Skip to main content

Table 2 Difference in reports of doctor-patient communication (scale 0-100) among survey respondents from single-handed practices (Model 1) Ɨ

From: Does the availability of a South Asian language in practices improve reports of doctor-patient communication from South Asian patients? Cross sectional analysis of a national patient survey in English general practices

  

Mean Score (0-100)

Survey respondents

Score Difference*

P-value

Variable category

 

(n)

(%)

Difference (SE)

 

Gender

     

<0.0001

 

Male

90.4

83,446

44.8

Reference

 
 

Female

89.8

102,833

55.2

-0.6 (-0.8, -0.4)

 

Age

     

<0.0001

 

18 to 24

80.6

9,589

5.2

-9.9 (-10.4, -9.4)

 
 

25 to 34

81.3

22,429

12.1

-9.1 (-9.5, -8.7)

 
 

35 to 44

85.6

28,084

15.1

-4.8 (-5.1, -4.4)

 
 

45 to 54

88.1

32,391

17.4

-2.3 (-2.7, -2.0)

 
 

55 to 64

90.4

36,381

19.6

Reference

 
 

65 to 74

93.5

31,784

17.1

3.1 (2.7, 3.4)

 
 

75 to 84

94.5

19,533

10.5

4.1 (3.7, 4.5)

 
 

85+

93.7

5,624

3.0

3.3 (2.6, 4.0)

 

Ethnicity

     

<0.0001

White

White British

90.4

131,570

70.4

Reference

 
 

Irish

91.0

3,024

1.6

0.6 (-0.2, 1.4)

 
 

Any other White background

87.0

10,989

5.9

-3.4 (-3.8, -2.9)

 

Mixed

White and Black Caribbean

90.1

504

0.3

-0.3 (-2.3, 1.6)

 
 

White and Black African

91.6

427

0.2

1.2 (-1.0, 3.4)

 
 

White and Asian

87.8

473

0.3

-2.6 (-4.6, -0.6)

 
 

Any other Mixed background

87.7

723

0.4

-2.7 (-4.4, -1.0)

 

South Asian

Indian

88.5

9,513

5.1

-1.9 (-2.5, -1.4)

 
 

Pakistani

88.5

4,991

2.7

-1.9 (-2.6, -1.2)

 
 

Bangladeshi

87.5

1,373

0.7

-2.9 (-4.2, -1.6)

 
 

Any other Asian background

89.2

4,703

2.5

-1.2 (-1.9, -0.6)

 

Black

Black Caribbean

90.1

3,647

2.0

-0.4 (-1.2, 0.4)

 
 

Black African

91.1

4,989

2.7

0.6 (-0.1, 1.3)

 
 

Any other Black background

91.5

1,412

0.8

1.1 (-0.2, 2.3)

 

Chinese

Chinese

85.3

1,152

0.6

-5.1 (-6.4, -3.9)

 

Other ethnic group

Any other ethnic group

88.3

7,447

4.0

-2.1 (-2.7, -1.6)

 

Deprivation

     

0.4394

 

“1” (least deprived)

90.4

16,794

8.8

Reference

 
 

“2”

90.2

26,892

14.1

-0.3 (-0.7, 0.2)

 
 

“3”

90.0

36,565

19.2

-0.4 (-0.9, 0.1)

 
 

“4”

90.1

48,316

25.4

-0.3 (-0.8, 0.2)

 
 

“5” (most deprived)

90.3

62,015

32.5

-0.2 (-0.6, 0.3)

 

Self-reported health status

     

<0.0001

 

Excellent

90.4

15,425

8.4

Reference

 
 

Very good

86.2

49,775

27.0

-4.2 (-4.6, -3.8)

 
 

Good

82.4

65,486

35.5

-8.0 (-8.4, -7.6)

 
 

Fair

80.4

40,006

21.7

-10.0 (-10.5, -9.6)

 
 

Poor

79.6

13,910

7.5

-10.8 (-11.3, -10.3)

 

Long-standing psychological or emotional condition

    

0.0102

 

No

90.4

10,611

6.3

Reference

 
 

Yes

91.0

157,442

93.7

0.6 (0.1, 1.0)

 
  1. *Coefficients were also adjusted for a random effect for practice.
  2. ƗExcluding the effects of a respondent being seen in a practice where a concordant language was available (model 1).
  3. -Models carried out with Stata xtmixed procedure (fit model via maximum likelihood, ml), without robust standard errors.