Table 3.
Influence of socioeconomic factors on the decision to call an ambulance in unnecessary situations.
| Scenario 1 | Marginal effect | 95% CI | P-value | |
| Price | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.026# |
| Gender | 0.024 | 0.000 | 0.048 | 0.046 |
| Age | 0.039 | 0.031 | 0.046 | 0.000 |
| Family (living alone) | 0.055 | 0.002 | 0.107 | 0.015 |
| Household income | 0.002 | -0.006 | 0.011 | 0.614 |
| Possess a car | -0.044 | -0.075 | -0.014 | 0.002 |
| History of ambulance use | 0.015 | -0.009 | 0.038 | 0.216 |
| Hesitation to call an ambulance | -0.054 | -0.078 | -0.031 | 0.000 |
| Knowledge of primary emergency medical center open at night | -0.012 | -0.038 | 0.014 | 0.360 |
| Knowledge of emergency medical information center | 0.001 | -0.030 | 0.032 | 0.952 |
| Knowledge of private patient transport service | 0.033 | -0.017 | 0.083 | 0.148 |
| Log likelihood | -512 | |||
| Pseudo R2 | 0.174 | |||
| Chi-square | 215.6 | |||
| (P < 0.001) | ||||
| Scenario 2 | Marginal effect | 95% CI | P-value | |
| Price | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.132 |
| Gender | 0.047 | 0.020 | 0.074 | 0.001 |
| Age | 0.025 | 0.017 | 0.033 | 0.000 |
| Family (living with at least one child) | 0.009 | -0.018 | 0.037 | 0.504 |
| Household income | -0.016 | -0.026 | -0.007 | 0.001 |
| Possess a car | -0.071 | -0.105 | -0.037 | 0.000 |
| History of ambulance use | 0.039 | 0.012 | 0.065 | 0.004 |
| Hesitation to call an ambulance | -0.030 | -0.056 | -0.004 | 0.027 |
| Knowledge of primary emergency medical center open at night | -0.042 | -0.072 | -0.012 | 0.005 |
| Knowledge of emergency medical information center | 0.001 | -0.035 | 0.036 | 0.972 |
| Knowledge of private patient transport service | 0.015 | -0.036 | 0.066 | 0.550 |
| Log likelihood | -520 | |||
| Pseudo R2 | 0.148 | |||
| Chi-square | 180.3 | |||
| (P < 0.001) | ||||
| Scenario 3 | Marginal effect | 95% CI | P-value | |
| Price | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.326 |
| Gender | 0.030 | 0.013 | 0.048 | 0.001 |
| Age | 0.013 | 0.007 | 0.018 | 0.000 |
| Family (living with at least one elderly person) | 0.013 | -0.026 | 0.051 | 0.484 |
| Household income | -0.006 | -0.011 | 0.000 | 0.060 |
| Possess a car | -0.023 | -0.045 | -0.002 | 0.018 |
| History of ambulance use | -0.001 | -0.018 | 0.015 | 0.860 |
| Hesitation to call an ambulance | -0.024 | -0.041 | -0.007 | 0.006 |
| Knowledge of primary emergency medical center open at night | -0.024 | -0.045 | -0.004 | 0.013 |
| Knowledge of emergency medical information center | 0.013 | -0.013 | 0.040 | 0.276 |
| Knowledge of private patient transport service | 0.014 | -0.021 | 0.050 | 0.374 |
| Log likelihood | -313 | |||
| Pseudo R2 | 0.120 | |||
| Chi-square | 85.7 | |||
| (P < 0.001) | ||||
CI: confidence interval.
# The marginal effect of price (= -8.16 × 10-7, standard error; 3.65 × 10-7, z-score; -2.22) was very small but statistically significant in Scenario 1.