Table 4.
Logistic regression analysis of factors influencing type 2 diabetes patients self-care practice attending diabetes clinic follow up at Debre Tabor General Hospital, Northwest, Ethiopia, 2018. (n = 385)
| Variables | Self-care practice status | COR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poor | Good | ||||
| Residence | Urban | 67 | 159 | 1 | |
| Rural | 75 | 84 | 0.47 (0.31, 0.72) | ||
| Educational status | Unable to read and write | 84 | 80 | 1 | |
| Able to read and write | 20 | 54 | 2.84 (1.56, 5.15) | ||
| Primary education | 12 | 24 | 2.10 (0.98, 4.48) | ||
| Secondary education | 13 | 29 | 2.34 (1.14, 4.82) | ||
| Higher education and above | 13 | 56 | 4.52 (2.30, 8.80) | ||
| Occupation | Government employ | 26 | 59 | 1 | |
| Merchant | 19 | 55 | 1.28 (0.64, 2.56) | ||
| Farmer | 68 | 69 | 0.45 (0.25, 0.79) | ||
| NGO worker | 8 | 28 | 1.54 (0.62, 3.84) | ||
| House wife | 21 | 32 | 0.68 (0.33, 1.34) | ||
| Having glucometer | No | 136 | 168 | 1 | 1 |
| Yes | 6 | 75 | 10.11 (4.28, 23.96) | 7.82 (3.24, 18.87) | |
| Getting DM education | No | 36 | 23 | 1 | 1 |
| Yes | 106 | 220 | 3.25 (1.83, 5.76) | 2.65 (1.44, 4.89) | |
| Glycemic control level | Poor control | 108 | 156 | 1 | |
| Good control | 34 | 87 | 1.77 (1.11, 2.82) | ||
| Social support | No | 110 | 119 | 1 | 1 |
| Yes | 32 | 124 | 3.58 (2.25, 5.71) | 2.72 (1.66, 4.47) | |
| DM related knowledge | Poor knowledge | 109 | 148 | 1 | |
| Good knowledge | 33 | 95 | 2.12 (1.33, 3.39) | ||
NB: COR and AOR written in boldface is significance at 95% CI
COR Crude Odds Ratio, AOR Adjusted Odds Ratio, CI Confidence Interva