Table 3.
Association between primary care characteristics and health screening participation in low socioeconomic status and higher socioeconomic status neighborhoods
| Rental flat (low- SES) population, hypertension screening (N = 575) | Non-rental flat (higher-SES) population, hypertension screening (N = 614) | ||||||||||
| Hypertension screening | Going for regular screening, N (%) | OR (95 % CI) | p-value | aORa (95 % CI) | p-value | Hypertension screening | Going for regular screening, N (%) | OR (95 % CI) | p-value | aORa (95 % CI) | p-value |
| Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 45.1 (125/277) | 1.00 | 0.737 | 1.00 | 0.949 | Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 57.9 (310/535) | 1.00 | 0.181 | 1.00 | 0.503 |
| On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 43.6 (130/298) | 0.94 (0.68–1.31) | 0.99 (0.66–1.47) | On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 49.4 (39/79) | 0.71 (0.44–1.14) | 0.76 (0.33–1.71) | ||||
| Not in proximity to primary care | 53.3 (16/30) | 1.00 | 0.348 | 1.00 | 0.465 | Not in proximity to primary care | 60.3 (167/277) | 1.00 | 0.121 | 1.00 | 0.258 |
| In proximity to primary care | 43.9 (239/545) | 0.68 (0.33–1.43) | 0.73 (0.32–1.70) | In proximity to primary care | 54.0 (182/337) | 0.77 (0.56–1.07) | 0.80 (0.55–1.18) | ||||
| Not on regular primary care followup | 39.5 (107/271) | 1.00 | 0.029 | 1.00 | 0.172 | Not on regular primary care followup | 40.6 (26/64) | 1.00 | 0.007 | 1.00 | 0.007 |
| On regular primary care followup | 48.7 (148/304) | 1.45 (1.04–2.03) | 1.29 (0.90–1.85) | On regular primary care followup | 58.7 (323/550) | 2.08 (1.23–3.52) | 9.34 (1.82–47.85) | ||||
| Rental flat (low- SES) population, diabetes screening (N = 744) | Non-rental flat (higher-SES) population, diabetes screening (N = 887) | ||||||||||
| Diabetes screening | Going for regular screening, N (%) | OR (95 % CI) | p-value | aORb (95 % CI) | p-value | Diabetes screening | Going for regular screening, N (%) | OR (95 % CI) | p-value | aORb (95 % CI) | p-value |
| Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 49.9 (183/367) | 1.00 | 0.005 | 1.00 | 0.080 | Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 57.4 (413/720) | 1.00 | 0.015 | 1.00 | 0.042 |
| On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 39.5 (149/377) | 0.66 (0.49–0.88) | 0.74 (0.53–1.04) | On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 67.7 (113/167) | 1.56 (1.09–2.22) | 2.94 (1.04–8.31) | ||||
| Not in proximity to primary care | 41.5 (17/41) | 1.00 | 0.748 | 1.00 | 0.083 | Not in proximity to primary care | 54.4 (193/355) | 1.00 | 0.015 | 1.00 | 0.558 |
| In proximity to primary care | 44.8 (315/703) | 1.15 (0.61–2.17) | 1.87 (092–3.78) | In proximity to primary care | 62.6 (333/532) | 1.41 (1.07–1.85) | 1.10 (0.79–1.54) | ||||
| Not on regular primary care followup | 37.6 (130/346) | 1.00 | <0.001 | 1.00 | 0.009 | Not on regular primary care followup | 66.0 (95/144) | 1.00 | 0.079 | 1.00 | 0.079 |
| On regular primary care followup | 50.8 (202/398) | 1.71 (1.28–2.30) | 1.59 (1.12–2.26) | On regular primary care followup | 58.0 (431/743) | 0.71 (0.49–1.04) | 0.37 (0.12–1.12) | ||||
| Rental flat (low- SES) population, hyperlipidemia screening (N = 640) | Non-rental flat (higher-SES) population, hyperlipidemia screening (N = 643) | ||||||||||
