The effect of family doctor policy practice on primary health-care workers’ health in Hongkou District of Shanghai, China: varied by occupational divisions?

Huang, Jiaoling; Gong, Xin; Gu, Qing; Liu, Rui; Shi, Jianwei; Yu, Wenya; Zu, Ping; Ma, Xiaojun; Lin, Jie; Sun, Jin; Yang, Yonghua; Wang, Zhaoxin

doi:10.1186/s12875-020-01275-x

Table 4 Separate ordered logistic regressions of health for different PHCWs

From: The effect of family doctor policy practice on primary health-care workers’ health in Hongkou District of Shanghai, China: varied by occupational divisions?

Variable	Model 4 (Family doctor)			Model 5 (Family nurse)			Model 6 (Public health doctor)			Model 7 (Others)
Variable	OR	P value	CI	R	P value	95% CI	OR	P value	95% CI	OR	P value	95% CI
Sociodemographic characteristics
Age	0.942	0.173	0.865–1.026	1.018	0.587	0.954–1.086	0.895	0.103	0.783–1.023	1.016	0.577	0.962–1.073
Gender	3.048	0.061	0.951–9.770	83.929	0.060	0.824–8545.770	0.113	0.087	0.009–1.376	5.646**	0.001	1.994–15.990
Education (Ref. = High school or below)
Bachelor’s degree	1.918	0.677	0.090–40.963	14.098**	0.004	2.362–84.143	0.334	0.562	0.008–13.591	0.464	0.628	0.021–10.306
Master’s degree	4.388	0.366	0.178–108.383	–	–	–	4.10E+ 05	1	–	0.197	0.485	0.002–18.857
Annual income	0.972	0.200	0.931–1.015	0.983	0.378	0.946–1.021	0.858**	0.003	0.776–0.948	1.006	0.764	0.970–1.043
Workplace environments
Office environment (Ref. = Very poor)
Poor	0.218	0.46	0.004–12.405	0.001*	0.003	0.000–0.096	0.207	0.714	0.000–943.872	1.672	0.734	0.087–32.314
Neutral	0.165	0.331	0.004–6.233	0.012	0.053	0.000–1.062	0.333	0.812	0.000–2927.996	0.915	0.938	0.096–8.728
Good	0.05	0.1	0.001–1.769	0.018	0.093	0.000–1.954	0.033	0.401	0.000–95.050	1.077	0.951	0.102–11.394
Very good	0.121	0.288	0.002–5.933	0.014	0.069	0.000–1.398	0.357	0.759	0.000–261.548	1.448	0.778	0.111–18.952
Facility and equipment (Ref. = very poor)
Poor	86.194	0.067	0.729–10,192.560	19.489	0.228	0.156–2439.597	9.80E+ 08	0.998	–	138.335*	0.03	1.601–11,956.5
Neutral	98.905	0.074	0.637–15,346.800	11.415	0.346	0.072–1804.725	2.30E+ 10	0.998	–	4.919	0.395	0.125–193.59
Good	235.733*	0.044	1.158–47,999.460	8.316	0.422	0.047–1458.228	3.40E+ 11	0.997	–	12.233	0.173	0.333–449.672
Very good	89.389	0.101	0.415–19,245.420	7.419	0.424	0.054–1013.823	3.30E+ 09	0.998	–	11.6	0.17	0.350–384.606
Information technology system (Ref. = very poor)
Poor	1.191	0.908	0.061–23.227	21.061*	0.036	1.214–365.342	6.497	0.388	0.093–455.615	0.006***	0.001	0.000–0.119
Neutral	2.273	0.581	0.123–42.074	37.716**	0.008	2.550–557.840	9.427	0.256	0.196–453.069	0.047*	0.028	0.003–0.724
Good	8.584	0.191	0.343–214.654	20.968*	0.027	1.408–312.282	0.544	0.779	0.008–37.761	0.091	0.074	0.007–1.257
Very good	5.573	0.322	0.186–66.734	10.132	0.081	0.752–136.434	13.795	0.188	0.278–683.983	0.051*	0.042	0.003–0.897
Cultural Environment (Ref. = very poor)
Poor	0.004	0.218	0.000–26.694	6.079	0.351	0.137–269.703	23.026	0.194	0.202–2623.828	7.911	0.251	0.232–269.645
Neutral	0.007	0.26	0.000–39.301	0.6	0.799	0.012–30.763	28.227	0.102	0.517–1541.532	1.414	0.81	0.085–23.629
Good	0.003	0.226	0.000–33.659	1.618	0.816	0.028–92.432	2.525	0.458	0.218–29.220	25.980*	0.029	1.391–485.186
Very good	0.01	0.334	0.000–114.362	4.08	0.513	0.061–275.038	–	–	–	13.162	0.098	0.624–277.621
Performance incentive (Ref. = very poor)
Poor	1.933	0.583	0.184–20.310	10.106*	0.026	1.327–76.956	0.148	0.452	0.001–21.335	1.302	0.817	0.139–12.220
Neutral	1.365	0.786	0.144–12.940	10.752*	0.017	1.524–75.866	0.686	0.86	0.011–44.618	1.013	0.989	0.163–6.311
Good	0.911	0.942	0.075–11.052	19.065**	0.007	2.252–161.370	3.923	0.549	0.045–343.590	0.633	0.655	0.085–4.722
Very good	–			0.257	0.356	0.014–4.595	0.048	0.305	0.000–15.836	1.771	0.673	0.124–25.207
Family Doctor Practice
Workload brought by FD practice (Ref. = none)
Tiny	–			0.181	0.115	0.022–1.514	0.069	0.257	0.001–7.005	1.264	0.748	0.302–5.295
Neutral	42.355	0.234	0.089–20,182.05	0.169	0.052	0.028–1.016	0.303	0.556	0.006–16.075	0.848	0.825	0.197–3.657
Strong	13.309	0.437	0.020–9066.505	0.120*	0.030	0.018–0.815	0.151	0.358	0.003–8.497	0.595	0.523	0.120–2.936
Very strong	67.059	0.215	0.087–51,873.88	0.111	0.051	0.012–1.012	0.010	0.086	0.000–1.931	0.179	0.106	0.022–1.441
Work pressure (Ref. = none)
A little	(base)			0.096	0.190	0.003–3.193	0.534	0.799	0.004–67.792	0.596	0.752	0.024–14.782
Neutral	0.409	0.481	0.034–4.902	0.002***	0.000	0.000–0.055	0.611	0.764	0.025–15.160	0.355	0.51	0.016–7.745
Strong	0.157	0.203	0.009–2.725	0.001***	0.000	0.000–0.033	6.049	0.308	0.190–192.356	0.239	0.393	0.009–6.402
Very strong	0.225	0.438	0.005–9.769	0.000***	0.000	0.000–0.006	–	–	–	0.061	0.155	0.001–2.885
Team/department support	0.778	0.644	0.269–2.255	0.451	0.109	0.170–1.194	10.700*	0.012	1.700–67.352	0.856	0.741	0.340–2.153
Policy support	1.515	0.259	0.736–3.118	0.832	0.718	0.307–2.253	0.155**	0.008	0.039–0.614	1.07	0.883	0.438–2.614
Statistics
N	124			214			72			148
Log likelihood	−88.8			− 122.6			−54.4			−102.9
BIC	413.9			513.6			309.7			460.6
Pseudo R²	0.2668			0.3432			0.4121			0.3284

Notes: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Insignificant variables including marital status, hukou, work time, work intensity, CHSC support are hidden to ensure that the table is more simplified and readable

Back to article page

ISSN: 2731-4553

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com

BMC Primary Care

Contact us