Table 3.

Multilevel logistic regression models of association between eating arrangement and depressive symptom by age

Modela	Aged 60–74				Aged 75+
	OR	CI	Ph	Pi	OR	CI	Ph	Pi
Model Ab	1.17	(1.08,1.27)	<0.001	<0.0001	1.10	(0.95,1.27)	0.205	<0.0001
Model Bc	1.14	(1.05,1.24)	0.001	<0.0001	1.06	(0.91,1.22)	0.467	<0.0001
Model Cd	1.15	(1.06,1.26)	0.001	<0.0001	1.03	(0.89,1.19)	0.714	<0.0001
Model De	1.15	(1.05,1.25)	0.002	<0.0001	1.04	(0.89,1.20)	0.647	<0.0001
Model Ef	1.15	(1.05,1.25)	0.002	<0.0001	1.04	(0.89,1.20)	0.624	<0.0001
Model Fg	1.16	(1.06,1.26)	0.002	<0.0001	1.01	(0.86,1.18)	0.939	<0.0001

^aFor all the multilevel logistic regression models in this table, the variable of county/district was treated as the group variable in multilevel logistic regression

^bModel A was the basic model and only adjusted for gender

^cModel B was additionally adjusted for education, employment status and perception of economic status

^dModel C was additionally adjusted for marriage and having a child

^eModel D was additionally adjusted for smoking, drinking and physical activity

^fModel E was additionally adjusted for underlying conditions

^gModel F was finally adjusted for living alone

^hThe P value was obtained by the multilevel logistic regression for the association between eating arrangement and depressive symptom

ⁱThe P value was obtained by the likelihood ratio test comparing multilevel logistic regression model with logistic regression model for the association between eating arrangement and depressive symptom