Table 7.
Associations of health centre level and individual level factors with follow-up of abnormal findings
| Dependent variables | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic (independent variables) | Follow-up of abnormal BP (%) |
Unadjusted Risk Ratios (95% CI) |
Adjusted Risk Ratios* (95% CI) |
Follow-up of abnormal urine tests (%) |
Unadjusted Risk Ratios (95% CI) |
Adjusted Risk Ratios* (95% CI) |
Follow-up of abnormal glucose tests (%) | Unadjusted Risk Ratios (95% CI) |
Adjusted Risk Ratios* (95% CI) |
| Regions | |||||||||
| NT Top End | 13% | Referent | Referent | 28% | Referent | Referent | 29% | Referent | Referent |
| NT Central Australia | 13% | 0.9 (0.2,3.2) | 1.5 (0.3,4.6) | 40% | 1.4 (0.5,2.7) | 2.3 (0.9,3.2) | 18% | 0.6 (0.1,2.3) | 0.6 (0.1,2.2) |
| Far West NSW | 28% | 2.1 (0.4,5.4) | 0.9 (0.2,3.6) | 0% | - | - | 13% | 0.5 (0.1,1.7) | 0.5 (0.1,1.5) |
| WA | 15% | 1.2 (0.2,3.9) | 1.2 (0.1,5.1) | 0% | - | - | 13% | 0.5 (0.1,1.6) | 0.6 (0.2,1.5) |
| North QLD | 26% | 2.0 (0.7,4.3) | 4.1 (1.6,6.3) | 42% | 1.5 (0.8,2.3) | 1.9 (0.8,2.9) | 18% | 0.6 (0.2,1.5) | 0.8 (0.2,1.9) |
| Health centre level characteristics | |||||||||
| Locations | |||||||||
| City | 0% | - | - | 17% | Referent | Referent | 20% | Referent | Referent |
| Regional town | 25% | Referent | Referent | 39% | 2.3 (0.4,5.1) | 4.7 (0.5,5.8) | 15% | 0.8 (0.2,1.9) | 0.7 (0.2,1.9) |
| Remote community | 22% | 0.9 (0.4,1.7) | 0.6 (0.1,2.2) | 33% | 2.0 (0.3,4.7) | 2.3 (0.1, 5.6) | 22% | 1.1 (0.4,2.3) | 0.9 (0.2,2.4) |
| Health service governance | |||||||||
| Government funded/operated | 22% | Referent | Referent | 38% | Referent | Referent | 18% | Referent | Referent |
| Managed by local or regional Indigenous committee or board |
21% | 0.9 (0.5,1.8) | 2.5 (0.8,4.0) | 22% | 0.6 (0.2,1.2) | 1.1 (0.4,1.9) | 27% | 1.5 (0.5,3.2) | 1.5 (0.4,3.8) |
| General practice accreditation status | |||||||||
| Not accredited | 25% | Referent | Referent | 37% | Referent | Referent | 23% | Referent | Referent |
| Currently accredited | 15% | 0.6 (0.3,1.1) | 0.5 (0.2,1.1) | 25% | 0.7 (0.3,1.3) | 0.4 (0.1,1.1) | 16% | 0.7 (0.3,1.4) | 0.8 (0.3,1.5) |
| Sizes of populations served | |||||||||
| ≤ 500 | 31% | Referent | Referent | 28% | Referent | Referent | 30% | Referent | Referent |
| 501-999 | 19% | 0.6 (0.3,1.3) | 0.5 (0.2,1.1) | 34% | 1.2 (0.6,2.1) | 1.0 (0.5,1.8) | 19% | 0.7 (0.2,1.7) | 0.7 (0.3,1.6) |
| ≥ 1000 | 18% | 0.6 (0.3,1.1) | 0.8 (0.3,1.5) | 36% | 1.3 (0.6,2.2) | 2.2 (0.9,3.0) | 15% | 0.5 (0.2,1.3) | 0.6 (0.2,1.3) |
| Individual level characteristics | |||||||||
| Age (years) | |||||||||
| 15-24 | 17% | Referent | Referent | 36% | Referent | Referent | 15% | Referent | Referent |
| 25-39 | 19% | 1.1 (0.4,2.5) | 1.2 (0.4,2.7) | 31% | 0.9 (0.5,1.4) | 0.9 (0.5,1.4) | 25% | 1.7 (0.9,2.7) | 1.8 (0.9,2.9) |
| 40-54 | 25% | 1.5 (0.6,2.8) | 1.6 (0.7,3.1) | 32% | 0.9 (0.4,1.5) | 0.9 (0.3,1.7) | 22% | 1.5 (0.9,2.3) | 1.7 (0.9,2.8) |
| Sex | |||||||||
| Males | 22% | Referent | Referent | 34% | Referent | Referent | 20% | Referent | Referent |
| Females | 21% | 1.0 (0.6,1.5) | 0.9 (0.5,1.4) | 33% | 1.0 (0.6,1.5) | 0.9 (0.5,1.5) | 22% | 1.1 (0.7,1.6) | 1.1 (0.8,1.6) |
* Calculated using two-level random effects logistic regression models, with adjustment of other variables in the table. Odd Ratios generated from the models were converted into risk ratios using a published formula.[14]
Risk ratios significant at 0.05 level are shown in bold.