Table 2 Results of logistic regressions using preventive services as dependent variable
From: Determinants of utilisation rates of preventive health services: evidence from Chile
Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) |
|---|---|---|---|
OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
Sex (male as reference) | |||
Female | 1.28*** (1.23–1.33) | 1.17*** (1.12–1.23) | 1.16*** (1.11–1.21) |
Geographical location (urban as reference) | |||
Rural | .92*** (.87–.96) | .90*** (.86–.95) | .90*** (.86–.95) |
Age (years) | 1.07*** (1.07–1.08) | 1.07*** (1.06–1.07) | 1.07*** (1.06–1.07) |
Civil status (married as reference) | |||
Living with or in a relationship | .87*** (.81–.93) | .89** (.82–.95) | .88** (.82–.95) |
Separated, divorced, annulled | .96 (.89–1.04) | 1.02 (.95–1.10) | 1.03 (.95–1.11) |
Widowed | .94* (.89–.99) | .94* (.88–.99) | .94* (.89–.99) |
Single | .85*** (.80–.90) | .84*** (.79–.89) | .85*** (.80–.91) |
Indigeneity (not indigenous as reference) | |||
Indigenous | 1.03 (.96–1.10) | 1.03 (.96–1.10) | 1.02 (.95–1.10) |
Nationality (Chilean as reference) | |||
Foreigner | .90 (.71–1.13) | .91 (.72–1.15) | .97 (.76–1.23) |
Equalised income (log) | 1.11*** (1.08–1.15) | 1.13*** (1.09–1.17) | |
Education (years) | .99*** (.98–.99) | .99** (.98–.99) | |
Employment (employed as reference) | |||
Unemployed | 1.04 (.88–1.22) | 1.06 (.90–1.26) | |
Inactive | 1.40*** (1.33–1.48) | 1.41*** (1.33–1.48) | |
Health self-assessment (bad as reference) | |||
Neither good nor bad | 1.18*** (1.11–1.26) | ||
Good | 1.14** (1.06–1.22) | ||
Health provider (FONASA as reference) | |||
Armed forces | .92 (.81–1.05) | ||
ISAPRE | .89** (.81–.96) | ||
Out-of-pocket | .42*** (.33–.51) | ||
Disability (no as reference) | |||
Yes | 1.04 .99–1.10) | ||
LR chi2 | 17,770.10 | 17,923.71 | 17,576.60 |
Prob > chi2 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
McFadden R2 | 0.197 | 0.200 | 0.200 |
Deviance | 72,250.482 | 71,762.361 | 70,243.872 |
AIC | 72,270.482 | 71,790.361 | 70,283.872 |
BIC | 72,373.157 | 71,934.053 | 70,488.597 |