(1.36 ~ 1.86)**

PFSE-K pass (ref: No)

1.38(1.09 ~ 1.74)*

1.27(1.06 ~ 1.52)*

1.31 (1.14 ~ 1.51)**

class of kindergarten(age range)(ref: Nursery class (3~))

 Junior class(4~)

-

1.19(0.95 ~ 1.50)

1.26(1.05 ~ 1.51)*

 Senior class(5 ~ 6)

-

1.44(1.15 ~ 1.90) **

1.39(1.17 ~ 1.65)** 1.38(1.15 ~ 1.64)**

Types of education difficulties(ref: Single difficulty)

 Double difficulty

1.44(1.11 ~ 1.85)*

1.07(0.87 ~ 1.31)

1.21(1.03 ~ 1.41)*

 Multiple difficulty

1.65(1.18 ~ 2.30)*

1.60(1.23 ~ 2.09)*

1.64(1.34 ~ 2.02)**

  1. Notes: All models were conducted by controlling the following covariates: father’s education level, mother’s education level, average annual gross family income, father’s occupation, and mother’s occupation. *P < 0.05, ** P &±ô³Ù; 0.001