Table 3

Results of nine different simultaneous autoregressive regression models with ‘proportion of patients with coordinated healthcare use by GPs’ as target variable in association with different independent variables

Model	Explanatory variables	β	SE	p Value
1	Administrative status (reference: rural district)
	City	−7.52	1.67	<0.001
2	Settlement structure (reference: large cities)
	Urban districts	3.11	2.99	0.300
	Rural districts with densification	8.99	2.80	0.001
	Sparsely populated rural districts	9.76	2.80	<0.001
3	Settlement structure (reference: large cities)
	Urban districts	−3.78	3.36	0.264
	Rural districts with densification	2.70	3.09	0.383
	Sparsely populated rural districts	3.54	3.12	0.259
	Administrative Status (reference: rural district)
	City	−7.49	1.89	<0.001
4	Physician density of GPs	−0.21	0.09	0.020
5	Physician density of GPs
	Administrative Status (reference: rural district)	0.00	0.13	1.000
	City	−5.27	14.39	0.710
	Interaction of GP density and administrative status	−0.03	0.19	0.880
6	Physician density (all ambulatory physicians)	−0.06	0.01	<0.001
7	Physician density (all ambulatory physicians)	−0.16	0.03	<0.001
	Administrative Status (reference: rural district) City	−24.10	10.08	0.017
	Interaction of density of all physicians: district	0.14	0.04	<0.001
8	Bavarian Index of Multiple Deprivation (reference: quintile 1 with least deprived districts)
	Quintile 2	2.64	2.17	0.223
	Quintile 3	5.75	2.13	0.007
	Quintile 4	8.39	2.16	<0.001
	Quintile 5	1.48	2.36	0.531
9	Bavarian Index of Multiple Deprivation (reference: quintile 1 with least deprived districts)
	Quintile 2	3.92	1.82	0.031
	Quintile 3	7.99	1.81	<0.001
	Quintile 4	12.55	1.88	<0.001
	Quintile 5	9.38	2.19	<0.001
	Administrative status (reference: rural district)
	City	−11.02	1.59	<0.001

GP, general practitioner.