| Hyperlipidemia screening | Going for regular screening, N (%) | OR (95 % CI) | p-value | aOR (95 % CI)c | p-value | Hyperlipidemia screening | Going for regular screening, N (%) | OR (95 % CI) | p-value | aORc (95 % CI) | p-value |
| Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 37.6 (115/306) | 1.00 | 0.213 | 1.00 | 0.931 | Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 46.9 (238/507) | 1.00 | 0.053 | 1.00 | 0.691 |
| On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 32.6 (109/334) | 0.81 (0.59–1.11) | 0.98 (0.67–1.45) | On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 56.6 (77/136) | 1.48 (1.01–2.16) | 1.22 (0.45–3.30) | ||||
| Not in proximity to primary care | 41.4 (12/29) | 1.00 | 0.550 | 1.00 | 0.770 | Not in proximity to primary care | 44.6 (108/242) | 1.00 | 0.088 | 1.00 | 0.825 |
| In proximity to primary care | 34.7 (212/611) | 0.75 (0.35–1.61) | 0.88 (0.39–2.01) | In proximity to primary care | 51.6 (207/401) | 1.32 (0.96–1.82) | 1.04 (0.71–1.52) | ||||
| Not on regular primary care followup | 28.2 (91/323) | 1.00 | <0.001 | 1.00 | 0.023 | Not on regular primary care followup | 56.8 (67/118) | 1.00 | 0.067 | 1.00 | 0.569 |
| On regular primary care followup | 42.0 (133/317) | 1.84 (1.33–2.56) | 1.82 (1.10–3.04) | On regular primary care followup | 47.2 (248/525) | 0.68 (0.46–1.02) | 0.68 (0.19–2.53) | ||||
| Rental population (low- SES), colorectal cancer screening (N = 722) | Non-rental flat (higher-SES) population, colorectal cancer screening (N = 866) | ||||||||||
| FOBT screening |
Going for regular screening, N (%) | OR (95 % CI) | p-value | aOR (95 % CI)d | p-value | FOBT screening | Going for regular screening, N (%) | OR (95 % CI) | p-value | aOR (95 % CI)d | p-value |
| Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 8.7 (30/346) | 1.00 | 0.788 | 1.00 | 0.810 | Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 18.9 (129/682) | 1.00 | 0.016 | 1.00 | 0.348 |
| On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 8.0 (30/376) | 0.91 (0.54–1.55) | 0.93 (0.49–1.74) | On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 11.4 (21/184) | 0.55 (0.34–0.90) | 0.55 (0.15–1.94) | ||||
| Not in proximity to primary care | 18.2 (8/44) | 1.00 | 0.023 | 1.00 | 0.049 | Not in proximity to primary care | 15.9 (56/352) | 1.00 | 0.411 | 1.00 | 0.049 |
| In proximity to primary care | 7.7 (52/678) | 0.37 (0.17–0.85) | 0.42 (0.17–0.99) | In proximity to primary care | 18.3 (94/514) | 1.18 (0.82–1.70) | 1.48 (1.01–2.21) | ||||
| Not on regular primary care followup | 7.1 (24/337) | 1.00 | 0.344 | 1.00 | 0.450 | Not on regular primary care followup | 11.1 (18/162) | 1.00 | 0.021 | 1.00 | 0.847 |
| On regular primary care followup | 9.4 (36/385) | 1.35 (0.79–2.31) | 1.28 (0.67–2.45) | On regular primary care followup | 18.8 (132/704) | 1.85 (1.09–3.12) | 1.14 (0.29–4.54) | ||||
| Rental population (low- SES), cervical cancer screening (N = 334) | Non-rental flat (higher-SES) population, cervical cancer screening (N = 421) | ||||||||||
| Pap smear screening | Going for regular screening (N %) | OR (95 % CI) | p-value | aORe (95 % CI) | p-value | Pap smear screening | Going for regular screening (N %) | OR (95 % CI) | p-value | aORe (95 % CI) | p-value |
| Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 16.3 (24/147) | 1.00 | 0.566 | 1.00 | 0.372 | Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 26.0 (81/312) | 1.00 | 0.001 | 1.00 | 0.047 |
