Skip to main content

Table 3 Final Multinomial Regression Model

From: Driving factors for the utilisation of healthcare services by people with osteoarthritis in Portugal: results from a nationwide population-based study

  HighUsers vs. LowUsers GPUsers vs. LowUsers
Variables added Determinants OR 95%CI p-value OR 95%CI p-value
Predisposing Characteristics Age 0.96 0.95–0.99 0.001 0.99 0.96–1.01 0.172
Male sexa 1.05 0.69–1.58 0.826 1.12 0.72–1.76 0.613
Geographic Locationb
North 1.545 0.93–2.56 0.091 1.23 0.70–2.15 0.475
Centre 1.50 0.89–2.51 0.130 2.11 1.21–3.68 0.008
Islands 0.43 0.24–0.77 0.005 0.42 0.21–0.83 0.013
South 1.49 0.76–2.94 0.250 1.82 0.89–3.75 0.102
Step 1 AUCg 0.58 0.54–0.61 0.001 0.61 0.57–0.65 0.001
McFadden Pseudo-R2 = 0.026
Enabling Factors NHS onlyc 0.65 0.43–0.98 0.042 1.34 0.81–2.22 0.249
< 4 Years of Educationd 0.90 0.56–1.45 0.900 1.50 0.93–2,43 0.096
Employede 0.55 0.31–0.97 0.038 0.81 0.44–1.50 0.512
Step 2 AUCg 0.60 (+ 0.02) 0.56–0.64 0.001 0.63 (+ 0.02) 0.59–0.67 0.001
McFadden Pseudo-R2 = 0.040 (+ 0.014)
Need Variables Number of Comorbidities 1.12 1.03–1.21 0.011 1.22 1.11–1.33 < 0.001
HRQoL (EQ-5D-3L index score) 0.33 0.14–0.79 0.013 0.61 0.23–1.57 0.303
Physical function (HAQ score) 1.59 1.10–2.23 0.013 1.03 0.69–1.53 0.902
Anxiety (HADS-A) 1.02 0.97–1.07 0.432 1.09 1.03–1.14 0.002
Regular Physical Exercisef 0.57 0.37–0.88 0.010 0.55 0.34–0.89 0.014
Step 3: Final model AUCg 0.68 (+ 0.08) 0.64–0.71 0.001 0.69 (+ 0.07) 0.65–0.73 0.001
McFadden Pseudo-R2 = 0.098 (+ 0.058)
  1. NHS National Health System, GP General Practitioner, HRQoL Health Related Quality of Life, EQ-5D-3L EuroQol with five dimensions and three levels, HAQ Health Assessment Questionnaire, HADS-A Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – Anxiety subscale. Reference Categories: aFemale; bLisbon and Tagus valley; c Healthcare insurance along with NHS; d ≥ 4 years of education; eNon employed or retired; f Don’t perform regular physical exercise; gArea Under the ROC Curve (95% CI) – reference cluster is LowUsers. Differences in discriminatory capacity (AUC) and in variance of the model regarding the previous step is shown in brackets. χ2(28) = 180.328, p < 0.001
  2. This procedure excluded all the participants with missing data. Sample included in the analysis: Total: n = 838 (85,69% of the initial sample), HighUsers: n = 295 (86.0% of the initial cluster sample); GPUsers: n = 232 (85,29% of the initial cluster sample); LowUsers: n = 311 (85.67% of the initial cluster sample)