Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jan 2.
Published in final edited form as: J Psychosoc Oncol. 2015 Jan 2;33(1):48–65. doi: 10.1080/07347332.2014.977419

Table 4.

Logistic Regressions for Lifestyle Choices Controlling for Family History (FH) of Cancer

B SE Wald χ2 (1) OR 95% CI p
Main Effects1
    Race .25 .22 1.39 1.29 [.85, 1.96] .24
    Age −.12 .23 .28 0.89 [.57, 1.38] .60
    Education −.08 .22 .13 0.93 [.61, 1.41] .72
    Health Insurance
        Commercial Insurance −.23 .21 1.14 0.80 [.52, 1.21] .29
        Managed Care .29 .20 2.08 1.33 [.90, 1.96] .15
        No Insurance −.11 .21 .26 0.90 [.60, 1.35] .61
Moderation
    Race × FH .51 .56 .82 .60 [.20, 1.81] .37
    Age × FH −1.46 .72 4.15 .23 [.06, .95] .04
    Education × FH .41 .50 .69 1.51 [.57, 3.98] .41
    Commercial Insurance × FH −.40 .53 .56 .67 [.24, 1.90] .46
    Managed Care × FH −.38 .44 .77 .68 [.29, 1.60] .38
    No Insurance × FH .89 .48 3.44 2.43 [.95, 6.19] .06

Note.

1

Socio-demographic variables were entered alongside the dichotomous family history variable in the first step of the logistic regression in order to calculate main effects.

2

To examine moderating effects, an interaction term between each socio-demographic variable and family history of cancer was calculated and entered in the second step of the logistic regression.