Skip to main content

Table 2 Crude and adjusted logistic regression for dental service use and socioeconomic factors. São Paulo, 2003 and 2008

From: Socioeconomic inequalities in dental health services in Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2003–2008

  Dental health service use in the last 12 months 2003 Dental health service use in the last 12 months 2008 Difference in association of socioeconomic factor and dental service use between 2003 and 2008a Dental health service use difference between 2003 and 2008b
  Dental service use
% (n)
Crude OR
(95% CI)
Adjusted ORc (95% CI) Dental service use
% (n)
Crude OR
(95% CI)
Adjusted ORc
(95% CI)
Crude Model-
p-value
Adjusted Model-
p-value
p-value
Education        0.844 0.480  
 0–3 23.3 (86) 1 1 29.3 (112) 1 1    0.005
 4–7 35.1 (159) 1.8 (1.1–3.0) 1.7 (1.1–2.9) 38.2 (219) 1.5 (1.1–2.0) 1.5 (1.1–2.0)    0.002
 8–11 48.7 (206) 3.1 (1.8–5.3) 2.9 (1.7–5.1) 58.8 (445) 3.4 (2.5–4.8) 3.4 (2.4–4.8)    <0.001
 12+ 71.0 (155) 8.1 (4.3–15.0) 7.6 (3.9–5.1) 73.2 (224) 6.6 (4.4–10.0) 6.6 (4.3–10.1)    0.009
Household income        0.147 0.102  
 ≤1 32.8 (58) 1 1 39.3 (71) 1 1    0.004
 >1 to 2.5 34.7 (84) 1.1 (0.7–1.8) 1.0 (0.6–1.7) 47.5 (263) 1.4 (0.9–2.2) 1.3 (0.8–2.0)    <0.001
 ≥2.5 to 6 42.2 (211) 1.5 (0.9–2.3) 1.4 (0.9–2.2) 59.4 (253) 2.3 (1.3–3.8) 2.1 (1.3–3.5)    <0.001
 ≥6 58.9 (258) 2.9 (1.7–5.1) 2.8 (1.6–4.8) 69.3 (141) 3.5 (2.1–5.9) 3.3 (2.0–5.4)    0.023
Housing condition        0.655 0.443  
 Adequate 49.9 (544) 1 1 57.2 (902) 1 1    0.014
 Inadequate 30.9 (67) 0.4 (0.3–0.8) 0.4 (0.2–0.7) 41.5 (100) 0.5 (0.4–0.7) 0.5 (0.4–0.7)    <0.001
Ethnicity        0.982 0.631  
 Caucasian 51.3 (440) 1 1 60.6 (683) 1 1    <0.001
 Non-Caucasian 37.2 (166) 0.6 (0.4–0.8) 0.5 (0.4–0.7) 46.6 (316) 0.6 (0.4–0.7) 0.5 (0.4–0.7)    <0.001
Private Health Plan          
 Private health plan-No     45.4 (445) 1 1    
 Private health plan-Yes     65.7 (557) 2.3 (1.8–2.9) 2.4 (1.9–3.1)    
  1. aResults of the interaction analyses between time and socioeconomic factor. For the models including education and income, likelihood ratio tests were used to obtain an overall significance test for the interaction term
  2. bDifference between proportions in 2003 and proportions in 2008. Chi-square Pearson
  3. cAdjusted for age and gender