Skip to main content
. 2014 Nov 18;14:306. doi: 10.1186/s12888-014-0306-8

Table 3.

Ordinal regression analysis of the relation between outcome in QoL and outcome in individual unmet needs

Parameter estimates - QoL groups *
E (beta) ** E (Std. Error) Sig. 95% confidence interval
Lower bound Upper bound
E (beta) E (beta)
Thresholds Qol 1: very poor 4.043 2.553 .136 0.644 25.383
Qol 2: fair to poor 25.504 2.602 .001 3.914 166.174
Qol 3: good 85.153 2.646 .000 12.649 573.268
Qol 4: very good - - - -
CANSAS* 1. accommodation 1.278 1.128 .042 1.009 1.618
4. self-care 1.292 1.211 .182 0.887 1.88
5. daytime activities 1.216 1.107 .054 0.997 1.483
7. psychotic symptoms 1.217 1.183 .243 0.875 1.693
14. Company 1.151 1.101 .144 0.953 1.39

*Pseudo R-Square (Nagelkerke) = .075; Goodness-of-Fit Pearson Chi-Square = 288.828. df = 265. p = .151.

CANSAS items 10 and 21 were excluded form the modeling process.

**The parameter estimates represent the ratio of the odds for very poor to very good QoL outcome (range 1–4) and for very poor to very good outcome on individual CANSAS items (range 1–4).

A ratio above 1.0 means that better outcome on CANSAS items increases the odds of better QoL over time.