Skip to main content

Table 2 Logistic regression models for different domestic drinking water choices

From: Change of water consumption and its potential influential factors in Shanghai: A cross-sectional study

  Alternate Bottled/Barreled Filtrated Bottled/Barreled Vs (Filtrated)
  cOR
(95% CI)
aOR
(95% CI)
cOR
(95% CI)
aOR
(95% CI)
cOR
(95% CI)
aOR
(95% CI)
cOR
(95% CI)
aOR
(95% CI)
Gender (Male) 1.11
(0.91–1.35)
---- 1.09
(0.87–1.38)
---- 1.14
(0.87–1.51)
---- 0.96
(0.70–1.31)
----
Age (18–35years)         
<18 1.11
(0.52–2.38)
---- 1.02
(0.44–2.36)
0.97
(0.24–2.04)
1.36
(0.46–4.02)
---- 0.75
(0.24–2.31)
----
35–59 0.62
(0.37–1.03)
---- 0.49*
(0.27–0.88)
0.45**
(0.32–0.97)
0.95
(0.45–2.04)
---- 0.51
(0.23–1.16)
----
≥60 0.47*
(0.26–0.86)
---- 0.33**
(0.16–0.68)
0.36**
(0.10–0.73)
0.83
(0.35–1.96)
---- 0.4
(0.15–1.05)
----
Education
(Lower level)
1.57*
(1.03–2.40)
2.74**
(1.38–5.44)
1.61
(0.99–2.62)
---- 1.52
(0.85–2.71)
---- 1.06
(0.56–2.01)
----
Annual Income
(2308.1–4615)
        
≤2,308 1.38
(0.30–6.33)
2.38
(0.86–6.67)
2.70
(0.58–12.54)
1.35
(0.83–23.51)
---- ---- ---- ----
4,615.1–7,692 2.08**
(1.20–3.58)
5.26**
(1.61–16.67)
2.70**
(1.44–5.07)
3.08**
(1.26–6.39)
1.42
(0.67–2.99)
---- 1.91
(0.84–4.31)
----
7,692.1- 1.25
(0.64–2.45)
3.57
(1.61–7.94)
1.87
(0.88–3.97)
1.14
(0.93–2.74)
0.60
(0.20–1.84)
---- 3.10
(0.93–10.28)
----
Housing Condition
(CAT 1)
        
CAT 2 2.00
(0.86–4.62)
---- 1.94
(0.72–5.21)
---- 2.10
(0.56–7.89)
2.48
(0.50–12.28)
0.92
(0.20–4.31)
----
CAT 3 2.84**
(1.27–6.38)
---- 2.96*
(1.15–7.61)
---- 2.61
(0.72–9.43)
3.02
(0.43–21.16)
1.13
(0.26–5.01)
----
CAT 4 3.10*
(1.04–9.23)
---- 2.96
(0.84–10.50)
---- 3.38
(0.66–17.25)
3.14
(0.67–14.85)
0.88
(0.137–5.576)
----
CAT 5 5.27**
(1.99–13.97)
---- 2.75
(0.82–9.27)
---- 10.31**
(2.61–40.82)
17.90**
(3.39–94.42)
0.27
(0.05–1.36)
----
CAT 6 3.99**
(1.57–10.10)
---- 3.59*
(1.21–10.63)
---- 4.78*
(1.18–19.31)
4.82*
(1.02–21.27)
0.75
(0.15–3.72)
----
Transparency
(Normal)
0.93
(0.55–1.57)
---- 0.72
(0.49–1.06)
---- 1.18
(0.83–1.68)
---- 0.61*
(0.39–0.97)
----
Colour
(Normal)
0.92
(0.59–1.44)
---- 0.58
(0.31–1.08)
---- 1.27
(0.82–1.97)
---- 0.46*
(0.23–0.91)
----
Taste
(Good)
3.50***
(2.65–4.63)
5.48***
(3.50–8.56)
4.04***
(2.98–5.49)
6.44***
(3.91–10.60)
2.78***
(1.97–3.91)
5.04***
(2.74–9.26)
1.46*
(1.06–2.00)
----
Smell
(Normal)
1.01
(0.72–1.41)
---- 0.84
(0.54–1.30)
---- 1.25
(0.83–1.90)
---- 0.67
(0.40–1.12)
----
Worm founded
(Never)
1.14
(0.58–2.24)
2.95*
(1.28–6.81)
0.59
(0.21–1.61)
---- 2.33*
(1.08–5.04)
3.35*
(1.22–9.15)
0.22**
(0.07–0.66)
----
Belief (Tap water)         
Barrelled water 19.49***
(7.65–49.66)
8.62 ***
(3.51–21.20)
27.67***
(10.50–72.87)
9.68***
(2.91–32.16)
5.19*
(1.18–22.74)
5.14
(0.92–28.86)
5.33*
(1.40–20.36)
5.61*
(1.47–21.38)
Bottled water 5.75***
(3.02–10.94)
2.39**
(1.32–4.23)
7.06***
(3.49–14.28)
3.61**
(1.51–8.60)
3.46*
(1.28–9.38)
2.59
(0.83–8.05)
2.04
(0.72–5.77)
2.55
(0.88–7.39)
Filtrated water 6.60***
(3.73–11.69)
3.04***
(1.81–5.10)
3.18**
(1.51–6.68)
1.66
(0.64–4.31)
12.60*** (6.15–25.79) 11.54***
(5.05–26.39)
0.25**
(0.11–0.60)
0.51**
(0.11–0.56)
  1. * P -value < 0.05; ** P -value < 0.01; *** P -value < 0.001.
  2. Crude and adjusted odds ratios and their 95% CI were shown above.
  3. Tap water choice was the control in the first three models, while filtrated water was the control in the last model.
  4. Housing condition was divided into 6 categories, category 1 (CAT 1) was apartments built before 1980’s.
  5. Transparency, colour, taste, smell and worm ever founded were five aspects considering respondents’ household tap water.
  6. Variables excluded from the models were illustrated as dashed lines.