| On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 19.3 (36/187) | 1.22 (0.69–2.16) | 2.69 (0.68–2.78) | On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 43.1 (47/109) | 2.16 (1.37–3.41) | 7.93 (1.03–62.51) | ||||
| Not in proximity to primary care | 14.3 (2/14) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.795 | Not in proximity to primary care | 14.7 (21/143) | 1.00 | <0.001 | 1.00 | <0.001 |
| In proximity to primary care | 18.1 (58/320) | 1.33 (0.29–6.10) | 1.24 (0.25–6.29) | In proximity to primary care | 38.5 (107/278) | 3.64 (2.16–6.13) | 3.22 (1.72–5.84) | ||||
| Not on regular primary care followup | 14.6 (23/157) | 1.00 | 0.154 | 1.00 | 0.394 | Not on regular primary care followup | 42.3 (44/84) | 1.00 | 0.003 | 1.00 | 0.750 |
| On regular primary care followup | 20.9 (37/177) | 1.54 (0.87–2.73) | 1.49 (0.86–3.77) | On regular primary care followup | 26.5 (84/317) | 0.49 (0.31–0.78) | 0.65 (0.04–9.52) | ||||
| Rental population (low- SES), breast cancer screening (N = 517) | Non-rental flat (higher-SES) population, breast cancer screening (N = 609) | ||||||||||
| Mammogram screening | Going for regular screening (N %) | OR (95 % CI) | p-value | aORe (95 % CI) | p-value | Mammogram screening | Going for regular screening (N %) | OR (95 % CI) | p-value | aORe (95 % CI) | p-value |
| Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 10.2 (24/236) | 1.00 | 0.053 | 1.00 | 0.009 | Not on subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 9.8 (46/469) | 1.00 | 0.001 | 1.00 | 0.006 |
| On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 16.0 (45/281) | 1.68 (0.99–2.86) | 2.33 (1.23–4.41) | On subsidized primary care (CHAS scheme) | 21.4 (30/140) | 2.51 (1.51–4.16) | 6.02 (1.69–21.28) | ||||
| Not in proximity to primary care | 25.0 (6/24) | 1.00 | 0.115 | 1.00 | 0.023 | Not in proximity to primary care | 6.6 (16/244) | 1.00 | <0.001 | 1.00 | 0.032 |
| In proximity to primary care | 12.8 (63/493) | 0.44 (0.17–1.15) | 0.29 (0.10–0.84) | In proximity to primary care | 16.4 (60/365) | 2.80 (1.57–4.99) | 2.22 (1.08–4.54) | ||||
| Not on regular primary care followup | 12.1 (31/257) | 1.00 | 0.439 | 1.00 | 0.855 | Not on regular primary care followup | 19.7 (25/127) | 1.00 | 0.010 | 1.00 | 0.025 |
| On regular primary care followup | 14.6 (38/260) | 1.25 (0.75–2.08) | 1.08 (0.48–2.42) | On regular primary care followup | 10.6 (51/482) | 0.48 (0.29–0.82) | 0.10 (0.01–0.75) | ||||
aControlling for maturity of housing estate, ethnicity, marital status, gender, financial aid, education level, and comorbidities, diabetes and hyperlipidemia in multivariate clustered logistic regression model
bControlling for maturity of housing estate, age, gender, education level, hypertension and hyperlipidemia in multivariate clustered logistic regression model
cControlling for age, marital status, employment, household income, financial aid, comorbidities, and hypertension in multivariate clustered logistic regression model
dControlling for ethnicity, marital status, employment, education level, and comorbidities in multivariate clustered logistic regression model
eControlling for maturity of housing estate, age, ethnicity, marital status, employment, household income, financial aid, education level, and comorbidities in multivariate clustered logistic regression model