Table 3.
Odds ratios for a multiple logistic regression showing the association with agreement between positive LFT and confirmatory PCR
| Explanatory variable | Primary schools (aged 5–11) | Secondary school (aged 12–18) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summary | Odds ratio | 95% CI | P-value | Summary | Odds ratio | 95% CI | P-value | ||
| Intercept | 10.22 | (5.17–21.45) | 6.66 | (4.72, 9.52) | |||||
| Age | 9 (7, 10) | 1.10 | (1.01, 1.20) | 0.024 | 15 (13, 17) | 1.17 | (1.11, 1.23) | <0.001 | |
| Sex | Reference = Female | 788 (51.4%) | 1965 (51.4%) | ||||||
| Male | 746 (48.6%) | 1.41 | (1.00, 1.99) | 0.050 | 1858 (48.6%) | 1.04 | (0.86, 1.27) | 0.676 | |
| Ethnicity | White | 1324 (86.1%) | 3382 (88.5%) | ||||||
| Non-White | 128 (8.3%) | 1.52 | (0.79, 3.29) | 0.246 | 215 (5.6%) | 1.01 | (0.67, 1.58) | 0.968 | |
| Prefer not to say | 82 (5.34%) | 0.78 | (0.36, 1.92) | 0.567 | 226 (5.9%) | 0.82 | (0.56, 1.21) | 0.304 | |
| IMD deprivation quintile | Reference =5 (least deprived) | 220 (14.3%) | 673 (17.6%) | ||||||
| 1 (most deprived) | 622 (40.5%) | 1.01 | (0.58, 1.68) | 0.985 | 1341 (35.1%) | 0.81 | (0.59, 1.09) | 0.163 | |
| 2 | 239 (15.6%) | 0.89 | (0.48, 1.63) | 0.701 | 552 (14.4%) | 0.67 | (0.47, 0.95) | 0.023 | |
| 3 | 211 (13.8%) | 0.92 | (0.49, 1.74) | 0.796 | 563 (14.7%) | 0.88 | (0.61, 1.26) | 0.470 | |
| 4 | 242 (15.8%) | 1.08 | (0.57, 2.04) | 0.813 | 694 (18.2%) | 1.05 | (0.74, 1.49) | 0.798 | |
| Total LFTs in previous 14 days | 0 (0, 0) | 1.05 | (0.83, 1.41) | 0.703 | 0 (0, 1) | 0.93 | (0.86, 1.00) | 0.035 | |
| Was the LFT a self-reported home test? | Reference = No | 237 (15.4%) | 740 (19.4%) | ||||||
| Yes | 1297 (84.6%) | 0.68 | (0.38, 1.16) | 0.180 | 3083 (80.6%) | 1.57 | (1.22, 2.02) | <0.001 | |
For categorical variables we report the number and percentage, whereas for continuous variables we report the median and interquartile range. Age has been centred on 15 in secondary school children and eight in primary school-aged children.