Skip to main content
. 2018 Jul 30;2(1):e000266. doi: 10.1136/bmjpo-2018-000266

Table 2.

Poisson regression models predicting child general practice utilisation

Children with siblings (n=4519)
Model 1 Model 2
Rate ratio (95% CI) P values Rate ratio (95% CI) P values
Child characteristics
Child age band (vs 0–5)
 6–10 0.42 (0.40 to 0.44) <0.001 0.42 (0.40 to 0.44) <0.001
 11–15 0.39 (0.37 to 0.42) <0.001 0.39 (0.37 to 0.42) <0.001
Child female (vs male) 1.02 (0.97 to 1.07) 0.421 1.02 (0.97 to 1.07) 0.392
Child Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) quintile (vs 1)
 2 0.93 (0.82 to 1.06) 0.265 0.98 (0.87 to 1.11) 0.773
 3 0.97 (0.86 to 1.11) 0.676 1.02 (0.90 to 1.15) 0.753
 4 0.99 (0.87 to 1.12) 0.862 1.03 (0.91 to 1.16) 0.648
 5 0.95 (0.83 to 1.07) 0.390 1.00 (0.88 to 1.12) 0.944
Child long-term condition (vs not) 1.96 (1.80 to 2.14) <0.001 1.91 (1.75 to 2.09) <0.001
Parent characteristics
Parent with asthma (vs not) – – 1.05 (0.92 to 1.19) 0.500
Parent with depression (vs not) – – 1.08 (0.97 to 1.19) 0.162
Parent with diabetes (vs not) – – 0.91 (0.77 to 1.07) 0.234
Parent with epilepsy (vs not) – – 1.08 (0.74 to 1.56) 0.701
Parent with hypertension (vs not) – – 0.93 (0.83 to 1.05) 0.230
Parent with a mental health condition (vs not) – – 0.99 (0.74 to 1.34) 0.964
Parent with osteoarthritis (vs not) – – 1.24 (1.01 to 1.52) 0.036
Parent general practice appointments – – 1.07 (1.06 to 1.08) <0.001

Models first control for just child characteristics (model 1), and then both child and parent characteristics (model 2).