Table 6.
Multiple logistic regression models†(Enter) to predict patients’ (model 1) overall satisfaction with treatment, i.e. that the periodontal treatment was worth the cost, in terms of time, money and efforts (Definitely) and (model 2) patient reported satisfaction with oral health outcome of therapy compared to the way it was before (Very much better/Much better)
| Variables | OR | 95% CI | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1: ‘treatment was worth the cost and efforts’ | |||
| Test group (ref: control group) | 1.01 | 0.65–1.55 | 0.975 |
| Current smoker (ref: non-smoker) | 0.90 | 0.54–1.50 | 0.672 |
| I have definitely been as involved as I wish in treatment (ref: else) | 4.80 | 3.10–7.43 | < 0.001 |
| GOHAI, mean score at baseline | 1.02 | 0.97–1.07 | 0.514 |
| VAS, pain/discomfort during treatment | 1.00 | 0.99–1.01 | 0.600 |
| Model 2: ‘satisfaction with oral health outcome of therapy’ | |||
| Test group (ref: control group) | 1.09 | 0.67–1.78 | 0.772 |
| Current smoker (ref: non-smoker) | 0.45 | 0.26–0.78 | 0.004 |
| I have definitely been as involved as I wish in treatment (ref: else) | 4.93 | 2.95–8.24 | < 0.001 |
| GOHAI, mean score at baseline | 0.98 | 0.93–1.03 | 0.620 |
| VAS, pain/discomfort during treatment | 1.00 | 0.99–1.01 | 0.389 |
Model 1: n = 427. Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness of fit x2 = 4.94, degrees of freedom (d.f.) = 8, p = 0.76
Model 2: n = 428. Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness of fit x2 = 13.74, degrees of freedom (d.f.) = 8, p = 0.089
†Adjusted for background variables regarding, age, gender and education. Significance level of the models = < 0.05