Table 5.

Logistic regression analysis of the effects of DD on health status by age and gender

2018
DD		Male older adults				Female older adults
		Model 1		Model 2		Model 1	Model 2
OR (95% CI) of health status
Better		1.56 (1.22,2.00)***		1.46 (1.13,1.88)***		1.26 (1.01,1.57)*	1.23 (0.99,1.54)
Poor		reference		reference		reference	reference
		Younger elderly				Older elderly
OR (95% CI) of health status
Better		1.28 (1.09,1.50)***		1.22 (1.04,1.44)*		1.40 (0.57,3.51)	1.01 (0.37,2.78)
Poor		reference		reference		reference	reference
2011
DD	Male older adults				Female older adults
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 1		Model 2
OR (95% CI) of health status
Better	1.36 (1.05,1.74)*		1.30 (1.00,1.68)*		1.72 (1.30,2.27)***		1.65 (1.25,2.19)***
Poor	reference		reference		reference		reference
	Younger elderly				Older elderly
OR (95% CI) of health status
Better	1.63 (1.34,1.97)***		1.62 (1.26,2.08)***		0.61 (0.22,1.70)		0.08 (0.31,1.94)
Poor	reference		reference		reference		reference

Model 1 adjusted for age, gender, educational years, marital status, income; model 2 additionally adjusted for smoking,drinking.and physical exercise

DD, Dietary Diversity; OR, Odds Ratio; %, Predicted Probability; CI, Confidence Interval

* p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001