Skip to main content

Table 3 Predictors associated with a higher likelihood of seeking a breadth of relevant information types, reliable information sources and a combination of both relevant information types and reliable information sources

From: How do people choose to be informed? A survey of the information searched for in the choice of primary care provider in Sweden

  Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Search breadth of relevant information typesd Search breadth of reliable information sourcese Search breadth of relevant and reliable informationf
Variableg IRRa 95% CI IRRb 95% CI Coefficientc 95% CI
Demographic
 Gender (female) 0.974 [0.80, 1.19] 1.062 [0.86, 1.32] −0.154 [−0.62, 0.31]
Male (reference)
 Age 1.004 [0.99, 1.01] 0.995 [0.98, 1.01] −0.007 [− 0.03, 0.02]
Place of living
 Big city (including suburb) 0.779 [0.56, 1.09] 0.667* [0.44, 0.99] −0.210 [−1.01, 0.59]
 Location > 3000 0.991 [0.77, 1.27] 1.017 [0.77, 1.36] 0.204 [−0.40, 0.81]
 Location < 3000 (reference)       
Social
 Education (higher) 1.363** [1.13, 1.65] 1.133 [0.92, 1.40] 0.457* [0.00, 0.91]
 Education (lower) (reference)       
Employment status
 On sick leave 0.950 [0.47, 2.04] 1.486 [0.73, 2.77] 0.942 [−0.80, 2.68]
 Student/leave of absence 0.811 [0.56, 1.19] 1.312 [0.87, 1.97] 0.201 [−0.70, 1.10]
 Pensioner 1.423 [0.99, 2.04] 1.553* [1.02, 2.37] 1.102* [0.22, 1.99]
 Employed by the hour 1.170 [0.74, 1.88] 0.882 [0.50, 1.46] 0.047 [−1.02, 1.11]
 Other occupation 0.961 [0.61, 1.54] 1.123 [0.64, 1.84] 0.271 [−0.84, 1.38]
Full-time employee (reference)
 Income 0.975 [0.92, 1.03] 0.998 [0.93, 1.06] −0.044 [−0.19, 0.10]
 Self-rated health (bad) 1.008 [0.68, 1.52] 1.665** [1.14, 2.37] 1.062* [0.07, 2.05]
Self-rated health (good) (reference)
 Number of visits to provider in the last 12 months
  ≥ 3 times 1.333** [1.11, 1.61] 1.010 [0.82, 1.24] 0.405 [−0.05, 0.86]
  < 3 times (reference)       
Situational motivations
 Switchers internal motivations 1.716** [1.17, 2.48] 0.841 [0.57, 1.27] −0.207 [−1.10, 0.69]
 Switchers external motivations 0.918 [0.63, 1.33] 0.883 [0.61, 1.32] −0.604 [−1.48, 0.27]
 Potential switchers internal motivations 1.652* [1.11, 2.42] 0.962 [0.65, 1.47] 0.371 [−0.55, 1.30]
 Potential switchers external motivations (reference)       
 n 824 824 824
  1. Note: IRRa Incidence Rate Ratio (Negative Binomial Regression Model), IRRb Incidence Rate Ratio (Poisson Regression Model), Coefficientc Normal Linear Regression, CI confidence interval. *p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001
  2. N = 901. Some observations were lost in the regression models due to missing values for the independent variables place of living, employment status, number of visits to provider in the last 12 months and income
  3. dThe dependent variable is the sum of information types describing structural, process, and outcome aspects of providers’ quality, i.e., basic information types and “Other” are excluded from the dependent variable (see Fig. 1). Variable had four response alternatives but was dichotomized according to “Yes, searched for information and found it” and “Yes, searched for information, but did not find it” (=1), and “No, did not seek for information” (=0). Response alternative “Do not know” was not included in analysis
  4. e The dependent variable is the sum of information sources comprehending only reliable sources, i.e., partisan sources and “Other source” is excluded (see Fig. 2)
  5. f Index (0–100) consists of a combination of relevant information types and reliable information sources (number of information types used/total number of information types) x (number of sources used/total number of sources) * 100. The more information sources and information types the individual searches for, the higher the index value. The values in between 0 and 100 give an indication of the extent of the individual’s information seeking, but it is not possible to comment on the exact number of information types and sources used
  6. gThe education variable was measured on three levels (elementary school, upper secondary school, and university studies) but was dichotomised (lower education level vs. higher education level). Income was measured with five different intervals but was turned into a continuous variable to facilitate analysis. Self-rated health was dichotomised from three levels; very good/good, fair, poor/very poor into good and bad health. Number of visits to provider was dichotomised from five levels (zero times, 1–2 times, 3–4 times, 5–10 times, 11 or more times) into less than 3 times a year and 3 or more times a year