Skip to main content

Table 3 Association between primary care characteristics and health screening participation in low socioeconomic status and higher socioeconomic status neighborhoods

From: Primary care characteristics and their association with health screening in a low-socioeconomic status public rental-flat population in Singapore- a mixed methods study

Rental flat (low- SES) population, hypertension screening (N = 575) Non-rental flat (higher-SES) population, hypertension screening (N = 614)
Hypertension screening Going for regular screening, N (%) OR (95 % CI) p-value aORa (95 % CI) p-value Hypertension screening Going for regular screening, N (%) OR (95 % CI) p-value aORa (95 % CI) p-value
Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 45.1 (125/277) 1.00 0.737 1.00 0.949 Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 57.9 (310/535) 1.00 0.181 1.00 0.503
On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 43.6 (130/298) 0.94 (0.68–1.31) 0.99 (0.66–1.47) On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 49.4 (39/79) 0.71 (0.44–1.14) 0.76 (0.33–1.71)
Not in proximity to primary care 53.3 (16/30) 1.00 0.348 1.00 0.465 Not in proximity to primary care 60.3 (167/277) 1.00 0.121 1.00 0.258
In proximity to primary care 43.9 (239/545) 0.68 (0.33–1.43) 0.73 (0.32–1.70) In proximity to primary care 54.0 (182/337) 0.77 (0.56–1.07) 0.80 (0.55–1.18)
Not on regular primary care followup 39.5 (107/271) 1.00 0.029 1.00 0.172 Not on regular primary care followup 40.6 (26/64) 1.00 0.007 1.00 0.007
On regular primary care followup 48.7 (148/304) 1.45 (1.04–2.03) 1.29 (0.90–1.85) On regular primary care followup 58.7 (323/550) 2.08 (1.23–3.52) 9.34 (1.82–47.85)
Rental flat (low- SES) population, diabetes screening (N = 744) Non-rental flat (higher-SES) population, diabetes screening (N = 887)
Diabetes screening Going for regular screening, N (%) OR (95 % CI) p-value aORb (95 % CI) p-value Diabetes screening Going for regular screening, N (%) OR (95 % CI) p-value aORb (95 % CI) p-value
Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 49.9 (183/367) 1.00 0.005 1.00 0.080 Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 57.4 (413/720) 1.00 0.015 1.00 0.042
On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 39.5 (149/377) 0.66 (0.49–0.88) 0.74 (0.53–1.04) On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 67.7 (113/167) 1.56 (1.09–2.22) 2.94 (1.04–8.31)
Not in proximity to primary care 41.5 (17/41) 1.00 0.748 1.00 0.083 Not in proximity to primary care 54.4 (193/355) 1.00 0.015 1.00 0.558
In proximity to primary care 44.8 (315/703) 1.15 (0.61–2.17) 1.87 (092–3.78) In proximity to primary care 62.6 (333/532) 1.41 (1.07–1.85) 1.10 (0.79–1.54)
Not on regular primary care followup 37.6 (130/346) 1.00 <0.001 1.00 0.009 Not on regular primary care followup 66.0 (95/144) 1.00 0.079 1.00 0.079
On regular primary care followup 50.8 (202/398) 1.71 (1.28–2.30) 1.59 (1.12–2.26) On regular primary care followup 58.0 (431/743) 0.71 (0.49–1.04) 0.37 (0.12–1.12)
Rental flat (low- SES) population, hyperlipidemia screening (N = 640) Non-rental flat (higher-SES) population, hyperlipidemia screening (N = 643)
Hyperlipidemia screening Going for regular screening, N (%) OR (95 % CI) p-value aOR (95 % CI)c p-value Hyperlipidemia screening Going for regular screening, N (%) OR (95 % CI) p-value aORc (95 % CI) p-value
Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 37.6 (115/306) 1.00 0.213 1.00 0.931 Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 46.9 (238/507) 1.00 0.053 1.00 0.691
On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 32.6 (109/334) 0.81 (0.59–1.11) 0.98 (0.67–1.45) On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 56.6 (77/136) 1.48 (1.01–2.16) 1.22 (0.45–3.30)
Not in proximity to primary care 41.4 (12/29) 1.00 0.550 1.00 0.770 Not in proximity to primary care 44.6 (108/242) 1.00 0.088 1.00 0.825
In proximity to primary care 34.7 (212/611) 0.75 (0.35–1.61) 0.88 (0.39–2.01) In proximity to primary care 51.6 (207/401) 1.32 (0.96–1.82) 1.04 (0.71–1.52)
Not on regular primary care followup 28.2 (91/323) 1.00 <0.001 1.00 0.023 Not on regular primary care followup 56.8 (67/118) 1.00 0.067 1.00 0.569
On regular primary care followup 42.0 (133/317) 1.84 (1.33–2.56) 1.82 (1.10–3.04) On regular primary care followup 47.2 (248/525) 0.68 (0.46–1.02) 0.68 (0.19–2.53)
Rental population (low- SES), colorectal cancer screening (N = 722) Non-rental flat (higher-SES) population, colorectal cancer screening (N = 866)
FOBT
screening
Going for regular screening, N (%) OR (95 % CI) p-value aOR (95 % CI)d p-value FOBT screening Going for regular screening, N (%) OR (95 % CI) p-value aOR (95 % CI)d p-value
Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 8.7 (30/346) 1.00 0.788 1.00 0.810 Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 18.9 (129/682) 1.00 0.016 1.00 0.348
On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 8.0 (30/376) 0.91 (0.54–1.55) 0.93 (0.49–1.74) On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 11.4 (21/184) 0.55 (0.34–0.90) 0.55 (0.15–1.94)
Not in proximity to primary care 18.2 (8/44) 1.00 0.023 1.00 0.049 Not in proximity to primary care 15.9 (56/352) 1.00 0.411 1.00 0.049
In proximity to primary care 7.7 (52/678) 0.37 (0.17–0.85) 0.42 (0.17–0.99) In proximity to primary care 18.3 (94/514) 1.18 (0.82–1.70) 1.48 (1.01–2.21)
Not on regular primary care followup 7.1 (24/337) 1.00 0.344 1.00 0.450 Not on regular primary care followup 11.1 (18/162) 1.00 0.021 1.00 0.847
On regular primary care followup 9.4 (36/385) 1.35 (0.79–2.31) 1.28 (0.67–2.45) On regular primary care followup 18.8 (132/704) 1.85 (1.09–3.12) 1.14 (0.29–4.54)
Rental population (low- SES), cervical cancer screening (N = 334) Non-rental flat (higher-SES) population, cervical cancer screening (N = 421)
Pap smear screening Going for regular screening (N %) OR (95 % CI) p-value aORe (95 % CI) p-value Pap smear screening Going for regular screening (N %) OR (95 % CI) p-value aORe (95 % CI) p-value
Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 16.3 (24/147) 1.00 0.566 1.00 0.372 Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 26.0 (81/312) 1.00 0.001 1.00 0.047
On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 19.3 (36/187) 1.22 (0.69–2.16) 2.69 (0.68–2.78) On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 43.1 (47/109) 2.16 (1.37–3.41) 7.93 (1.03–62.51)
Not in proximity to primary care 14.3 (2/14) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.795 Not in proximity to primary care 14.7 (21/143) 1.00 <0.001 1.00 <0.001
In proximity to primary care 18.1 (58/320) 1.33 (0.29–6.10) 1.24 (0.25–6.29) In proximity to primary care 38.5 (107/278) 3.64 (2.16–6.13) 3.22 (1.72–5.84)
Not on regular primary care followup 14.6 (23/157) 1.00 0.154 1.00 0.394 Not on regular primary care followup 42.3 (44/84) 1.00 0.003 1.00 0.750
On regular primary care followup 20.9 (37/177) 1.54 (0.87–2.73) 1.49 (0.86–3.77) On regular primary care followup 26.5 (84/317) 0.49 (0.31–0.78) 0.65 (0.04–9.52)
Rental population (low- SES), breast cancer screening (N = 517) Non-rental flat (higher-SES) population, breast cancer screening (N = 609)
Mammogram screening Going for regular screening (N %) OR (95 % CI) p-value aORe (95 % CI) p-value Mammogram screening Going for regular screening (N %) OR (95 % CI) p-value aORe (95 % CI) p-value
Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 10.2 (24/236) 1.00 0.053 1.00 0.009 Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 9.8 (46/469) 1.00 0.001 1.00 0.006
On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 16.0 (45/281) 1.68 (0.99–2.86) 2.33 (1.23–4.41) On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) 21.4 (30/140) 2.51 (1.51–4.16) 6.02 (1.69–21.28)
Not in proximity to primary care 25.0 (6/24) 1.00 0.115 1.00 0.023 Not in proximity to primary care 6.6 (16/244) 1.00 <0.001 1.00 0.032
In proximity to primary care 12.8 (63/493) 0.44 (0.17–1.15) 0.29 (0.10–0.84) In proximity to primary care 16.4 (60/365) 2.80 (1.57–4.99) 2.22 (1.08–4.54)
Not on regular primary care followup 12.1 (31/257) 1.00 0.439 1.00 0.855 Not on regular primary care followup 19.7 (25/127) 1.00 0.010 1.00 0.025
On regular primary care followup 14.6 (38/260) 1.25 (0.75–2.08) 1.08 (0.48–2.42) On regular primary care followup 10.6 (51/482) 0.48 (0.29–0.82) 0.10 (0.01–0.75)
  1. aControlling for maturity of housing estate, ethnicity, marital status, gender, financial aid, education level, and comorbidities, diabetes and hyperlipidemia in multivariate clustered logistic regression model
  2. bControlling for maturity of housing estate, age, gender, education level, hypertension and hyperlipidemia in multivariate clustered logistic regression model
  3. cControlling for age, marital status, employment, household income, financial aid, comorbidities, and hypertension in multivariate clustered logistic regression model
  4. dControlling for ethnicity, marital status, employment, education level, and comorbidities in multivariate clustered logistic regression model
  5. eControlling for maturity of housing estate, age, ethnicity, marital status, employment, household income, financial aid, education level, and comorbidities in multivariate clustered logistic regression model