Table 4.
Summary of the predicting factors identified by logistic regression analysis for reasons for attachment to community (n=387)a
| Community | H1 Historical attachment | H4 Social integration | Community | H2Historical attachment | H3Social support | H5Appropriateness of the environment | H6Aesthetic qualities | Community | H7Relocation constraints | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | |||
| Native community | 1.84 (1.16–2.93)* | 1.71 (1.05–2.76)* | 1.78 (1.12–2.84)* | 1.81 (1.11–2.96)* | Retirement community | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | 2.41 (1.13–5.16)* | 2.68 (1.18–6.05)* | 2.21 (1.07–4.56)* | n.s. | Deprived community | n.s. | n.s. |
| Age | 0.95 (0.91–0.99)* | Marital status | * | |||||||||||||
| -2LLR | 473.84 | 463.003 | 466.593 | 447.416 | -2LLR | 480.75 | 467.79 | 305.22 | 292.39 | 206.185 | 196.609 | 225.956 | 207.396 | Married | 1.00 | |
| DF | 1 | 14 | 1 | 14 | DF | 1 | 14 | 1 | 14 | 1 | 14 | 1 | 14 | Never married | n.s. | |
| p | 0.008 | 0.22 | 0.022 | 0.032 | p | 0.793 | 0.524 | 0.653 | 0.524 | 0.027 | 0.418 | 0.037 | 0.062 | Widowed | n.s. | |
| Divorced/separated | 8.01 (1.6–39.96)** | |||||||||||||||
| -2LLR | 156.74 | 135.39 | ||||||||||||||
| DF | 1 | 14 | ||||||||||||||
| p | 0.397 | 0.077 | ||||||||||||||
aStatistical significance of variables in the model: n.s., not significant; *, p<0.05; **, p<0.005. Numbers shown represent odds ratio (95% CI), adjusted for the other variables in model 2 (of which only the statistically significant variables are displayed here)