Table 1. Cohort Characteristics in Québec and Manitoba.
| Characteristic | No. (%) | P valuea | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Pump | No Pump | ||
| Québec | ||||
| Cohort size | 2919 | 1067 (36.6) | 1852 (63.4) | |
| Age, mean (SD) | ||||
| At diagnosis | 8.3 (4.4) | 7.6 (4.1) | 8.7 (4.5) | <.001 |
| At first pump | 10.9 (4.3) | 10.9 (4.3) | ||
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 1550 (53.1) | 562 (52.7) | 988 (53.3) | .72 |
| Female | 1369 (46.9) | 505 (47.3) | 864 (46.7) | |
| Region of residence | ||||
| Rural | 588 (20.1) | 205 (19.2) | 383 (20.7) | .34 |
| Urban | 2331 (79.9) | 862 (80.8) | 1469 (79.3) | |
| Deprivation, quintileb | ||||
| Material | ||||
| 1 | 551 (18.9) | 237 (22.2) | 314 (17.0) | <.001 |
| 2 | 578 (19.8) | 229 (21.5) | 349 (18.8) | |
| 3 | 549 (18.8) | 199 (18.7) | 350 (18.9) | |
| 4 | 588 (20.1) | 209 (19.6) | 379 (20.5) | |
| 5 | 653 (22.4) | 193 (18.1) | 460 (24.8) | |
| Social | ||||
| 1 | 710 (24.3) | 285 (26.7) | 425 (22.9) | <.001 |
| 2 | 618 (21.2) | 212 (19.9) | 406 (21.9) | |
| 3 | 605 (20.7) | 245 (23.0) | 360 (19.4) | |
| 4 | 544 (18.6) | 201 (18.8) | 343 (18.5) | |
| 5 | 442 (15.1) | 124 (11.6) | 318 (17.2) | |
| Manitoba | ||||
| Cohort size | 636 | 106 (16.7) | 530 (83.3) | |
| Age, mean (SD) | ||||
| At diagnosis | 8.8 (4.4) | 8.8 (4.4) | 8.8 (4.3) | >.99 |
| At first pump | 13.4 (3.6) | 13.4 (3.6) | ||
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 364 (57.2) | 57 (53.8) | 307 (57.9) | .45 |
| Female | 272 (42.8) | 49 (46.2) | 223 (42.1) | |
| Region of residence | ||||
| Rural | 253 (39.8) | 40 (37.7) | 213 (40.2) | .64 |
| Urban | 383 (60.2) | 66 (62.3) | 317 (59.8) | |
| Deprivation, quintileb | ||||
| Material | ||||
| 1 | 99 (15.6) | 31 (29.2) | 68 (12.8) | <.001 |
| 2 | 155 (24.4) | 29 (27.4) | 126 (23.8) | |
| 3 | 125 (19.6) | 18 (17.0) | 107 (20.2) | |
| 4 | 143 (22.5) | 21 (19.8) | 122 (23.0) | |
| 5 | 114 (17.9) | 7 (6.6) | 107 (20.2) | |
| Social | ||||
| 1 | 182 (28.6) | 37 (34.9) | 145 (27.4) | .04 |
| 2 | 107 (16.8) | 23 (21.7) | 84 (15.9) | |
| 3 | 116 (18.2) | 16 (15.1) | 100 (18.9) | |
| 4 | 127 (20.0) | 15 (14.2) | 112 (21.1) | |
| 5 | 104 (16.4) | 15 (14.2) | 89 (16.8) | |
a
Tests of comparison: t test for continuous variable of age; Pearson χ2 test for categorical variables of sex and regional of residence. To test for association between pump status and socioeconomic status quintiles, logistic regression was performed with ordinal SES coded as orthogonal polynomials (P for linear polynomial).
b
For each deprivation index, quintile 1 is the least deprived and quintile 5 is the most deprived.