Preference for primary care in Chinese homebound patients

BMC Public Health

Table 3 Logistic regression analysis of predictors of PHC preference among rural/urban areas

Factors	Model 1 Rural		Model 2 Urban
Factors	OR (95% CI)	P	OR (95% CI)	P
Education (reference = Lower than primary school)
Primary school or above			1.84(0.85, 3.94)	0.117
Hukou (reference = agricultural)
Non-agricultural			0.39(0.18, 0.83)	0.015
Geographic region (reference = east)
Central			2.88(1.14, 7.29)	0.025
West			2.18(0.89, 5.36)	0.087
Chronic disease (reference = no)
Yes	0.95(0.57, 1.57)	0.840
Having received inpatient care in the past year (reference = no)
Yes	0.33(0.19, 0.59)	< 0.001	0.25(0.11, 0.56)	0.001
CES-D-8^a	0.96(0.91, 1.01)	0.159
Receiving family caregiving when ill (reference = no)
Yes	0.41(0.21, 0.77)	0.006	0.27(0.11, 0.63)	0.003
Receiving caregiving from child in daily routines (reference = no)
Yes	0.68(0.35, 1.33)	0.272
Receiving financial support from their children (reference = no)
Yes	1.19 (0.56, 2.50)	0.651
The number of close children (reference = 0)
≥ 1 person	0.69(0.32, 1.45)	0.332

The multivariable logistic models included characteristics that demonstrated statistical significance (p < 0.05) in the Chi-squared tests or t-test results
PHC refers to Primary healthcare; OR refers to odds ratios; 95% CI refers to 95% confidence intervals; a: CES-D-8 indicates the 8-item Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale
Model 1 consisted of 332 rural homebound patients. The results of Model 1 were statistically significant, Pseudo R² = 0.1142, p < 0.001
Model 2 consisted of 180 urban homebound patients. The results of Model 2 were statistically significant, Pseudo R² = 0.1960, p < 0.001

ISSN: 1471-2458