Skip to main content
. 2022 Apr 14;10:851616. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.851616

Table 4.

The impact of formal and informal social support on utilization of outpatient healthcare service.

Variable Model 1β (t) Model 2 (t) Model 3 (t) rural Model 4 (t) urban
Control variable
Gender 0.715 (1.353) 0.788 (1.641) 0.742 (1.556) 0.972 (2.014)
Age 0.748** (−1.625) 0.798** (−1.353) 0.568** (−1.412) 1.101** (−3. 068)
Marriage 0.688 (1.389) 0.728** (1.471) 1.209 (2.487) 1.716 (4.241)
Education 0.226 (0.376) 0.247 (0.515) 1.728 (4.018) 1.435 (3.1841)
Political status 0.128 (0.291) 0.154 (0.276) 0.062 (0.183) 0.096 (0.217)
Income 0.084 (0.188) 0.168*** (0.343) 2.352*** (6.132) 1.352* (2.468)
ADL −0.099*** (−0.321) −0.309** (−0.842) −0.472** (−1.021) −0.844** (−1.645)
Formal social support
Health insurance 0.912* (2.154) 1.032*** (2.388) 1.654 (3.246)
Pension 0.819 (1.808) 0.916** (2.016) 0.814 (1.983)
Frequency of contact with government staff 1.35 (7.827) 3.992 (7.827) 1.471 (2.996)
Health insurance satisfaction 1.009*** (2.038) 1.797* (3.466) 1.531*** (2.774)
Pension insurance satisfaction 1.494*** (2.816) 2.014 (3.792) 3.083*** (7.827)
Informal social support
Children's communication frequency 2.037** (5.187) 3.169*** (8.452) 1.488* (3.291)
Children's financial support 2.154** (5.663) 2.037** (5.316) 1.037 (2.435)
Frequency of helping each other with neighbors 1.814*** (4.021) 0.947 (1.769) 1.382*** (2.971)
Frequency of communication with neighbors 1.114** (1.984) 1.105 (2.019) 1.392** (3.128)
P-Value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

***, **, and * were significant at 1, 5, and 10% levels respectively. t-values are in parentheses.