Table 4. Adjusted odds ratios for dependent variables.
| Respondents’ Characteristics | Specialist did not have basic medical information from the primary care physician about the reason for the visit | Primary care physician seemed uninformed about the care received from the specialist physician | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 19,679 –missing 743) | (n = 15,827 –missing 615) | |||
| Unadjusted OR (CL) | Adjusted OR (CL) | Unadjusted OR (CL) | Adjusted OR (CL) | |
| Sex | ||||
| Male | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Female | 1.25 (1.09–1.43) | 1.20 (1.14–1.38) | 1.28 (1.14–1.43) | 1.17 (1.04–1.31) |
| Age category | ||||
| 16–39 (ref) | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| 40–64 | 0.67 (0.58–0.78) | 0.73 (0.62–0.87) | 0.55 (0.48–0.62) | 0.58 (0.51–0.66) |
| 65–84 | 0.43 (0.36–0.52) | 0.55 (0.44–0.68) | 0.25 (0.21–0.29) | 0.35 (0.29–0.42) |
| 85+ | 0.40 (0.24–0.65) | 0.57 (0.34–0.94) | 0.24 (0.15–0.40) | 0.44 (0.27–0.73) |
| Self-reported education | ||||
| Graduate or professional degree | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| High school | 0.76 (0.61–0.95) | 0.80 (0.63–1.02) | 0.67 (0.55–0.81) | 0.72 (0.59–0.88) |
| College or bachelor’s degree | 1.12 (0.92–1.36) | 1.06 (0.86–1.29) | 1.11 (0.95–1.30) | 1.02 (0.86–1.20) |
| Self-reported financial situation | ||||
| Very comfortable | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Comfortable | 1.14 (0.92–1.42) | 1.05 (0.83–1.32) | 1.41 (1.17–1.69) | 1.26 (1.05–1.53) |
| Tight/very tight/poor | 0.97 (0.81–1.18) | 0.93 (0.77–1.14) | 1.06 (0.89–1.24) | 0.98 (0.83–1.14) |
| Don’t know or refused | 1.16 (0.78–1.74) | 1.29 (0.85–1.96) | 0.89 (0.58–1.37) | 0.84 (0.54–1.30) |
| Language most often spoken at home | ||||
| English or French | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Other than English or French | 1.89 (1.72–2.12) | 0.76 (0.60–0.96) | 1.10 (1.01–1.28) | 0.90 (0.76–1.08) |
| Self-reported waited to see a specialist | ||||
| 2 weeks | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| 3–8 weeks | 0.91 (0.77–1.07) | 0.95 (0.80–1.13) | 1.23 (1.06–1.42) | 1.2 (1.05–1.41) |
| More than 8 weeks | 1.11 (0.93–1.31) | 1.17 (0.98–1.39) | 1.64 (1.41–1.91) | 1.63 (1.40–1.80) |
| Number of specialty types receiving care from | ||||
| 1 type | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| 2 types | 0.66 (0.52–0.84) | 0.72 (0.55–0.95) | 0.83 (0.68–1.01) | 0.93 (0.75–1.17) |
| 3 types or more | 0.57 (0.48–0.68) | 0.71 (0.6.0–0.96) | 0.57 (0.48–0.67) | 0.89 (0.72–1.10) |
| Types of primary care models^ | ||||
| Team Capitation | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Solo FFS | 1.29 (0.92–1.80) | 1.29 (0.91–1.80) | 1.17 (0.87–1.57) | 1.04 (0.77–1.14) |
| Enhanced FFS | 1.28 (1.09–1.52) | 1.22 (1.12–1.40) | 1.07 (0.93–1.23) | 0.93 (0.79–1.08) |
| Non-team Capitation | 1.17 (1.01–1.38) | 1.11 (0.93–1.32) | 0.98 (0.85–1.13) | 0.91 (0.78–1.05) |
| Other PEM models | 0.75 (0.36–1.57) | 0.82 (0.38–1.07) | 0.94 (0.59–1.38) | 1.05 (0.67–1.64) |
| Self-reported use of a walk-in clinic in the last 12 months | ||||
| No | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 1.62 (1.41–1.86) | 1.39 (1.19–1.61) | 1.74 (1.55–1.95) | 1.40 (1.24–1.58) |
| I don’t know/Refused | 2.95 (1.46–5.96) | 3.01 (1.48–6.30) | 2.17 (0.12–1.43) | 0.44 (0.18–1.10) |
| Complexity score based on CIHI Pop Grouper (1 unit increase) | 0.95 (0.92–0.98) | 1.01 (0.98–1.04) | 0.85 (0.82–0.88) | 0.91 (0.90–0.97) |
| Total visits to the rostered primary care physician over two years (1 visit increase) | 0.98 (0.97–0.99) | 0.99 (0.98–1.01) | 0.97 (0.95–0.98) | 0.98 (0.97–0.99) |
| Total visits to any specialist physicians over two years (1 visit increase) | 0.99 (0.98–0.99) | 1.00 (0.99–1.00) | 0.98 (0.97–0.99) | 0.99 (0.99–1.01) |
Note: Rurality was excluded from the final multivariable regression model as it remained statistically not significant in both unadjusted and adjusted models. RIO’s unadjusted are included in S3 Appendix.
^ Solo FFS: Patients are not formally part of an enrolment model but receive care from a regular primary care physician who is paid purely fee-for-service. Enhanced Fee-for-Service includes Comprehensive Care Model and Family Health Group where physicians are paid a mix of fee-for-service along with bonuses and premiums. Non-team Capitation includes Capitation models, i.e., Family Health Organization and Family Health Network where physicians are paid a mix of capitation payment, bonuses, premiums, and fee-for-service but they are not signatory to a Family Health Team (FHT). FHTs are interdisciplinary models of care. Team Capitation: Capitation models, i.e., Family Health Organization and Family Health Network, are part of a Family Health Team (FHT). Other PEM models include smaller specialized patient enrolment models.