Table 3.
Logistic regressions: association of household crowding with suicidal thoughts taking SES and sex into account.
| Predictors | Exp (B) | p | R2 change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1: Longitudinal, prediction by household overcrowding at T11 (people/room > 1; n = 194) | |||
| Household overcrowding | 0.74 | 0.43 | Nagelkerke R2: 0.04 |
| SES2 T1 | 0.97 | 0.15 | |
| Sex | 1.53 | 0.27 | |
| Model 2: Longitudinal, prediction by household crowding at T1 (continuous ratio of people/room; n = 194) | |||
| Household crowding | 0.51 | 0.17 | Nagelkerke R2: 0.05 |
| SES T1 | 0.97 | 0.10 | |
| Sex | 1.51 | 0.29 | |
| Model 3: Cross-sectional, prediction by household overcrowding at T23 (people/room > 1; n = 199) | |||
| Household overcrowding | 0.63 | 0.25 | Nagelkerke R2: 0.03 |
| SES T2 | 0.98 | 0.28 | |
| Sex | 1.36 | 0.43 | |
| Model 4: Cross-sectional, prediction by household crowding at T2 (continuous ratio of people/room; n = 199) | |||
| Household crowding | 0.60 | 0.31 | Nagelkerke R2: 0.02 |
| SES T2 | 0.98 | 0.26 | |
| Sex | 1.39 | 0.39 | |
| Model 5: Comparison of not having experienced household overcrowding at T1 or T2 to other situations (n = 191) | |||
| Overcrowded T1 vs never overcrowded4 | 0.71 | 0.50 | Nagelkerke R2: 0.05 |
| Overcrowding T2 vs never overcrowded | 0.57 | 0.43 | |
| Overcrowding T1 and T2 vs never overcrowded | 0.44 | 0.10 | |
| SES T1 | 0.97 | 0.94 | |
| Sex | 1.30 | 0.51 | |
1. Time 1 of the Nunavik Child Development Study data collection, between 2005 and 2010.
2. Socioeconomic status (Hollingshead, 1957).
3. Time 2 of the Nunavik Child Development Study data collection, between 2013 and 2016.
4. Never overcrowded stands for not overcrowded at T1 or T2.