Skip to main content

Table 3 Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios comparing enhanced fee-for-service to traditional fee-for-service produced from the cervical cancer screening model

From: Cancer screening inequities in a time of primary care reform: a population-based longitudinal study in Ontario, Canada

 

Year

Unadjusted

Adjusted for Patient Characteristics

Adjusted for Patient and Physician Characteristics

Odds Ratio

95% CI

p-value

Odds Ratio

95% CI

p-value

Odds Ratio

95% CI

p-value

Immigrants

 Enhanced vs. traditional fee-for-service

2005

0.92

(0.90–0.93)

<.0001

0.89

(0.87–0.91)

<.0001

0.94

(0.92–0.96)

<.0001

2006

0.97

(0.96–0.98)

<.0001

0.95

(0.94–0.97)

<.0001

1.00

(0.98–1.01)

0.567

2007

0.93

(0.98–1.01)

0.404

0.98

(0.97–1.00)

0.059

1.04

(1.03–1.06)

<.0001

2008

0.94

(0.92–0.96)

<.0001

0.95

(0.93–0.97)

<.0001

1.04

(1.02–1.06)

0.001

2009

1.04

(1.01–1.06)

0.004

1.08

(1.06–1.11)

<.0001

1.14

(1.11–1.17)

<.0001

2010

1.01

(0.98–1.04)

0.503

1.07

(1.04–1.10)

<.0001

1.15

(1.12–1.19)

<.0001

2011

1.11

(1.07–1.16)

<.0001

1.16

(1.12–1.21)

<.0001

1.26

(1.21–1.31)

<.0001

2012

1.12

(1.08–1.17)

<.0001

1.26

(1.20–1.31)

<.0001

1.25

(1.19–1.30)

<.0001

Long-Term Residents

 Enhanced vs. traditional fee-for-service

2005

1.04

(1.03–1.05)

<.0001

1.05

(1.04–1.06)

<.0001

1.05

(1.04–1.06)

<.0001

2006

1.02

(1.02–1.03)

<.0001

1.04

(1.03–1.05)

<.0001

1.06

(1.05–1.07)

<.0001

2007

1.08

(1.07–1.10)

<.0001

1.10

(1.08–1.11)

<.0001

1.13

(1.11–1.14)

<.0001

2008

1.09

(1.07–1.10)

<.0001

1.13

(1.11–1.14)

<.0001

1.17

(1.15–1.19)

<.0001

2009

1.18

(1.16–1.20)

<.0001

1.22

(1.19–1.24)

<.0001

1.20

(1.18–1.23)

<.0001

2010

1.18

(1.16–1.21)

<.0001

1.25

(1.22–1.28)

<.0001

1.28

(1.24–1.31)

<.0001

2011

1.12

(1.09–1.16)

<.0001

1.19

(1.15–1.23)

<.0001

1.24

(1.19–1.28)

<.0001

2012

1.11

(1.07–1.15)

<.0001

1.23

(1.18–1.27)

<.0001

1.20

(1.16–1.25)

<.0001

Ratios of Odds Ratios

 Difference in enhanced vs. traditional fee-for-service between immigrants vs. long-term residents

2005

0.88

(0.86–0.90)

<.0001

0.85

(0.83–0.87)

<.0001

0.90

(0.88–0.92)

<.0001

2006

0.95

(0.93–0.96)

<.0001

0.92

(0.90–0.93)

<.0001

0.94

(0.92–0.96)

<.0001

2007

0.92

(0.90–0.94)

<.0001

0.90

(0.88–0.92)

<.0001

0.93

(0.91–0.95)

<.0001

2008

0.86

(0.84–0.88)

<.0001

0.84

(0.82–0.86)

<.0001

0.89

(0.86–0.91)

<.0001

2009

0.88

(0.85–0.91)

<.0001

0.89

(0.86–0.92)

<.0001

0.94

(0.92–0.97)

0.000

2010

0.85

(0.22–0.89)

<.0001

0.86

(0.82–0.89)

<.0001

0.90

(0.87–0.94)

<.0001

2011

0.99

(0.95–1.04)

0.794

0.98

(0.94–1.03)

0.433

1.02

(0.97–1.07)

0.477

2012

1.01

(0.96–1.07)

0.607

1.02

(0.97–1.08)

0.393

1.04

(0.98–1.10)

0.180

  1. Ratios of odds ratios are also presented, with long-term residents and traditional fee-for-service serving as referent groups
Back to article page

BMC Primary Care

ISSN: 2731-4553

Contact us