Table 4.
Multivariate analyses: underuse of carea
| General underuse (Modelling ‘yes, major problem) | Personal experiences with underuse (Modelling ‘yes’) | Cost-related underuse (Modelling ‘yes’) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N | 968 | 978 | 955 |
| Race/Ethnicity | |||
| Non-Hispanic White (REF) | |||
| Non-Hispanic Black | 3.07 (1.72, 5.45) | 1.16 (0.63, 2.11) | 1.72 (0.89, 3.29) |
| Hispanic | 2.12 (1.24, 3.61) | 0.61 (0.33, 1.13) | 0.97 (0.47, 2.02) |
| Non-Hispanic other | 0.43 (0.23, 0.80) | 1.17 (0.52, 2.63) | 0.49 (0.15, 1.59) |
| Gender | |||
| Male (REF) | |||
| Female | 1.46 (1.09, 1.95) | 1.99 (1.30, 3.05) | 1.10 (0.68, 1.79) |
| Age | |||
| 18–29 (REF) | |||
| 30–49 | 0.72 (0.47, 1.09) | 0.74 (0.45, 1.21) | 1.98 (0.99, 3.98) |
| 50–64 | 0.78 (0.49, 1.24) | 0.43 (0.24, 0.79) | 1.56 (0.72, 3.38) |
| 65+ | 0.53 (0.31, 0.88) | 0.09 (0.03, 0.26) | 0.67 (0.23, 1.92) |
| Education | |||
| Attended high school REF) | |||
| Graduated high school | 1.49 (0.90, 2.47) | 0.37 (0.20, 0.70) | 1.49 (0.67, 3.29) |
| Attended college | 1.87 (1.08, 3.22) | 1.09 (0.58, 2.04) | 3.16 (1.38, 7.21) |
| Graduated college | 1.56 (0.90, 2.71) | 0.77 (0.38, 1.57) | 2.32 (0.94, 5.74) |
| Family incomeb | |||
| <$50k (REF) | |||
| $50,000+ | 0.73 (0.51, 1.04) | 0.50 (0.30, 0.82) | 0.61 (0.34, 1.10) |
| Self-reported health status | |||
| Fair/Poor (REF) | |||
| Excellent | 0.47 (0.29, 0.78) | 0.16 (0.07, 0.35) | 0.17 (0.06, 0.45) |
| Very good | 0.85 (0.55, 1.31) | 0.30 (0.17, 0.52) | 0.29 (0.15, 0.55) |
| Good | 0.93 (0.60, 1.44) | 0.37 (0.21, 0.64) | 0.37 (0.20, 0.70) |
| Insurance status | |||
| Uninsured (REF) | |||
| Insured | 0.62 (0.38, 1.03) | 0.87 (0.51, 1.47) | 0.52 (0.28, 0.97) |
Reference groups: NH-White, Male, Age: 18–29, Education: attended high school, Family Income: <$50k, Self-Report Health Status: Fair/Good
aLogistic regressions models controlled for sample weights; all models included adjusted for all covariates
bTotal family income from all sources before taxes in 2008