Skip to main content

Table 2 The six models fit for each procedure

From: Exploring variation in low-value care: a multilevel modelling study

  Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Model purpose Base for comparing effects of adding levels Effect of adding hospital to M1 Effect of adding LHD to M1 Effect of adding SLA to M1 1. Additional effect of including all 3 levels
2. Contribution of each level to variation in odds of receiving low value care
Effect of adding level-specific variables
Assess using Increase in c statistic vs M1 Increase in c statistic vs M1 Increase in c statistic vs M1 1. Increase in c statistic vs M2, M3, and M4;
2. VPC, MOR
IOR80
OR
Variables includedb
 Levels
  Hospital   X    X X
  LHD    X   Xa Xa
  SLA     X X X
 Episode variables
  Age X X X X X X
  Sex X X X X X X
  Charlson X X X X X X
  Private patient X X X X X X
  Emergency care X X X X X X
  Financial year X X X X X X
 Hospital variables
  Hospital peer group       X
  Procedures episodes as proportion total episodes      X
 LHD variables
  Rural/metropolitan       X
 SLA variables
  IRSAD quintile       X
  Remoteness category       X
  Population prevalence of low-value indication       X
  1. aLHD was not included in Models 5 and 6 for spinal fusion and EVAR because each LHD had only one hospital that performed the procedure. b Additional file 1 contains more details about the variables
  2. IRSAD Index of Relative Socioeconomic Advantage and Disadvantage, LHD Local Health District, MOR median odds ratio, SLA Statistical Local Area, VPC variance partition coefficient