Skip to main content

Table 1 Hospital district differences between mental disorder–related disability pensions (DP)

From: Contextual and mental health service factors in mental disorder-based disability pensioning in Finland – a regional comparison

 

All mental disorder DP

Mood disorder DP

Non–affective psychotic disorder DP

 

IRR

95% CI

IRR

95% CI

IRR

95% CI

National mean

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

Helsinki and Uusimaa (HUS)

0.85

0.78–0.93

0.84

0.78–0.90

1.09

0.93–1.27

Southwest Finland

0.96

0.89–1.04

1.03

0.95–1.11

0.87

0.77–0.99

Satakunta

0.97

0.89–1.06

0.99

0.90–1.09

0.93

0.80–1.08

Kanta–Häme

0.90

0.81–1.01

0.87

0.77–0.99

0.91

0.76–1.09

Päijät–Häme

0.86

0.78–0.95

0.78

0.70–0.86

1.29

1.10–1.50

Kymenlaakso

1.08

0.99–1.18

1.08

0.99–1.17

1.11

0.97–1.28

Pirkanmaa

1.02

0.94–1.11

1.11

1.03–1.20

0.87

0.75–1.00

Central Finland

1.01

0.91–1.11

1.06

0.97–1.16

0.99

0.86–1.15

North Savo

1.17

1.07–1.28

1.33

1.21–1.46

1.00

0.85–1.17

East Savo

0.86

0.72–1.03

0.70

0.59–0.84

0.88

0.65–1.18

South Savo

1.05

0.95–1.16

1.03

0.93–1.15

1.12

0.94–1.33

North Karelia

0.95

0.86–1.04

0.92

0.83–1.02

1.19

1.05–1.36

South Karelia

1.01

0.92–1.11

1.07

0.97–1.17

1.11

0.93–1.32

Vaasa

0.76

0.68–0.84

0.71

0.63–0.80

0.65

0.53–0.80

Länsi–Pohja

0.99

0.85–1.15

1.04

0.89–1.22

0.74

0.55–0.99

North Ostrobothnia

1.22

1.13–1.31

1.29

1.21–1.39

1.27

1.10–1.46

Central Ostrobothnia

1.13

0.95–1.35

1.04

0.93–1.16

1.02

0.81–1.29

South Ostrobothnia

1.15

1.05–1.25

1.19

1.07–1.32

1.09

0.92–1.28

Kainuu

1.19

1.05–1.36

1.18

1.02–1.36

1.16

0.93–1.44

Lapland

1.02

0.91–1.14

1.03

0.92–1.16

0.99

0.80–1.23

Nagelkerke Pseudo–R2

0.790

 

0.799

 

0.668

 

AIC

9531.933

 

7930.831

 

5375.144

 

BIC

9709.399

 

8108.298

 

5552.61

 
  1. Hospital district differences between all mental disorder–related disability pensions (DP), mood disorder (F30–39) DP and non–affective psychotic disorder (F20–29) DP in Finland, 2010–2015 by incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI).
  2. Negative binomial regression model adjusted based on the compositional factors gender, age and occupational status