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

Table 4 Explanatory model for the prescriptive appropriateness objective

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)	0.993^b	0.003	0.988	0.999
PCG teamsize	1.256^a	0.129	0.975	1.617
Personal advice network
Size (number of ties)	0.936	0.208	0.622	1.409
Heterogeneity (IQV, profession)	0.111^b	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	0.396^a	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

^a90% confidence level; ^b95% confidence level
PCG Primary care group, IQV Index of Qualitative Variation (based on the variable “profession”), E-I External – Internal

ISSN: 1472-6963