Skip to main content

Table 4 Analysis of influencing factors on the frequency of home visits

From: The workload for home visits by German family practitioners: an analysis of regional variation in a cross-sectional study

Frequency of home visits per week

B

SE

Wald

df

p

Odds Ratio

95% CI for Odds Ratio

Lower

Upper

AVERAGEa (10 to 16 home visits)

1) Regional distributionb

Rural (<  5000)

1.630

.521

9.772

1

.002**

5.104

1.837

14.183

Semi-rural (5000 – 10,000)

1.963

.568

11.950

1

.000***

7.118

2.339

21.659

Semi-urban (10,000 – 50,000)

1.913

.493

15.045

1

.000***

6.772

2.576

17.802

2) Regional primary care status

Imminent underserved regionsc

−.088

.408

.047

1

.829

.915

.412

2.036

3) Overall patient population

Patient contacts per quarter

.000

.001

.050

1

.824

1.000

.999

1.001

Share of patients over 65 years

−.009

.012

.616

1

.433

.991

.969

1.014

4) Organizational characteristics

Share of delegation

−.022

.009

5.696

1

.017*

.978

.960

.996

HIGHa (17 or more home visits)

1) Regional distributionb

Rural (<  5000)

1.249

.479

6.807

1

.009**

3.488

1.365

8.918

Semi-rural (5000 – 10,000)

1.031

.543

3.611

1

.057

2.803

.968

8.119

Semi-urban (10,000 – 50,000)

1.007

.461

4.778

1

.029*

2.738

1.110

6.755

2) Regional primary care status

Imminent underserved regionsc

.450

.386

1.359

1

.244

1.568

.736

3.338

3) Overall patient population

Patient contacts per quarter

.001

.000

7.021

1

.008**

1.001

1.000

1.002

Share of patients over 65 years

.005

.011

.208

1

.648

1.005

.984

1.027

4) Organizational characteristics

Share of delegation

−.037

.012

10.060

1

.002**

.964

.943

.986

  1. Note: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05
  2. aThe reference category is: low with 9 home visits or less
  3. bEach region (rural, semi-rural and semi-urban) is compared to urban regions
  4. cImminent underserved regions are compared to well-served regions