Skip to main content

Table 5 Multivariate logistic regression models on determinants of empowerment among patients with T2DM, age group: 55–64 years

From: Empowerment among adult patients with type 2 diabetes: age differentials in relation to person-centred primary care, community resources, social support and other life-contextual circumstances

  Model 1
OR (95% CI)
Model 2
OR (95% CI)
Model 3
OR (95% CI)
Model 4
OR (95% CI)
Model 5
OR (95% CI)
Sex:
 1. men (Ref.) 1.08 ns.
(.81–1.45)
1.14 ns.
(.85–1.54)
1.11 ns
(.82–1.5)
1.13 ns
(.82–1.55)
1.29 ns
(.92–1.80)
 2. women
Marital status
 1.single/widowed/divorced (Ref.) 1.29 ns.
(.95–1.76)
1.22 ns.
(.89–1.68)
1.23 ns
(.89–1.69)
0.88 ns
(.61–1.26)
0.79 ns
(.54–1.15)
 2. married/cohabiting
Professional education
 1. lower education (Ref.) 1.36*
(1.02–1.82)
1.40*
(1.04–1.89)
1.48*
(1.09–2.01)
1.74***
(1.25–2.41)
1.80***
(1.28–2.52)
 2. higher education
Person-centred care (PACIC)   1.79***
(1.49–2.16)
1.70***
(1.41–2.06)
1.26*
(1.02–1.56)
1.32*
(1.05–1.65)
Continuity of care:
 Family/regular doctor
1 = no (Ref.), 2 = yes
   1.23 ns
(.88–1.73)
.93 ns
(.65–1.34)
.84 ns
(.58–1.23)
 Family/regular nurse
1 = no (Ref.), 2 = yes
   1.26 ns
(.92–1.71)
1.19 ns
(.86–1.65)
1.18 ns
(.84–1.66)
Social support:
 Community     1.80***
(1.40–2.30)
1.59***
(1.22–2.06)
 Family and friends     1.46***
(1.23–1.75)
1.32**
(1.10–1.59)
 Peers     1.19*
(1.04–1.36)
1.18*
(1.03–1.36)
Diabetes-related distress      .43***
(.31–.59)
Energy/vitality      1.01**
(1.01–1.02)
Nagelkerke RSquare
n
     .28
780
  1. OR odds ratio; CI confidence interval; Ref. reference group
  2. *** p ≤ .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05; ns. non-significant