Skip to main content

Table 4 Analysis of influencing factors on the frequency of home visits

From: The workload for home visits by German family practitioners: an analysis of regional variation in a cross-sectional study

Frequency of home visits per week B SE Wald df p Odds Ratio 95% CI for Odds Ratio
Lower Upper
AVERAGEa (10 to 16 home visits)
1) Regional distributionb
Rural (<  5000) 1.630 .521 9.772 1 .002** 5.104 1.837 14.183
Semi-rural (5000 – 10,000) 1.963 .568 11.950 1 .000*** 7.118 2.339 21.659
Semi-urban (10,000 – 50,000) 1.913 .493 15.045 1 .000*** 6.772 2.576 17.802
2) Regional primary care status
Imminent underserved regionsc −.088 .408 .047 1 .829 .915 .412 2.036
3) Overall patient population
Patient contacts per quarter .000 .001 .050 1 .824 1.000 .999 1.001
Share of patients over 65 years −.009 .012 .616 1 .433 .991 .969 1.014
4) Organizational characteristics
Share of delegation −.022 .009 5.696 1 .017* .978 .960 .996
HIGHa (17 or more home visits)
1) Regional distributionb
Rural (<  5000) 1.249 .479 6.807 1 .009** 3.488 1.365 8.918
Semi-rural (5000 – 10,000) 1.031 .543 3.611 1 .057 2.803 .968 8.119
Semi-urban (10,000 – 50,000) 1.007 .461 4.778 1 .029* 2.738 1.110 6.755
2) Regional primary care status
Imminent underserved regionsc .450 .386 1.359 1 .244 1.568 .736 3.338
3) Overall patient population
Patient contacts per quarter .001 .000 7.021 1 .008** 1.001 1.000 1.002
Share of patients over 65 years .005 .011 .208 1 .648 1.005 .984 1.027
4) Organizational characteristics
Share of delegation −.037 .012 10.060 1 .002** .964 .943 .986
  1. Note: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05
  2. aThe reference category is: low with 9 home visits or less
  3. bEach region (rural, semi-rural and semi-urban) is compared to urban regions
  4. cImminent underserved regions are compared to well-served regions