Table 2.
Multilevel logistic regression analysis of the presence of decay experience for grade 1 and 2 schoolchildren in Calgary and Edmonton in school year of 2013–2014. Values are given as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) unless stated otherwise
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | ||||
| Fixed effects | ||||
| Age | 1.2 (1.1 1.4) | 1.2 (1.1, 1.4) | ||
| Female (v. male—reference) | 0.9 (0.8, 1.0) | 0.9 (0.8, 1.0) | ||
| Ethnicity identity | ||||
| White | Reference | Reference | ||
| South Asian | 1.4 (1.1, 1.8) | 1.4 (1.1, 1.8) | ||
| Filipino | 2.9 (2.1, 4.1) | 2.9 (2.1, 4.1) | ||
| Chinese | 3.2 (2.4, 4.2) | 3.2 (2.4, 4.2) | ||
| Black | 1.3 (0.8, 1.9) | 1.3 (0.8, 1.9) | ||
| Arab | 3.8 (2.2, 6.4) | 3.8 (2.2, 6.3) | ||
| Latin American | 1.4 (0.9, 2.0) | 1.4 (0.9, 2.0) | ||
| Indigenous | 3.0 (1.6, 5.7) | 3.0 (1.6, 5.7) | ||
| Mixed ethnic | 1.5 (1.2, 1.9) | 1.5 (1.2, 1.9) | ||
| Household educational attainment (≤high school graduate v. >high school) | 1.3 (1.0, 1.6) | 1.3 (1.0, 1.6) | ||
| Housing tenure | ||||
| Own, with no mortgage | Reference | Reference | ||
| Own, with mortgage | 1.1 (0.9, 1.4) | 1.1 (0.9, 1.4) | ||
| Rent | 1.3 (1.0, 1.8) | 1.3 (1.0, 1.8) | ||
| Dental insurance type | ||||
| No insurance | Reference | Reference | ||
| Employer or private insurance | 0.9 (0.8, 1.2) | 0.9 (0.8, 1.2) | ||
| Public insurance | 1.2 (0.9, 1.7) | 1.2 (0.9, 1.7) | ||
| Brushing teeth at least once per day (yes v. no) | 0.8 (0.7, 0.9) | 0.8 (0.7, 0.9) | ||
| Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption (high v. median/low) | 1.3 (1.1, 1.6) | 1.3 (1.1, 1.6) | ||
| Dental visits in the past year (yes v. no) | 1.3 (1.0, 1.6) | 1.3 (1.0, 1.6) | ||
| Presence of dental sealants (yes v. no) | 1.7 (1.4, 2.0) | 1.7 (1.4, 2.0) | ||
| Material deprivation level | ||||
| Quintile 1 (least deprived) | Reference | Reference | ||
| Quintile 2 | 1.1 (0.8, 1.4) | 1.0 (0.8, 1.2) | ||
| Quintile 3 | 1.0 (0.7, 1.3) | 0.8 (0.6, 1.1) | ||
| Quintile 4 | 1.3 (1.0, 1.7) | 0.9 (0.7, 1.3) | ||
| Quintile 5 (most deprived) | 1.7 (1.3, 2.2) | 1.2 (0.9, 1.5) | ||
| Random effects | ||||
| DA-level variance (95% CI) | 0.5 (0.3, 0.7) | 0.3 (0.2, 0.6) | 0.4 (0.3, 0.6) | 0.3 (0.2, 0.5) |
| Variance partition coefficient (VPC) | 11.9% | 9.4% | 10.7% | 9.1% |
| Explained DA-level variance (%) (relative to model 1) | 23.3% | 12.0% | 26.3% | |