Skip to main content

Table 4 Explanatory model for the prescriptive appropriateness objective

From: The influential role of personal advice networks on general practitioners’ performance: a social capital perspective

Variable Odds ratio Std. Err. [95% Conf. Interval]
Age 1.022 0.043 0.939 1.113
Gender (M = 1) 1.432 0.498 0.540 3.799
N. patients 1.000 0.001 0.999 1.001
Proportion elderly patients (75+) 0.041 5.174 0.000 1029.555
Population density (PCG level) 0.993b 0.003 0.988 0.999
PCG teamsize 1.256a 0.129 0.975 1.617
Personal advice network
 Size (number of ties) 0.936 0.208 0.622 1.409
 Heterogeneity (IQV, profession) 0.111b 0.967 0.017 0.737
 Homophily (E-I index, profession) 1.638 - 0.575 0.531 5.057
Logistic arrangement
 Solo practice – omitted - -   
 Partially shared practice 1.871 0.640 0.534 6.555
 Fully shared practice 0.396a 0.498 0.149 1.049
N = 77
LR chi2(11) = 21.24
Prob > chi2 = 0.031
Log likelihood = −111.586
Pseudo R2 = 0.087
  1. a90% confidence level; b95% confidence level
  2. PCG Primary care group, IQV Index of Qualitative Variation (based on the variable “profession”), E-I External – Internal