TABLE 3.
Relation between the prevalence of Parkinson’s disease in 2007 and the density of farming types in five French districts: univariate and multivariable models
| Farming type | Univariate modelsa
|
Fixed-effects multivariable modelb
|
Semi-Bayes multivariable modelc
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI)d, 4+5 vs 1+2+3 quintiles | Pe | OR (95% CI)d, 4+5 vs 1+2+3 quintiles | Pe | OR (95% CI)d, 4+5 vs 1+2+3 quintiles | Pe | |
| Cattle-dairying, rearing, and fattening combined | 0.99 (0.86–1.13) | 0.096 | 0.98 (0.82–1.17) | 0.221 | 0.98 (0.84–1.14) | 0.170 |
| Field crops-grazing livestock combined | 0.98 (0.88–1.10) | 0.656 | 0.92 (0.80–1.06) | 0.765 | 0.92 (0.82–1.05) | 0.740 |
| General field cropping | 1.09 (0.95–1.24) | 0.416 | 1.06 (0.89–1.28) | 0.337 | 1.06 (0.90–1.25) | 0.282 |
| Mixed cropping | 1.08 (0.92–1.27) | 0.088 | 1.05 (0.85–1.29) | 0.556 | 1.05 (0.87–1.26) | 0.508 |
| Mixed livestock— mainly granivores | 0.97 (0.84–1.14) | 0.813 | 0.91 (0.77–1.07) | 0.839 | 0.91 (0.79–1.05) | 0.818 |
| Mixed livestock— mainly grazing livestock | 1.04 (0.93–1.17) | 0.808 | 1.03 (0.88–1.21) | 0.998 | 1.03 (0.90–1.19) | 0.998 |
| Sheep-goats and other grazing livestock | 1.03 (0.89–1.20) | 0.545 | 1.02 (0.83–1.26) | 0.414 | 1.02 (0.85–1.23) | 0.359 |
| Specialist cattle-rearing and fattening | 0.97 (0.84–1.14) | 0.796 | 0.99 (0.80–1.21) | 0.927 | 0.99 (0.82–1.18) | 0.919 |
| Specialist cereals—oilseed and protein crops | 1.08 (0.96–1.22) | 0.389 | 0.99 (0.84–1.16) | 0.457 | 0.99 (0.86–1.14) | 0.407 |
| Specialist dairying | 1.06 (0.93–1.20) | 0.251 | 1.09 (0.92–1.30) | 0.913 | 1.09 (0.93–1.27) | 0.895 |
| Specialist fruits and permanent crops | 1.18 (1.06–1.32) | 0.008 | 1.22 (1.07–1.39) | 0.062 | 1.21 (1.08–1.36) | 0.035 |
| Specialist granivores | 1.09 (0.97–1.23) | 0.245 | 1.09 (0.95–1.24) | 0.296 | 1.09 (0.97–1.22) | 0.239 |
| Specialist horticulture | 1.04 (0.94–1.16) | 0.391 | 1.08 (0.94–1.23) | 0.171 | 1.08 (0.96–1.21) | 0.124 |
| Specialist market garden vegetables | 0.96 (0.86–1.08) | 0.506 | 0.89 (0.77–1.03) | 0.069 | 0.89 (0.78–1.02) | 0.041 |
| Specialist vineyards | 1.09 (0.94–1.25) | 0.570 | 0.94 (0.78–1.12) | 0.718 | 0.94 (0.80–1.10) | 0.686 |
| Various crops and livestock combined | 1.04 (0.91–1.18) | 0.203 | 0.93 (0.80–1.09) | 0.562 | 0.93 (0.81–1.07) | 0.512 |
Logistic regression model built for each farming type separately; adjusted for sex, age (linear and quadratic terms), district, and median household income.
Logistic regression model including all farming types in the same model; adjusted for sex, age (linear and quadratic terms), district, and median household income.
Semi-Bayes logistic regression model adjusted for sex, age (linear and quadratic terms), district, and median household income, with all farming types in the same model and assumed to be exchangeable with a prior variance of 0.345.
OR for the effect of the two highest quintiles of the density of farming types compared to the three lowest quintiles.
Test for trend across the five quintiles.
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.