Skip to main content

Table 4 Probability of predicting lowering-effect families as compared to raising-effect families; binomial logistic regression analysis in three steps (n = 3156 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) 0.12** 0.09–0.14 0.10** 0.08–0.14 0.10** 0.08–0.13
Family score self-reported health (higher score = more members reported bad health) 0.35** 0.28–0.45 0.44** 0.34–0.56 0.47** 0.37–0.61
Family circumstances
Private insurance (social = reference)    2.36** 1.85–3.01 2.18** 1.71–2.79
Educational level mother (low = ref)    1.28 0.79–2.08 0.88 0.54–1.45
Educational level father (low = ref)    1.87* 1.08–3.23 1.60 0.92–2.78
Number of children    2.25** 1.99–2.53 2.27** 2.01–2.56
Paid employment mother (no = ref)    1.02 0.80–1.30 0.97 0.76–1.23
Indicators for socialisation
Father or mother paid employment in health care sector (not = ref)      2.38** 1.75–3.24
Both parents western cultural background (one or both non-western = ref)      2.51** 1.54–4.10
Nagelkerke R2 0.27 0.39 0.42
Percentage correct 86.1 88.6 88.6
  1. * significant at the level of p < 0.05;
  2. ** significant at the level of p < 0.01