Can microcredit help improve the health of poor women? Some findings from a cross-sectional study in Kerala, India

Table 8 Models for self perceived health. Binomial logistic regression: odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals and goodness of fit statistics^a

Dependent variable: Bad health (yes, n = 321, no, n = 607)	M0	M1	M2	M3
*Socioeconomic characteristics and caste*
Education (ref = high school+) Primary		1.18 [0.79–1.76]	1.20 [0.80–1.79]	1.11 [0.70–1.75]
No education		1.49 [1.00–2.23]	1.53 [1.02–2.31]	1.37 [0.87–2.17]
Employment (ref = not engaged) Engaged		0.62 [0.43–0.88]	0.61 [0.43–0.87]	0.61 [0.40–0.91]
Landholdings (ref = more than 50 cents) 50 cents or less		1.55 [1.06–2.27]	1.55 [1.06–2.26 ]	1.39 [0.91–2.13]
Caste of head (ref = forward) OBC		1.00 [0.66–1.52]	1.00 [0.66–1.52]	1.15 [0.71–1.85]
SC/ST		0.93 [0.61–1.43	0.93 [0.60–1.43]	1.04 [0.64–1.70]
*SHG participation*
SHG (ref = not member) Early joiner (> 2 years)	0.97 [0.65–1.44]		1.22 [0.78–1.90]	1.17 [0.70–1.94]
Late joiner (< = 2 years)	0.77 [0.57–1.04]		0.93 [0.67–1.29]	1.02 [0.70–1.47]
*Health determinants*
Exclusion (ref = no exclusion) Exclusion				1.94 [1.37–2.74]
Health risks (ref = no risks) At least one risk				10.3 [6.87–15.3]
Decision-making (ref = female/joint) Male				2.55 [1.57–4.16]
Chi square (df) -2 log likelihood	3.21(2) 1193.7	143.0(9)*** 1053.9	144.6(11)*** 1052.3	327.6(14)*** 869.3
Deviation		3.2(2)		366.0(3)***

^a Notes: Models are adjusted for age and women's household position. Results in bold are statistically significant, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001,
OBC = Other Backward Caste, SC/ST = Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.

ISSN: 1475-9276