Skip to main content

Table 7 Associations of health centre level and individual level factors with follow-up of abnormal findings

From: Variation in quality of preventive care for well adults in Indigenous community health centres in Australia

 

Dependent variables

Characteristic (independent variables)

Follow-up of abnormal BP

(%)

Unadjusted Risk Ratios

(95% CI)

Adjusted Risk Ratios*

(95% CI)

Follow-up of abnormal urine tests

(%)

Unadjusted Risk Ratios

(95% CI)

Adjusted Risk Ratios*

(95% CI)

Follow-up of abnormal glucose tests (%)

Unadjusted Risk Ratios

(95% CI)

Adjusted Risk Ratios*

(95% CI)

Regions

         

NT Top End

13%

Referent

Referent

28%

Referent

Referent

29%

Referent

Referent

NT Central Australia

13%

0.9 (0.2,3.2)

1.5 (0.3,4.6)

40%

1.4 (0.5,2.7)

2.3 (0.9,3.2)

18%

0.6 (0.1,2.3)

0.6 (0.1,2.2)

Far West NSW

28%

2.1 (0.4,5.4)

0.9 (0.2,3.6)

0%

-

-

13%

0.5 (0.1,1.7)

0.5 (0.1,1.5)

WA

15%

1.2 (0.2,3.9)

1.2 (0.1,5.1)

0%

-

-

13%

0.5 (0.1,1.6)

0.6 (0.2,1.5)

North QLD

26%

2.0 (0.7,4.3)

4.1 (1.6,6.3)

42%

1.5 (0.8,2.3)

1.9 (0.8,2.9)

18%

0.6 (0.2,1.5)

0.8 (0.2,1.9)

Health centre level characteristics

         

Locations

         

   City

0%

-

-

17%

Referent

Referent

20%

Referent

Referent

   Regional town

25%

Referent

Referent

39%

2.3 (0.4,5.1)

4.7 (0.5,5.8)

15%

0.8 (0.2,1.9)

0.7 (0.2,1.9)

   Remote community

22%

0.9 (0.4,1.7)

0.6 (0.1,2.2)

33%

2.0 (0.3,4.7)

2.3 (0.1, 5.6)

22%

1.1 (0.4,2.3)

0.9 (0.2,2.4)

Health service governance

         

   Government funded/operated

22%

Referent

Referent

38%

Referent

Referent

18%

Referent

Referent

Managed by local or regional Indigenous

committee or board

21%

0.9 (0.5,1.8)

2.5 (0.8,4.0)

22%

0.6 (0.2,1.2)

1.1 (0.4,1.9)

27%

1.5 (0.5,3.2)

1.5 (0.4,3.8)

General practice accreditation status

         

   Not accredited

25%

Referent

Referent

37%

Referent

Referent

23%

Referent

Referent

   Currently accredited

15%

0.6 (0.3,1.1)

0.5 (0.2,1.1)

25%

0.7 (0.3,1.3)

0.4 (0.1,1.1)

16%

0.7 (0.3,1.4)

0.8 (0.3,1.5)

Sizes of populations served

         

   ≤ 500

31%

Referent

Referent

28%

Referent

Referent

30%

Referent

Referent

   501-999

19%

0.6 (0.3,1.3)

0.5 (0.2,1.1)

34%

1.2 (0.6,2.1)

1.0 (0.5,1.8)

19%

0.7 (0.2,1.7)

0.7 (0.3,1.6)

   ≥ 1000

18%

0.6 (0.3,1.1)

0.8 (0.3,1.5)

36%

1.3 (0.6,2.2)

2.2 (0.9,3.0)

15%

0.5 (0.2,1.3)

0.6 (0.2,1.3)

Individual level characteristics

         

Age (years)

         

   15-24

17%

Referent

Referent

36%

Referent

Referent

15%

Referent

Referent

   25-39

19%

1.1 (0.4,2.5)

1.2 (0.4,2.7)

31%

0.9 (0.5,1.4)

0.9 (0.5,1.4)

25%

1.7 (0.9,2.7)

1.8 (0.9,2.9)

   40-54

25%

1.5 (0.6,2.8)

1.6 (0.7,3.1)

32%

0.9 (0.4,1.5)

0.9 (0.3,1.7)

22%

1.5 (0.9,2.3)

1.7 (0.9,2.8)

Sex

         

   Males

22%

Referent

Referent

34%

Referent

Referent

20%

Referent

Referent

   Females

21%

1.0 (0.6,1.5)

0.9 (0.5,1.4)

33%

1.0 (0.6,1.5)

0.9 (0.5,1.5)

22%

1.1 (0.7,1.6)

1.1 (0.8,1.6)

  1. * Calculated using two-level random effects logistic regression models, with adjustment of other variables in the table. Odd Ratios generated from the models were converted into risk ratios using a published formula.[14]
  2. Risk ratios significant at 0.05 level are shown in bold.
Back to article page

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us