Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary table of hypothesised relationships and results of the analyses

From: Citizens’ initiatives for care and welfare in the Netherlands: an ecological analysis

Results

All areas

Urban

Semi-urban and intermediate

Semi-rural and rural

Mechanism and variable

Care vacuum

 Percentage of 75+

Ns

Ns

Ns

Ns

 Current distance GP

Ns

Ns

Ns

 Current distance pharmacy

Ns

Ns

Ns

Ns

 Current distance hospital

Ns

Ns

Ns

Ns

 Current distance grocery store

Ns

Ns

Ns

Ns

 Current distance elementary school

Ns

Ns

Ns

Ns

 Current distance high school

+

Ns

Ns

+

 Current distance library

Ns

Ns

Ns

Ns

 Distance to GP increased

Ns

Ns

Ns

Ns

 Distance to pharmacy increased

Ns

+

Ns

Ns

 Distance to hospital increased

Ns

Ns

Ns

Ns

 Distance to grocery store increased

Ns

Ns

Ns

Ns

 Distance to elementary school increased

Ns

Ns

Ns

Ns

 Distance to high school increased

Ns

Ns

Ns

Ns

 Distance to library increased

Ns

Ns

Ns

Ns

 Percentage of migrants

Ns

+

Ns

Ns

Capacity for action

 Social capital

Ns

Ns

Ns

+

 Percentage 65–75

Ns

+

Ns

Ns

 Residential turnover

Ns

Ns

Ns

Ns

 Percentage high education

Ns

+

+

Ns

 Percentage Catholic

+

Ns

+

+

Model of action

 Distance to other initiatives

+

Ns

Ns

Ns

Interactionsa

 Distance to nearest high school and percentage Catholic

+

Ns

Ns

Ns

  1. + = significant coefficient in hypothesized direction
  2. - = significant effect in opposite direction
  3. Ns = non-significant coefficient
  4. aOnly one of the tested interactions had a significant coefficient