Skip to main content

Table 7 DCE results for the base model with interactions

From: Underlying determinants of health provider choice in urban slums: results from a discrete choice experiment in Ahmedabad, India

Choice of profile (0 = base profile; 1 = alternative profile)

Regression Coefficient (95% CI)

Standard Error

Independent variables

 Δ PROVIDER_PRIVATE

−0.76* (−1.45 – −0.06)

0.36

 Δ PROVIDER_TRADITIONAL

−2.07* (−3.19 – −0.94)

0.58

 Δ PROVIDER_TRADITIONAL * dummy older

1.18* (0.13–2.23)

0.54

 Δ DISTANCE * dummy older

−0.04** (− 0.09–0.00)

0.02

 Δ ATTITUDE * dummy older

1.39* (0.50–2.27)

0.45

 Δ APPROPRIATENESS * dummy older

2.79* (1.75–3.84)

0.53

 Δ FAMILIARITY * dummy older

1.42* (0.46–2.37)

0.49

 Δ PROVIDER_PRIVATE * dummy female

1.19* (0.06–2.31)

0.58

 Δ PROVIDER_TRADITIONAL * dummy female

1.07** (−0.06–2.20)

0.58

 Δ DISTANCE * dummy female

−0.05** (− 0.11–0.01)

0.03

 Δ ATTITUDE * dummy female

1.17** (− 0.02–2.35)

0.60

 Δ APPROPRIATENESS * dummy female

1.13** (− 0.20–2.47)

0.68

 Δ FAMILIARITY * dummy female

2.46* (1.12–3.80)

0.68

 Δ PROVIDER_PRIVATE * dummy not married

1.06* (0.05–2.07)

0.52

 Δ PROVIDER_PRIVATE * dummy formal education

1.40* (0.38–2.42)

0.52

 Δ PROVIDER_TRADITIONAL * dummy formal education

−0.08* (− 0.13 – − 0.02)

0.03

 Δ DISTANCE * dummy formal education

1.99* (0.90–3.08)

0.56

 Δ ATTITUDE * dummy formal education

3.31* (2.09–4.54)

0.62

Δ APPROPRIATENESS * dummy formal education

2.43* (1.26–3.60)

0.60

Observations (respondents)

651 (93)

 

Log-likelihood function

− 219.70

 

Wald Chi2

128.07

 

Prob (Chi2)

0.00

 

Rho

0.06

0.08

  1. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.1