Skip to main content

Table 7 Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios comparing enhanced to traditional fee-for-service produced from the breast 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

Income Q1 (lowest)

 Enhanced vs. traditional fee-for-service

2005

0.97

(0.95–1.00)

0.0438

0.97

(0.94–0.99)

0.0123

0.97

(0.95–1.00)

0.0646

2006

1.02

(1.00–1.04)

0.1186

1.01

(0.98–1.03)

0.5442

1.02

(0.99–1.04)

0.2084

2007

1.05

(1.01–1.08)

0.0141

1.03

(0.99–1.06)

0.1498

1.04

(1.01–1.08)

0.0165

2008

1.06

(1.01–1.11)

0.0169

1.06

(1.01–1.11)

0.0187

1.08

(1.03–1.14)

0.0009

2009

1.07

(1.01–1.14)

0.0147

1.10

(1.04–1.16)

0.0017

1.10

(1.04–1.16)

0.0015

2010

0.99

(0.92–1.06)

0.8048

1.01

(0.94–1.09)

0.7935

1.04

(0.97–1.12)

0.2686

2011

1.07

(0.98–1.17)

0.1351

1.09

(0.99–1.19)

0.0711

1.14

(1.04–1.25)

0.0043

2012

1.11

(1.00–1.23)

0.0551

1.16

(1.04–1.29)

0.0058

1.15

(1.03–1.28)

0.0117

Income Q5 (highest)

 Enhanced vs. traditional fee-for-service

2005

1.03

(1.00–1.05)

0.027

1.04

(1.01–1.06)

0.0033

1.03

(1.01–1.06)

0.0135

2006

1.03

(1.01–1.05)

0.0167

1.04

(1.02–1.07)

0.0002

1.06

(1.03–1.08)

<.0001

2007

1.11

(1.07–1.15)

<.0001

1.11

(1.07–1.16)

<.0001

1.13

(1.09–1.17)

<.0001

2008

1.14

(1.09–1.2)

<.0001

1.15

(1.09–1.21)

<.0001

1.18

(1.12–1.24)

<.0001

2009

1.20

(1.13–1.28)

<.0001

1.22

(1.15–1.30)

<.0001

1.21

(1.14–1.29)

<.0001

2010

1.22

(1.13–1.32)

<.0001

1.24

(1.14–1.34)

<.0001

1.25

(1.15–1.36)

<.0001

2011

1.26

(1.14–1.40)

<.0001

1.29

(1.17–1.43)

<.0001

1.33

(1.20–1.47)

<.0001

2012

1.14

(1.02–1.28)

0.0276

1.19

(1.06–1.35)

0.0035

1.19

(1.05–1.34)

0.005

Ratios of Odds Ratios

 Difference in enhanced vs. traditional fee-for-service between Q1 vs. Q5

2005

0.95

(0.91–0.98)

0.002

0.93

(0.90–0.97)

<.0001

0.94

(0.91–0.98)

0.002

2006

0.99

(0.96–1.02)

0.594

0.97

(0.94–1.00)

0.032

0.96

(0.93–0.99)

0.014

2007

0.94

(0.90–0.99)

0.018

0.92

(0.88–0.97)

0.002

0.93

(0.88–0.97)

0.003

2008

0.93

(0.87–0.99)

0.029

0.92

(0.86–0.99)

0.018

0.92

(0.86–0.98)

0.016

2009

0.89

(0.82–0.97)

0.006

0.90

(0.83–0.98)

0.011

0.91

(0.84–0.99)

0.020

2010

0.81

(0.73–0.90)

0.000

0.82

(0.73–0.91)

0.000

0.83

(0.75–0.93)

0.001

2011

0.85

(0.74–0.97)

0.014

0.84

(0.74–0.96)

0.011

0.86

(0.75–0.98)

0.027

2012

0.97

(0.83–1.14)

0.716

0.97

(0.83–1.14)

0.734

0.97

(0.82–1.13)

0.671

  1. Results for Q2-Q4 not shown. Ratios of odds ratios are also presented, with Q5 and traditional fee-for-service serving as referent groups
Back to article page

BMC Primary Care

ISSN: 2731-4553

Contact us