Table A2.
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
HR (95%CI) | HR (95%CI) | HR (95%CI) | HR (95%CI) | HR (95%CI) | |
Relative poverty | |||||
Non-poverty | ref. | ref. | ref. | ||
Poverty | 1.24 † (1.00–1.53) | 1.25 * (1.00–1.56) | 1.24 † (0.99–1.54) | 1.23 † (0.99–1.54) | |
Relative deprivation c | |||||
Non-deprivation | ref. | ref. | ref. | ||
1+ | 1.21 (0.94–1.57) | ||||
1 | 1.09 (0.81–1.47) | 1.09 (0.81–1.47) | |||
2+ | 1.67 * (1.10–2.53) | ||||
2 | 1.68 † (0.97–2.93) | ||||
3+ | 1.64 † (0.92–2.96) | ||||
Combination d | |||||
No dep. & pov. | ref. | ||||
Poverty only | 1.28 * (1.03–1.60) | ||||
Deprivation only | 1.98 † (1.00–3.97) | ||||
Pov. & dep. | 2.07 ** (1.26–3.39) |
** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, † p < 0.10. HR: hazard ratio; 95%CI: 95% confidence interval. a Missing values in control variables were included as a dummy variable. b Sex, age, years of education, marital status, disease and/or impairment, self-recognition of forgetfulness, depressive symptoms were controlled. c This index was assessed by counting the number of items. d Relative deprivation in combination variable was defined as respondents who fell under two and over deprivation index.