TABLE 3.
The association between UO, UP, and the individuals' characteristics in the main analysis
| (1) “Lower than others” (n = 200) | (2) “Higher than others” (n = 54) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted odds ratio[95% CI] | P‐value | Unadjusted odds ratio[95% CI] | P‐value | |
| Age (divided by10) | 1.06 [0.86; 1.31] | .585 | 0.80 [0.56; 1.15] | .225 |
| Male sex | 0.92 [0.64; 1.31] | .631 | 2.07 [1.11; 4.02] | .025 |
| Smoking (yes) | 0.70 [0.37; 1.26] | .246 | 1.47 [0.58; 3.36] | .388 |
| BMI | 0.98 [0.94; 1.01] | .203 | 1.01 [0.95; 1.07] | .794 |
| Blood pressure treatment | 0.49 [0.32; 0.74] | .001 | 1.67 [0.71; 4.63] | .272 |
| Blood pressure | 1.00 [0.98; 1.01] | .463 | 1.01 [1.00; 1.03] | .064 |
| >10 years of schooling | 1.36 [0.95; 1.95] | .092 | 0.55 [0.28; 1.02] | .064 |
| Insulin therapy (yes) | 1.01 [0.63; 1.60] | .969 | 1.24 [0.60; 2.45] | .545 |
| Diabetes education program (yes) | 0.74 [0.51; 1.06] | .103 | 1.41 [0.75; 2.71] | .288 |
| MI history | 0.93 [0.50; 1.67] | .813 | 3.89 [1.91; 7.73] | <.001 |
| (3) UO (n = 202) | (4) UP (n = 148) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted odds ratio [95% CI] | P‐value | Unadjusted odds ratio [95% CI] | P‐value | |
| Age (divided by 10) | 1.20 [0.93; 1.55] | .163 | 0.57 [0.43; 0.75] | <.001 |
| Male sex | 4.84 [2.78; 8.68] | <.001 | 0.11 [0.06; 0.19] | <.001 |
| Smoking status | 4.82 [2.46; 9.79] | <.001 | 0.25 [0.09; 0.62] | .004 |
| BMI | 1.05 [1.00; 1.10] | .037 | 0.97 [0.92; 1.01] | .157 |
| Blood pressure treatment | 1.26 [0.70; 2.27] | .439 | 0.72 [0.43; 1.23] | .231 |
| Blood pressure | 1.04 [1.02; 1.05] | <.001 | 0.95 [0.93; 0.96] | <.001 |
| >10 years of schooling | 1.26 [0.83; 1.91] | .278 | 0.74 [0.46; 1.17] | .202 |
| Insulin therapy (yes) | 0.92 [0.54; 1.56] | .765 | 0.91 [0.49; 1.67] | .769 |
| Diabetes education program (yes) | 0.89 [0.58; 1.35] | .582 | 1.17 [0.74; 1.87] | .498 |
| MI history | 0.52 [0.27; 0.98] | .049 | 2.17 [1.03; 4.52] | .039 |
Note: The association of patient characteristics with low comparative risk perception, high comparative risk perception, UO, and UP was examined in four binary logistic regressions (1 through 4). In (1), participants with average and high comparative risk perception were used as reference to the participants with a low comparative risk perception. In (2), participants with average and low comparative risk perception were used as reference to the participants with a high comparative risk perception. In (3), participants at average or high objective comparative risk and who were not grouped with UO were used as reference to participants with an average or high objective comparative risk but who were grouped with UO. In (4), participants at low or average objective comparative risk and who were not grouped with UP were used as reference to participants with a low or average objective comparative risk but who were grouped with UP.
Abbreviations: UO, unrealistic comparative optimism; UP, unrealistic comparative pessimism.