Skip to main content
. 2013 Apr 10;23(1):61–70. doi: 10.1017/S2045796013000097

Table 4.

Two-part model of factors associated with (i) use of community-based day services and (ii) community-based day service use costs among those who used community-based day services

Logistic regression of community-based day services (n = 765 observations) GLM of community-based day service use costs (n = 281 observations)
Potentially associated factors Odds ratio (p-value) Coefficient (p-value)
Treatment…
…relative to no treatment
1.36 (0.202) −0.89 (0.010)
Time 1 (follow-up)…
…relative to Time 0 (baseline)
1.00 (0.984) −0.028 (0.924)
Non-adherent…
…relative to adherent
0.85 (0.433) −0.66 (0.059)
Intervention × non-adherence interaction 0.41 (0.075) 1.05 (0.091)
Age – in 5 year increments 1.04 (0.351) 0.13 (0.145)
Females…
…relative to males
1.04 (0.806) −0.70 (0.013)
Severity of illness (BPRS-E score) 1.01 (0.443) −0.0093 (0.483)
Lives alone…
…relative to lives with others
2.09 (0.001) 0.19 (0.530)
Amsterdam (The Netherlands)… 0.82 (0.424) 0.39 (0.327)
Leipzig (Germany)… 0.93 (0.781) 0.55 (0.396)
Verona (Italy)…
…relative to London (UK)
1.35 (0.230) −0.36 (0.348)
Education – further or tertiary…
…relative to primary, secondary or general
0.87 (0.429) 0.78 (0.013)
Not White European…
…relative to White European
1.18 (0.487) −0.042 (0.900)
Number of years on medication 1.02 (0.069) −0.019 (0.256)
Constant 8.15 (0.001)
Link function Log
Distributional family Gamma
Link test p-value 0.3144
Pearson's chi-squared test p-value 0.3273
Hosmer–Lemeshow chi-squared test
p-value
0.5392
Likelihood ratio chi-squared p-value 0.0001
Per cent correctly classified 61.23