Skip to main content

Table 5 Probability of predicting lowering-effect families as compared to raising-effect families; binomial logistic regression analysis in three steps (n = 257 respondents of the health interview aggregated to 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) 0.13** 0.06–0.30 0.13** 0.04–0.27 0.14** 0.05–0.38
Family score self-reported health (higher score = more members reported bad health) 0.19** 0.08–0.46 0.30* 0.12–0.87 0.38 0.14–1.03
Family circumstances
Private insurance (social = reference)    2.63* 1.07–6.42 3.01* 1.11–8.13
Number of children    2.40** 1.59–3.64 2.47** 1.57–3.88
Indicators for socialisation
Father or mother paid employment in health care sector (not = ref)      2.40 0.82–7.01
Both parents western cultural background (one or both non-western = ref)      0.37 0.07–2.11
Sum score Nijmegen expectation Questionnaire1      1.14* 1.04–1.24
Self-care in minor ailments      0.54 0.19–1.54
Not much trust in GPs (much = ref)      0.23 0.04–1.22
Nagelkerke R2 0.30 0.43 0.51
Percentage correct 87.9 87.9 89.5
  1. 1 a higher score denotes lower expectations
  2. * significant at the level of p < 0.05;
  3. ** significant at the level of p < 0.01