Table 3.
The results of hierarchical logistic regression analyses predicting the likelihood of reporting ‘good’ self-rated health
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Personal social capital | ||||
| Bonding social capital | 1.17* (1.08–1.26) | 1.14* (1.04–1.24) | 1.11* (1.02–1.22) | 1.09 (0.99–1.19) |
| Bridging social capital | 1.04 (0.98–1.12) | 1.09* (1.01–1.18) | 1.09* (1.01–1.18) | 1.08 (0.99–1.17) |
| Demographic variables | ||||
| Age (ref: < 60 years) | 1.96* (1.28–3.04) | 2.04* (1.32–3.18) | 1.95* (1.26–3.04) | |
| Gender (ref: male) | 1.90* (1.18–3.06) | 1.99* (1.22–3.23) | 2.06* (1.26–3.36) | |
| Race/ethnicity (ref: white) | 1.09 (0.63–1.93) | 1.03 (0.59–1.85) | 1.02 (0.58–1.80) | |
| Marital status (ref: single or no partnership) | 1.22 (0.81–1.84) | 1.23 (0.81–1.86) | 1.04 (0.67–1.62) | |
| Chronic diseases (ref: no) | ||||
| Yes, one | 0.37* (0.22–0.60) | 0.37* (0.22–0.61) | 0.38* (0.23–0.64) | |
| Yes, one or more | 0.10* (0.06–0.16) | 0.10* (0.06–0.17) | 0.10* (0.06–0.18) | |
| P-for-liner trends | <.001 | <.001 | <.001 | |
| LTPA (ref: no-LTPA) | ||||
| < 600 MET-mins/wk | 0.98 (0.59–1.63) | 0.94 (0.57–1.57) | ||
| ≥ 600 MET-mins/wk | 1.97* (1.21–3.21) | 1.83* (1.11–3.00) | ||
| P-for-liner trend | .007 | .017 | ||
| Household income (ref: low) | ||||
| Middle | 1.29 (0.79–2.12) | |||
| High | 2.14* (1.13–4.05) | |||
| P-for-liner trend | .020 | |||
| Education (ref: low) | ||||
| Middle | 0.98 (0.58–1.67) | |||
| High | 1.33 (0.72–2.45) | |||
| P-for-liner trend | .361 | |||
| Nagelkerke R2 | .076 | .256 | .274 | .292 |
| Goodness of Fit (P-value) a | .230 | .290 | .100 | .414 |
OR Odds ratios, CI Confidence intervals, LTPA Leisure-time physical activity, MET Metabolic equivalent tasks
aP-value from the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test
*P < .05