Table 2

Robust regression models of support for—community water fluoridation

Model 1Model 2
Health literacy0.37 (0.01)***
City
 Wichita (ref)
 Portland−9.63 (0.90)***−11.77 (1.02)***
 San Antonio20.39 (0.69)***14.82 (1.04)***
Race/ethnicity (%)
 White (referent)
 African American0.03 (0.03)
 Asian/Pac. Islander0.11 (0.06)*
 Hispanic−0.04 (0.03)
 Other0.04 (0.04)
Age in years (%)
 <170.05 (0.05)
 18–24−0.02 (0.05)
 25–340.11 (0.06)*
 35–44−0.00 (0.09)
 45–54−0.16 (0.10)*
 55–64−0.27** (0.10)
 ≥65 (ref)
Educational attainment (%)
 Incomplete high school (ref)
 High school degree0.06 (0.05)
 Some College0.35 (0.05)***
 B.A., M.A. or Ph.D.0.06 (0.03)**
 Professional degree0.81 (0.12)***
Income
 Below poverty threshold (ref)
 Poverty line 100%–199%0.02 (0.05)
 Poverty line above 200%−0.08 (0.03)**
Voter turnout (%)−0.08 (0.02)***0.00 (0.02)
 Constant−62.07 (2.32)***14.46 (4.80)***
R2 0.620.66
AIC872.65963.63
BIC898.141063.70
N739.000739.000
  • Coefficients for health literacy in model 1 reflects a one point change on the 0–500 scale on the percentage of the vote in favour of CWF. Model 2’s coefficients reflect a one percentage point change in the proportion of the demographic group on support for CWF. Note that all categories of demographic variables are necessarily zero sum, so that an increase in a sub-group of a demographic group (ie, the professional degree population) must lead to a decrease in the other sub-groups within that category (ie, B.A., M.A. or Ph.D.). Standard errors are in parentheses.

  • *P<0.10, **P<0.05, ***P<0.01.