Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Table 3 Effect of concordance on the average doctor-patient communication difference for South Asians, when compared to White British respondents (single-handed practices)

From: Does the availability of a South Asian language in practices improve reports of doctor-patient communication from South Asian patients? Cross sectional analysis of a national patient survey in English general practices

Ethnic group Model 1: Model 2:
Mean Score (0-100) Average difference compared to White British respondents* Average difference compared to White British respondents when a concordant language is:
Available at practice** Not available at practice
Indian 88.5 -1.9 (-2.5, -1.4) -1.5 (-2.5, -0.5) -2.1 (-2.7, -1.5)
Pakistani 88.5 -1.9 (-2.6, -1.2) -0.2 (-1.5, 1.0) -2.7 (-3.6, -1.9)
Bangladeshi 87.5 -2.9 (-4.2, -1.6) 4.5 (-1.0, 10.1) -3.3 (-4.6, -2.0)
  p < 0.0001 Ɨ Likelihood-ratio test: p = 0.0109 ƗƗ
  1. Both models were adjusted for age, gender, deprivation, self-rated health status, presence of a mental health condition, and a random effect for practice.
  2. ƗJoint test of the differences of South Asians from White British.
  3. ƗƗP-values relates to the Likelihood-ratio test (omnibus test) for whether the effect of ethnicity varies with language concordance (comparing model 2 with a model where the language-ethnicity concordance effect was constrained to be constant across the three ethnic groups).
  4. *There was no evidence (p = 0.19) to suggest that these adjusted mean scores varied across the three ethnic groups (post-hoc Wald test).
  5. **There was evidence (p = 0.0402) to suggest that these adjusted mean scores varied across the three ethnic groups. In particular, the adjusted mean scores varied between Bangladeshi and Indian ethnic group (p = 0.0368). However, adjusted differences between Pakistani and Indian and between Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups were not significant (p = 0.10 for both) (post-hoc Wald tests).
  6. There was no evidence (p = 0.19) to suggest that these adjusted mean scores varied across the three ethnic groups (post-hoc Wald test).