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