Table III.
Assessment for interactions using multinomial logistic regressionb
| Age | Biological Sex | Race | Ethnicity | Sexual Orientation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate vs No enacted stigma | OR (CI), p | OR (CI), p | OR (CI), p | OR (CI), p | OR (CI), p |
| Age | -- | ||||
| Biological Sex | 0.94(0.48,1.87) p=0.865 | -- | |||
| Race | 1.34(0.67,2.67) p=0.409 | 0.69(0.33,1.43) p=0.315 | -- | ||
| Ethnicity | 1.59(0.72,3.51) p=0.252 | 1.19(0.49,2.88) p=0.705 | 2.20(1.02,4.74) p=0.046 | -- | |
| Sexual Orientation | 0.93(0.48, 1.79) p=0.825 | 0.66(0.26,1.66) p=0.377 | 1.47(0.77,2.83) p=0.246 | 0.50(0.23,1.06) p=0.072 | -- |
| High vs No enacted stigma | OR (CI), p | OR (CI), p | OR (CI), p | OR (CI), p | OR (CI), p |
| Age | -- | ||||
| Biological Sex | 1.30(0.51,3.32) p=0.584 | -- | |||
| Race | 0.97(0.37,2.59) p=0.958 | 0.59(0.23,1.55) p=0.288 | -- | ||
| Ethnicity | 1.77(0.60,5.18) p=0.300 | 1.75(0.60,5.14) p=0.309 | 7.68(2.68,22.01) p<0.001 | -- | |
| Sexual Orientation | 0.56(0.22,1.42) p=0.223 | 1.08(0.35,3.30) p=0.898 | 1.50(0.60,3.74) p=0.385 | 0.75(0.27,2.09) p=0.577 | -- |
a.
Bold values indicate p<0.05
b.
Equation used, where significance of interaction term is shown: logit(P(Y = 1)) = β0 + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X1X2