Table 5. Logistic Regression for Fair Distribution Among Social Groups in Local Health Promotion Initiatives .
| Factors | Fair Distribution Among Social Groups in Local Health Promotion Initiatives | ||
|
Bivariate
OR (95% CI) |
Multivariate, Model A
OR (95% CI), n = 155 |
Multivariate, Model B
OR (95 % CI), n = 155 |
|
| Municipal changes in use of HiAP tools | |||
| PHC | |||
| Removed after enactment/never had | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Had both before and after enactment | 1.41 (0.59-3.34) | 1.14 (0.39-3.28) | 0.75 (0.22-2.58) |
| Acquired after enactment | 0.51 (0.18-1.43) | 0.41 (0.12-1.41) | 0.22 (0.05-0.90) |
| Development of health overview | |||
| Removed after enactment/never had | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Had both before and after enactment | 2.42 (0.64-9.15) | 2.31 (0.60-8.91) | 1.37 (0.31-6.04) |
| Acquired after enactment | 2.39 (1.10-5.21)a | 2.65 (1.18-5.93)a | 2.18 (0.90-5.28) |
| Local HiAP factors | |||
| Strengthen competence base for health promotion | 2.51 (1.42-4.45)a | 2.95 (1.30-6.72)a | |
| Increased collaboration with voluntary organizations | 1.81 (1.07-3.04)a | 1.11 (0.50-2.49) | |
| Collaboration with external actors | 1.80 (1.04-3.14)a | 2.98 (1.28-6.94)a | |
| Cross-sectorial working groups at strategic level | 1.43 (0.85-2.42) | 1.38 (0.63-2.98) | |
| Municipal background variables | |||
| Size | 1.25 (1.01-1.54)a | 1.51 (1.03-2.22)a | |
| Centrality | 1.10 (0.90-1.35) | 0.85 (0.57-1.24) | |
Abbreviations: HiAP, Health in All Policies Factors; PHC, public health coordinator; OR, odds ratio.
Notes: All analyses were weighted with a combing weight of size and centrality.
a Significant associations.