Table 3. Hazard Ratios from Proportional Hazard Models of Dying by June 2011, the Social Environment and Biomarkers of Aging Study, 2006. (n=919, the exam sample; see text for details).
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ratings | HR | (95% CI) | HR | (95% CI) | (HR | 95% CI) | HR | (95% CI) |
|
|
||||||||
| Self | ||||||||
| Poor (1) | 6.00 | (1.59 – 22.60) | 2.33 | (0.52 – 10.46) | ||||
| Not so good (2) | 4.37 | (1.34 – 14.23) | 2.26 | (0.61 – 8.35) | ||||
| Average (3) | 2.33 | (0.71 – 7.65) | 1.46 | (0.41 – 5.25) | ||||
| Good (4) | 2.76 | (0.80 – 9.57) | 1.89 | (0.52 – 6.88) | ||||
| Excellent (5)a | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
| Interviewer | ||||||||
| Poor (1) | 11.16 | (3.70 – 33.65) | 7.06 | (2.03 – 24.63) | ||||
| Not so good (2) | 3.58 | (1.45 – 8.85) | 2.53 | (0.91 – 7.04) | ||||
| Average (3) | 3.45 | (1.51 – 7.89) | 2.96 | (1.20 – 7.28) | ||||
| Good (4) | 2.03 | (0.89 – 4.61) | 1.85 | (0.78 – 4.39) | ||||
| Excellent (5)a | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
| Physician | ||||||||
| Poor (1) | 1.53 | (0.14– 17.08) | 0.83 | (0.07 – 10.03) | ||||
| Not so good (2) | 1.39 | (0.32 – 6.03) | 0.86 | (0.19 – 3.84) | ||||
| Average (3) | 0.82 | (0.19 – 3.42) | 0.59 | (0.14 – 2.56) | ||||
| Good (4) | 1.01 | (0.24 – 4.27) | 0.81 | (0.19 – 3.48) | ||||
| Excellent (5)a | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Joint test of ratingsb | ||||||||
| Self | p=0.005 | p=0.465 | ||||||
| Interviewer | p=<0.001 | p=0.018 | ||||||
| Physician | p=0.431 | p=0.641 | ||||||
a
Reference category.
b
The p-value is from a joint Wald test of the four coefficients for the indicated set of ratings.