Table 3.

Regression modelling for cervical screening coverage among women aged 50–64 years

Model	Univariate			Population		General practice		Population and general practice
Deviance explained	–			44.6%		26.7%		45.3%
	OR (95% CI)	p Value (Wald, χ2)	Deviance explained, %	OR (95% CI)	p Value (Wald, χ2)	OR (95% CI)	p Value (Wald, χ2)	OR (95% CI)	p Value (Wald, χ2)
Population factors
Urbanisation, %	0.997 (0.996 to 0.998)	<0.001	25.5	0.999 (0.998 to 0.999)	0.004	–		0.999 (0.998 to 0.999)	0.02
London SHA (Q36)	0.886 (0.837 to 0.937)	<0.001	10.6	0.940 (0.875 to 1.010)	NS (0.09)	–		–
Deprivation, %	0.987 (0.984 to 0.990)	<0.001	31.1	0.989 (0.985 to 0.992)	<0.001	–		0.990 (0.985 to 0.994)	<0.001
Asian, black or mixed ethnicity, %	0.997 (0.996 to 0.998)	<0.001	9.9	1.005 (1.003 to 1.007)	<0.001	–		1.004 (1.002 to 1.006)	<0.001
‘Other’ ethnicity, %	0.959 (0.947 to 0.972)	<0.001	19.6	0.970 (0.952 to 0.988)	0.001	–		0.963 (0.946 to 0.980)	<0.001
No higher education, %	0.997 (0.993 to 1.002)	NS (0.3)	0.9	–		–		–
General practice factors
Average practice list size	1.00 004 (1.00 003 to 1.00 006)	<0.001	20.2	–		1.000 025 (1.000 003 to 1.000 047)	0.02	0.999 996 (0.999 979 to 1.000 012)	0.6
Single-handed practices, %	0.995 (0.993 to 0.997)	<0.001	13.1	–		0.999 (0.995 to 1.002)	NS (0.4)	–
Practitioner headcount per 105 population	0.998 (0.996 to 1.001)	NS (0.2)	1.2	–		–		–
Practice staff FTE	1.00 015 (1.00 010 to 1.00 020)	<0.001	19.5	–		1.00 010 (1.00 005 to 1.00 016)	<0.001	1.000 058 (1.000 007 to 1.000 109)	0.03
Practitioners qualified outside UK, %	0.997 (0.996 to 0.999)	<0.001	7.8	–		1.001 (0.998 to 1.002)	NS (0.5)	–

FTE, full-time equivalent; NS, considered non-significant (see Methods section for details); SHA, strategic health authority.