Table 3.

Association of effort-reward imbalance with perceived poor quality of care (logistic regression; secondary analyses)^a

		Model Ib		Model IIc		Model IIId
		ORe	95 % CIf	OR	95 % CI	OR	95 % CI
Effort	Low	1	ref	1	ref	1	ref
	High	2.19	1.41, 3.41	2.31	1.42, 3.76	2.06	1.26, 3.39
	z-score	1.75	1.37, 2.22	1.83	1.40, 2.40	1.75	1.33, 2.31
Reward	Low	1	ref	1	ref	1	ref
	High	0.51	0.30,0.86	0.50	0.11,0.89	0.63	0.35,1.16
	z-score	0.65	0.51, 0.84	0.64	0.49, 0.84	0.71	0.53, 0.96
Effort-reward imbalance	Low	1	ref	1	ref	1	ref
	High	2.08	1.26,3.45	2.06	1.20,3.54	1.74	1.00,3.06
	z-score	1.87	1.43, 2.45	1.92	1.43, 2.57	1.79	1.32, 2.43
Overcommitment	Low	1	ref	1	ref	1	ref
	High	1.37	0.88,1.12	1.43	0.90,2.28	1.09	0.65,1.81
	z-score	1.32	1.06, 1.64	1.36	1.07, 1.72	1.18	0.91, 1.54

^aEffort, reward, overcommitment, and quality of care were dichotomized based on the top tertile of the respective score distribution and the ERI ratio based on its established cut-off (i.e., high = ERI score >1; low = ERI score ≤ 1.0)

^bUnadjusted

^cAdjusted for age, sex, working environment and leadership position

^dAdditional adjustment for depressive symptoms

^eOR = odds ratio

^fCI = confidence interval