Table 2.
Results of the regression analysis for migration status.
| Adequate use of services | Model 1 (N = 2,287) | Model 2 (N = 2,287) | Model 3 (N = 2,287) | Model 4 (N = 2,271) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI** | p-value | OR | 95% CI** | p-value | OR | 95% CI** | p-value | OR | 95% CI** | p-value | |
| Migration (reference: non-migrant) | ||||||||||||
| 1st generation | 0.72 | (0.57, 0.91) | 0.005 | 0.78 | (0.62, 0.99) | 0.046 | 0.78 | (0.61, 0.99) | 0.047 | 0.77 | (0.60, 0.99) | 0.046 |
| 2nd generation | 0.76 | (0.53, 1.09) | 0.131 | 0.80 | (0.56, 1.15) | 0.231 | 0.76 | (0.50, 1.05) | 0.093 | 0.72 | (0.50, 1.03) | 0.077 |
All variables are patient reported to the exception of type of facility and Evening/night, which was provided by the interviewer. All models are adjusted for gender, age (continuous) and the number of chronic diseases. Model 2 added the type of facility (gynecology/internal medicine) to model 1. Model 3 added the reason for choice of facility, if day or night, and the type of condition that motivated the visit to the emergency services (13 categories) to model 2. Model 4 added education level and employment status to model 3.
**
Confidence interval.