Table 2

Regression modelling for cervical screening coverage among women aged 25–49 years

ModelUnivariatePopulationGeneral practicePopulation and general practice
Deviance explained by model78.2%46.4%79.1%
OR (95% CI)p Value (Wald, χ2)Deviance explained, %OR (95% CI)p Value (Wald, χ2)OR (95% CI)p Value (Wald, χ2)OR (95% CI)p Value (Wald, χ2)
Population factors
 Urbanisation, %0.993 (0.992 to 0.995)<0.00141.90.999 (0.998 to 1.000)0.030.999 (0.998 to 1.000)0.3
 London SHA (Q36)0.696 (0.653 to 0.741)<0.00146.21.011 (0.939 to 1.088)NS (0.8)
 Deprivation, %0.977 (0.973 to 0.981)<0.00141.10.987 (0.981 to 0.993)<0.0010.989 (0.981 to 0.996)0.004*
 Asian, black or mixed ethnicity, %0.989 (0.988 to 0.990)<0.00163.30.997 (0.995 to 0.999)0.0050.997 (0.995 to 0.999)0.005
 ‘Other’ ethnicity, %0.901 (0.889 to 0.912)<0.00162.40.958 (0.941 to 0.975)<0.001_0.963 (0.946 to 0.980)<0.001
 No higher education, %1.012 (1.005 to 1.020)0.0017.31.011 (1.004 to 1.017)0.0011.011 (1.004 to 1.018)0.003
General practice factors
 Average practice list size1.00 008 (1.00 005 to 1.00 010)<0.00123.30.99 999 (0.99 996 to 1.00 002)NS (0.6)
 Single-handed practices, %0.990 (0.987 to 0.993)<0.00120.60.990 (0.985 to 0.995)<0.0010.998 (0.996 to 1.000)0.1
 Practitioners headcount per 105 population0.993 (0.989 to 0.997)=0.0016.50.989 (0.985 to 0.992)<0.0010.9993 (0.9963 to 1.0022)0.6
 Practice staff FTE1.0003 (1.0002 to 1.0004)<0.00122.81.0002 (1.0001 to 1.0003)<0.0011.00 005 (0.99 999 to 1.00 011)0.06
 Practitioners qualified outside UK, %0.994 (0.992 to 0.997)<0.00113.70.998 (0.996 to 1.001)NS (0.2)
  • *The variance of the coefficient estimate is being inflated by multicollinearity with other factors (GVIF=2.7).

  • FTE, full-time equivalent; NS, considered non-significant (see Methods section for details); SHA, strategic health authority.