Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Pediatrics. 2017 Feb 3;139(3):e20162748. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-2748

Table 2.

Associations Between Socio-Demographic Factors and Diagnosis of Vitamin D Deficiency (n=414 182)a

Single-level Model
Multilevel Model
Characteristic Adjusted IRRb (95% CI) P valuec Adjusted IRRb (95% CI) P valuec
Sex, stratified by age group <0.001 <0.001
   0-4 years: Male 1 1
Female 0.73 (0.57-0.93) 0.72 (0.57-0.92)
   5-9 years: Male 1 1
Female 1.06 (0.87-1.29) 1.04 (0.86-1.27)
   10-14 years: Male 1 1
Female 1.97 (1.71- 2.27) 1.97 (1.71-2.27)
   15-17 years: Male 1 1
Female 2.60 (2.18-3.11) 2.65 (2.21-3.16)

Age group, stratified by sex <0.001 <0.001
   Males 0-4 years 1 1
5-9 years 1.22 (0.99-1.50) 1.20 (0.98-1.48)
10-14 years 2.22 (1.83-2.70) 2.19 (1.80-2.65)
15-17 years 2.39 (1.93-2.96) 2.36 (1.90-2.93)
   Females: 0-4 years 1 1
5-9 years 1.77 (1.41-2.23) 1.73 (1.37-2.18)
10-14 years 6.00 (4.91-7.34) 5.95 (4.86-7.27)
15-17 years 8.52 (6.93-10.5) 8.61 (7.00-10.6)

Ethnicityd <0.001 <0.001
   White 1 1
   Asian or Asian British 22.4 (20.1-24.9) 7.98 (6.98-9.13)
   Black or black British 14.2 (12.5-16.2) 5.47 (4.70-6.37)
   Mixed 5.64 (4.52-7.03) 2.99 (2.38-3.76)
   Chinese or other ethnic group 8.91 (7.38-10.8) 3.63 (2.96-4.45)

IMD quintile <0.001 <0.001
   1 (least deprived) 1 1
   2 1.98 (1.63-2.41) 1.34 (1.07-1.67)
   3 2.40 (2.00-2.88) 1.41 (1.12-1.77)
   4 2.67 (2.23-3.20) 1.63 (1.29-2.05)
   5 (most deprived) 3.54 (2.96-4.24) 1.96 (1.52-2.53)

Calendar year <0.001 <0.001
   2008 1 1
   2009 2.20 (1.45-3.35) 2.19 (1.44-3.34)
   2010 3.87 (2.62-5.71) 3.66 (2.48-5.40)
   2011 6.61 (4.55-9.60) 6.28 (4.32-9.12)
   2012 12.7 (8.83-18.2) 12.1 (8.43-17.4)
   2013 14.7 (10.2-21.1) 14.1 (9.85-20.3)
   2014 14.7 (10.2-21.2) 15.7 (10.9-22.6)

CI, confidence interval; IMD, Index of Multiple Deprivation; IRR, incidence rate ratio.

a

Results of multivariable Poisson regression models of rates of incident diagnosis of vitamin D deficiency. Missing data is handled using complete cases analysis.

b

Adjusted for all variables listed in the table, including an interaction term between age and sex (likelihood ratio test for interaction p value<0.001). The multilevel model additionally included the general practice as a random effect.

c

P values from likelihood ratio tests comparing nested models.

d

Ethnicity data was taken from the child’s THIN or HES record for 84.6% of children. Maternal ethnicity was used as a proxy measure for the remaining 15.4%.