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