Skip to main content

Table 5 Probability of predicting lowering-effect families as compared to raising-effect families; binomial logistic regression analysis in three steps (n = 257 respondents of the health interview aggregated to 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)

0.13**

0.06–0.30

0.13**

0.04–0.27

0.14**

0.05–0.38

Family score self-reported health (higher score = more members reported bad health)

0.19**

0.08–0.46

0.30*

0.12–0.87

0.38

0.14–1.03

Family circumstances

Private insurance (social = reference)

  

2.63*

1.07–6.42

3.01*

1.11–8.13

Number of children

  

2.40**

1.59–3.64

2.47**

1.57–3.88

Indicators for socialisation

Father or mother paid employment in health care sector (not = ref)

    

2.40

0.82–7.01

Both parents western cultural background (one or both non-western = ref)

    

0.37

0.07–2.11

Sum score Nijmegen expectation Questionnaire1

    

1.14*

1.04–1.24

Self-care in minor ailments

    

0.54

0.19–1.54

Not much trust in GPs (much = ref)

    

0.23

0.04–1.22

Nagelkerke R2

0.30

0.43

0.51

Percentage correct

87.9

87.9

89.5

  1. 1 a higher score denotes lower expectations
  2. * significant at the level of p < 0.05;
  3. ** significant at the level of p < 0.01