Table 2 Univariate and multivariable Logistic regression models fitting results for SH

From: Impulsivity mediates the association between parenting styles and self-harm in Chinese adolescents

Covariates Univariate Mutilvariable1 Mutilvariable2 Mutilvariable3
OR (95%CI) OR (95%CI) OR (95%CI) OR (95%CI)
Age(+ 1 year) 1.27 (1.18, 1.37) 1.09 (0.90, 1.32) 1.12 (0.94, 1.33) 1.10 (0.91, 1.33)
Sex: Girls (Ref: Boys) 1.38 (1.24, 1.54) 1.44 (1.17, 1.78) 1.40 (1.13, 1.74) 1.42 (1.14, 1.76)
Grade (Ref: Primary school)
 Junior high school 2.38 (1.32, 4.31) 1.94 (0.86, 4.37) 1.90 (0.90, 4.02) 2.01 (0.88, 4.59)
 Senior high school 3.47 (2.21, 5.45) 2.48 (0.94, 6.57) 2.27 (0.95, 5.42) 1.11 (1.00, 1.23)
Ethnicity (Ref: Other) 1.03 (0.81, 1.32)    
Father’s education level (Ref: Elementary and below)
 Junior high school above 0.79 (0.58, 1.07)    
Mother’s education level (Ref: Elementary and below)
 Junior high school above 0.70 (0.55, 0.90) 1.09 (0.97, 1.22) 1.10 (0.98, 1.23) 1.11 (1.00, 1.23)
Father’s age (+ 5 years) 1.18 (1.11, 1.25) 0.96 (0.87, 1.07) 0.95 (0.85, 1.06) 0.96 (0.86, 1.06)
Mother’s age (+ 5 years) 1.21 (1.10, 1.33) 1.07 (0.94, 1.22) 1.07 (0.93, 1.23) 1.09 (0.95, 1.26)
Impulsivity (Ref: Combined score < 39.17)
 High (Combined score > = 39.17) 3.34 (2.84–3.92) 2.16 (1.82, 2.55) 2.16 (1.82, 2.56) 2.07 (1.75, 2.44)
Parenting style
 Father’s Rejection (Combined score + 1) 1.20 (1.14–1.26) 1.13 (1.07, 1.20)   1.06 (0.97, 1.15)
 Father’s Emotional Warmth (Combined score + 1) 1.08 (1.06–1.10) 1.05 (1.03, 1.07)   1.05 (1.02, 1.09)
 Father’s Over-protection (Combined score+ 1) 1.12 (1.10–1.16) 1.07 (1.03, 1.11)   1.01 (0.93, 1.09)
 Mother’s Rejection (Combined score + 1) 1.22 (1.17–1.26)   1.13 (1.08, 1.19) 1.09 (1.01, 1.17)
 Mother’s Emotional Warmth (Combined score + 1) 1.08 (1.07–1.09)   1.05 (1.02, 1.07) 1.00 (0.96, 1.03)
 Mother’s Over-protection (Combined score + 1) 1.13 (1.11–1.15)   1.08 (1.05, 1.11) 1.08 (1.02, 1.14)