Skip to main content

Table 2 Multilevel regression analysis of the number of physiotherapy session a

From: The effect of patient, provider and financing regulations on the intensity of ambulatory physical therapy episodes: a multilevel analysis based on routinely available data

  Model coefficientsc
Factorsb Estimates (i.e. semi-elasticities) 95% confidence interval
Patient needs   
Age and gender   
 [20-39] men .088 .062- .114
 [40–59] men .217 .193- .242
 [60–79] men .260 .235- .285
 [80 + ] men .211 .175- .247
 [20-39] women .095 .071- .120
 [40–59] women .232 .208- .255
 [60–79] women .291 .266- .315
 [80 + ] women .259 .230- .288
Conditionsd   
 Shoulder operation .324 .257- .391
 Total knee prosthesis .252 .203- .301
 Muscular disease .175 .107- .242
 Neurological diseases .081 .053- .109
 Other orthopedic surgery .043 .011- .074
 Osteoporosis .035 .008- .062
 Rheumatic conditions .024 .002- .047
 Other surgery -.043 -.067- -.019
 Lymphatic problems -.055 -.106- -.004
 Rehabilitation -.084 -.157- -.011
Comorbidity burden (annual costs 103 CHF)   
 1,001–2,000 .020 .006- .033
 2,001–5,000 .065 .053- .077
 5,001–10,000 .130 .115- .144
 10,001–20,000 .180 .162- .198
 20,001–50,000 .223 .199- .246
 >50,000 .381 .340- .421
Provider practices   
Variation coefficient of the physician (by quintiles rank)   
 2nd .043 .028- .058
 3rd .062 .046- .078
 4th .062 .046- .078
 5th .082 .065- .099
Variation coefficient of the physiotherapist (by quintiles rank)   
 2nd .019 .000- .038
 3rd .037 .018- .057
 4th .065 .044- .086
 5th .087 .067- .107
Funding regulations   
Deductibles (CHF)   
 601–1,500 -.060 -.076- -.044
 >1,500 -.086 -.115- -.058
Ceiling per prescription (proportion of treatments by physician as a nine-session episode by quintiles rank)   
 2nd .080 .064-.097
 3rd .154 .137- .171
 4th .205 .188- .223
 5th .235 .216- .254
Ceiling per prescription (proportion of treatment by physiotherapist as a nine-session episode by quintiles rank   
 2nd .081 .059- .103
 3rd .114 .092- .136
 4th .155 .132- .177
 5th .227 .202- .252
Proportion of new treatments by physician by quintiles rank   
 2nd -.050 -.066- -.033
 3rd -.058 -.074- -.041
 4th -.095 -.112- -.078
 5th -.154 -.171- -.137
Proportion of new treatments by physiotherapist by quintiles rank   
 2nd −0.045 -.064- -.025
 3rd −0.071 -.091- -.051
 4th −0.081 -.101- -.060
 5th −0.104 -.125- -.082
Context variables e   
 Being treated by more than one physician -.083 -.122- -.045
 Being treated by more than one physiotherapist .060 .015- .105
 Residency canton (13 dummy variables)   
 Only one had a significant coefficient .042 .006-.078
Model constant 1.732 1.688-1.776
  1. aAnalysis was restricted to the patients’ first treatment.
  2. bOnly variables with a coefficient significantly different from 0 (p < 0.05) are shown.
  3. cThe model coefficients can be interpreted as semi-elasticities, i.e. the percentage change of the outcome after a unit change of the explanatory variable. The reference category was: men, < 20 y, no condition identified from drugs prescriptions, inpatient diagnoses or a specialist contact, deductibles < CHF 600, being treated by one physician and one physiotherapist in the lowest quintiles rank for all their variables, and not resident in a large city.
  4. dThe following conditions had no significant effect: cancer, mental conditions, back problems, other knee problems, total hip prosthesis, other hip surgery, other trauma, and other medical condition.
  5. eUrban residence had no significant effect.