Table 4.
Predictor | Rural census tracts | Urban census tracts | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
Low versus high | Low versus high | |||
Hispanic | 0.91 | 0.87, 0.95 | 0.68 | 0.67, 0.70 |
Black | 0.95 | 0.90, 0.99a | 0.91 | 0.89, 0.93 |
Poverty | 0.78 | 0.74, 0.82 | 0.68 | 0.67, 0.70 |
Moderate versus high | Moderate versus high | |||
Hispanic | 0.82 | 0.78, 0.85 | 1.05 | 1.02, 1.08 |
Black | 1.02 | 0.97, 1.06 | 1.08 | 1.05, 1.11 |
Poverty | 0.83 | 0.79, 0.87 | 1.03 | 1.01, 1.06 |
Low versus moderate | Low versus moderate | |||
Hispanic | 1.12 | 1.08, 1.15 | 0.65 | 0.63, 0.67 |
Black | 0.93 | 0.90, 0.96 | 0.84 | 0.82, 0.87 |
Poverty | 0.93 | 0.90, 0.96 | 0.66 | 0.64, 0.68 |
Note. aDue to the overall large number of comparisons (n = 6), we did a Bonferonni correction to maintain an overall α of .05. Thus, to be considered significant, each p value must be ≤.01. For the effect of a quartile increase in the proportion of Blacks on low versus high disparity, p =.02; thus, we did not consider this effect significant despite the 95% CI not including 1.00.