Results of multiple logistic regression: effects of individual and area factors on worse general practitioner accessibility (>20 min)
| | Model I (n=19638) | Model II* (n=17101) | Model III (n=14770) | |||
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
| Sex [female] | 1.02 | 0.96 to 1.09 | 1.08 | 1.05 to 1.15 | 1.01 | 0.94 to 1.08 |
| Age [ref=young (age<40 years)] | ||||||
| Middle (40–64 years) | 1.08 | 1.00 to 1.17 | 1.05 | 0.96 to 1.14 | 1.07 | 0.98 to 1.17 |
| Old (age>64 years) | 1.13 | 1.02 to 1.25 | 1.06 | 0.95 to 1.17 | 1.11 | 0.99 to 1.24 |
| Area deprivation GIMD 2010 [ref=Q1, least deprived] | ||||||
| Q2 | 1.38 | 1.26 to 1.53 | 1.32 | 1.19 to 1.46 | 1.41 | 1.27 to 1.56 |
| Q3 | 1.45 | 1.31 to 1.61 | 1.31 | 1.18 to 1.46 | 1.49 | 1.34 to 1.66 |
| Q4 | 1.34 | 1.20 to 1.49 | 1.22 | 1.09 to 1.37 | 1.21 | 1.07 to 1.36 |
| Q5 (most deprived) | 1.43 | 1.29 to 1.59 | 1.60 | 1.42 to 1.80 | 1.45 | 1.29 to 1.62 |
| Settlement structure [ref=1 city] | ||||||
| 2 urban district | 1.88 | 1.71 to 2.07 | 2.11 | 1.91 to 2.34 | –† | –† |
| 3 rural district with population concentration | 2.40 | 2.18 to 2.65 | 2.44 | 2.21 to 2.70 | 1.28† | 1.19 to 1.39† |
| 4 rural district | 3.06 | 2.76 to 3.40 | 3.14 | 2.81 to 3.52 | 1.63† | 1.48 to 1.79† |
| Children in household [yes] | 0.91 | 0.84 to 0.99 | 0.76 | 0.70 to 0.83 | 0.91 | 0.84 to 0.99 |
| German [no] | 0.67 | 0.57 to 0.78 | 0.78 | 0.68 to 0.89 | 0.59 | 0.49 to 0.71 |
| Equivalent household disposable income [ref=Q1 high; >€32 564] | ||||||
| Q2 (>€24 031–32 564) | 1.01 | 0.91 to 1.11 | 1.18 | 1.05 to 1.33 | 1.05 | 0.94 to 1.18 |
| Q3 (>€18 552–24 031) | 1.00 | 0.90 to 1.11 | 1.03 | 0.91 to 1.16 | 1.06 | 0.94 to 1.19 |
| Q4 (>€13 829–18 552) | 0.87 | 0.78 to 0.97 | 0.91 | 0.80 to 1.03 | 0.93 | 0.82 to 1.06 |
| Q5 (low; ≤€13 829) | 0.87 | 0.78 to 0.98 | 0.93 | 0.82 to 1.06 | 0.90 | 0.80 to 1.03 |
| Education [ref=less than high school] | ||||||
| High school | 1.09 | 0.99 to 1.20 | 1.11 | 1.01 to 1.23 | 1.08 | 0.97 to 1.20 |
| More than high school | 0.99 | 0.88 to 1.12 | 1.07 | 0.94 to 1.21 | 0.98 | 0.86 to 1.12 |
| Health status [ref=very good] | ||||||
| Good | 1.14 | 1.01 to 1.30 | 1.15 | 1.00 to 1.33 | 1.20 | 1.04 to 1.39 |
| Satisfactory | 1.31 | 1.14 to 1.50 | 1.34 | 1.14 to 1.56 | 1.37 | 1.17 to 1.61 |
| Poor | 1.50 | 1.28 to 1.76 | 1.59 | 1.33 to 1.89 | 1.62 | 1.35 to 1.95 |
| Bad | 1.60 | 1.29 to 2.00 | 1.61 | 1.27 to 2.03 | 1.64 | 1.28 to 2.10 |
| Number of morbidities | 1.04 | 1.00 to 1.08 | 1.05 | 1.01 to 1.09 | 1.02 | 0.98 to 1.06 |
| Concerns about own health [ref=not concerned at all] | ||||||
| Somewhat concerned | 0.96 | 0.88 to 1.04 | 0.92 | 0.84 to 1.01 | 0.97 | 0.89 to 1.07 |
| Very concerned | 0.90 | 0.81 to 1.02 | 1.00 | 0.88 to 1.13 | 0.91 | 0.80 to 1.04 |
| Type of health insurance [private health insurance] | 0.97 | 0.88 to 1.08 | 0.97 | 0.86 to 1.09 | 0.99 | 0.88 to 1.10 |
| Max re-scaled R2 (percentage) | 5.92 | 6.89 | 3.69 | |||
Models I to III are full models.
Missing values in total: education (n=856), health status (n=42), concerns about own health (n=66) and type of health insurance (n=35).
*Weighting factor was used: calculation with normalised weights.
†Reference=2 urban district, sensitivity analysis without big major cities.
OR in bold, statistically significant at the 5% level;
[], category tested in a dichotomous variable; [ref=], reference category for more than two characteristics; GIMD, German Index of Multiple Deprivation; Q, quintile.