Table 3.
Relative risk (95% CI) | Relative risk (95% CI) | |||||
Women | Men | P value | Non-CVD | CVD | P value | |
Model 1a | 1 [Reference] | 0.93 (0.80–1.07) | .28 | 1 [Reference] | 1.00 (0.86–1.16) | .95 |
Model 2b | 1 [Reference] | 0.91 (0.79–1.05) | .19 | 1 [Reference] | 0.99 (0.85–1.14) | .86 |
Model 3c | 1 [Reference] | 0.86 (0.72–1.02) | .09 | 1 [Reference] | 1.04 (0.88–1.24) | .63 |
Model 3 + random | 1 [Reference] | 0.85 (0.72–1.01) | .07 | 1 [Reference] | 1.05 (0.88–1.24) | .60 |
Model 3 + blinded | 1 [Reference] | 0.85 (0.72–1.00) | .05 | 1 [Reference] | 1.04 (0.88–1.23) | .63 |
Model 3 + side effects | 1 [Reference] | 0.85 (0.73–1.00) | .05 | 1 [Reference] | 1.11 (0.95–1.31) | .19 |
Model 3 + conflict of interest | 1 [Reference] | 0.85 (0.72–1.01) | .06 | 1 [Reference] | 1.02 (0.86–1.21) | .81 |
Model 3 + guinea pigsd | 1 [Reference] | 0.92 (0.78–1.09) | .31 | 1 [Reference] | 1.03 (0.87–1.22) | .73 |
Model 3 + talking to physician | 1 [Reference] | 0.93 (0.80–1.08) | .36 | 1 [Reference] | 1.05 (0.91–1.23) | .49 |
Model 3 + terminally illd | 1 [Reference] | 0.89 (0.75–1.06) | .18 | 1 [Reference] | 1.03 (0.87–1.22) | .73 |
Model 3 + experimental treatments | 1 [Reference] | 0.86 (0.72–1.02) | .08 | 1 [Reference] | 1.04 (0.88–1.25) | .63 |
Stratified characteristics, model 3 | ||||||
Non-CVD | CVD | P value‖ | ||||
Women | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] | .40 | |||
Men | 0.77 (0.57–1.04) | 0.96 (0.82–1.14) |
aModel 1 is adjusted for age
bModel 2 is adjusted for the variables in model 1 plus age, education, annual household income, marital status, race and current health status
cModel 3 is adjusted for the variables in model 2 plus CVD status for the primary sex effect estimates and sex for the primary CVD status estimates; model 3 is also adjusted for sex × CVD status interaction
dResponses of “Strongly Disagree” and “Disagree” were grouped together
‖P values for stratified models are for sex × CVD status interaction