Skip to main content
. 2015 Jan 22;25:14112. doi: 10.1038/npjpcrm.2014.112

Table 2. Factors associated with missing birth data from GP records received.

Number of GPs who responded a Missing birth data (%) Univariable models
Multivariable model
OR (95% CI) Pb OR (95% CI) Pb
Child’s age (per year) 1.20 (1.12; 1.30) <0.0001 1.14 (1.04; 1.26) 0.007
Sex
 Girls 634 61 Baseline
Baseline
 Boys 568 58 0.89 (0.71; 1.12) 0.33 1.12 (0.82; 1.53) 0.49
Ethnicity
 White 511 53 Baseline
Baseline
 Black African origin 284 75 2.61 (1.90; 3.59) <0.0001 1.55 (0.95; 2.53) 0.08
 South Asian 268 55 1.08 (0.80; 1.45) 0.63 0.50 (0.33; 0.77) 0.002
 Other 139 65 1.63 (1.10; 2.40) 0.01 1.60 (0.97; 2.64) 0.07
Born in UK
 Yes 1,037 56 Baseline
Baseline
 No 143 86 4.88 (3.00; 7.96) <0.0001 5.00 (2.59; 9.65) <0.0001
Dominant language in family
 English 600 50 Baseline
Baseline
 Other 226 72 2.58 (1.86; 3.59) <0.0001 1.71 (1.12; 2.62) 0.01
Family’s IMD domain c
 1st quintile (least deprived) 79 39 Baseline
Baseline
 2nd quintile 176 39 0.98 (0.57; 1.68) 0.93 1.10 (0.57; 2.10) 0.78
 3rd quintile 167 41 1.09 (0.63; 1.88) 0.76 0.86 (0.44; 1.67) 0.65
 4th quintile 342 68 3.31 (2.00; 5.49) <0.0001 2.51 (1.31; 4.80) 0.006
 5th quintile (most deprived) 436 73 4.17 (2.54; 6.87) <0.0001 2.17 (1.15; 4.12) 0.02
FAS c d
 High (5–6) 286 42 Baseline
Baseline
 Moderate (2–4) 757 64 2.43 (1.84; 3.20) <0.0001 1.59 (1.10; 2.30) 0.01
 Low (0–1) 83 78 5.00 (2.82; 8.86) <0.0001 2.86 (1.27; 6.43) 0.01

Abbreviations: FAS, family affluent score; GP, general practitioner; IMD, index of multiple deprivation; OR (95% CI), odds ratio (95% confidence interval).

a

GPs who responded could not provide any data on BW or GA for 720/1,202 (60%) children (see Figure 1).

b

P values derived through univariable or multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate the factors related with the likelihood of missing birth data. Multivariable model was adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, country of birth, language, family’s IMD domain and FAS.

c

Detailed information regarding the IMD distribution of income and GPs domain and the individual components for FAS is presented in Supplementary Table S1.

d

FAS was grouped in three categories owing to the small sample size in the lower scores.