Table 4 Probability of predicting lowering-effect families as compared to raising-effect families; binomial logistic regression analysis in three steps (n = 3156 families)
From: Striking variations in consultation rates with general practice reveal family influence
| Step 1: health status of family members | Step 2: health status of family members + circumstances | Step 3: health status of family members + circumstances + socialisation conditions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio | Confidence interval | Odds ratio | Confidence interval | Odds Ratio | Confidence interval | |
| Health status | ||||||
| Chronic disease in the family (no = ref) | 0.12** | 0.09–0.14 | 0.10** | 0.08–0.14 | 0.10** | 0.08–0.13 |
| Family score self-reported health (higher score = more members reported bad health) | 0.35** | 0.28–0.45 | 0.44** | 0.34–0.56 | 0.47** | 0.37–0.61 |
| Family circumstances | ||||||
| Private insurance (social = reference) | 2.36** | 1.85–3.01 | 2.18** | 1.71–2.79 | ||
| Educational level mother (low = ref) | 1.28 | 0.79–2.08 | 0.88 | 0.54–1.45 | ||
| Educational level father (low = ref) | 1.87* | 1.08–3.23 | 1.60 | 0.92–2.78 | ||
| Number of children | 2.25** | 1.99–2.53 | 2.27** | 2.01–2.56 | ||
| Paid employment mother (no = ref) | 1.02 | 0.80–1.30 | 0.97 | 0.76–1.23 | ||
| Indicators for socialisation | ||||||
| Father or mother paid employment in health care sector (not = ref) | 2.38** | 1.75–3.24 | ||||
| Both parents western cultural background (one or both non-western = ref) | 2.51** | 1.54–4.10 | ||||
| Nagelkerke R2 | 0.27 | 0.39 | 0.42 | |||
| Percentage correct | 86.1 | 88.6 | 88.6 | |||