Skip to main content

Table 2 Covariate-adjusted logistic regressions of diabetes care cascade indicators on socio-demographic characteristics

From: Variation in health system performance for managing diabetes among states in India: a cross-sectional study of individuals aged 15 to 49 years

 

Aware

Treated

Controlled

Rural

Urban

Rural

Urban

Rural

Urban

OR (95% CI)

P

OR (95% CI)

P

OR (95% CI)

P

OR (95% CI)

P

OR (95% CI)

P

OR (95% CI)

P

Education

 

Trend < 0.001

 

Trend < 0.001

 

Trend < 0.001

 

Trend < 0.001

 

Trend = 0.359

 

Trend < 0.001

 Primary school or less

1 (reference)

 

1 (reference)

 

1 (reference)

 

1 (reference)

 

1 (reference)

 

1 (reference)

 

 Secondary school unfinished

1.18 (1.09–1.28)

< 0.001

1.13 (1.03–1.24)

0.007

1.35 (1.24–1.46)

< 0.001

1.35 (1.23–1.48)

< 0.001

1.01 (0.92–1.11)

0.785

0.95 (0.86–1.06)

0.355

 Secondary school or above

1.23 (1.11–1.37)

< 0.001

1.59 (1.43–1.77)

< 0.001

1.26 (1.13–1.41)

< 0.001

1.63 (1.46–1.81)

< 0.001

1.06 (0.94–1.20)

0.359

1.59 (1.41–1.79)

< 0.001

Household wealth quintile

 

Trend = 0.001

 

Trend < 0.001

 

Trend < 0.001

 

Trend < 0.001

 

Trend < 0.001

 

Trend < 0.001

 Q1 (poorest)

1 (reference)

 

1 (reference)

 

1 (reference)

 

1 (reference)

 

1 (reference)

 

1 (reference)

 

 Q2

0.80 (0.71–0.92)

0.001

1.17 (1.03–1.32)

0.015

0.87 (0.76–1.00)

0.050

1.27 (1.11–1.46)

< 0.001

1.00 (0.86–1.16)

0.998

0.92 (0.78–1.08)

0.287

 Q3

0.89 (0.79–1.02)

0.093

1.24 (1.09–1.41)

0.001

1.06 (0.92–1.21)

0.431

1.85 (1.62–2.11)

< 0.001

1.09 (0.94–1.27)

0.242

1.43 (1.22–1.66)

< 0.001

 Q4

1.02 (0.90–1.16)

0.741

1.01 (0.89–1.15)

0.870

1.40 (1.22–1.60)

< 0.001

1.50 (1.31–1.72)

< 0.001

1.14 (0.98–1.32)

0.093

1.16 (0.99–1.36)

0.062

 Q5 (richest)

1.15 (1.00–1.32)

0.044

1.68 (1.45–1.93)

< 0.001

1.71 (1.48–1.98)

< 0.001

2.45 (2.12–2.84)

< 0.001

1.32 (1.13–1.54)

0.001

1.59 (1.35–1.88)

< 0.001

Currently married

0.82 (0.74–0.92)

< 0.001

1.13 (1.01–1.27)

0.027

0.86 (0.77–0.96)

0.008

1.45 (1.29–1.62)

< 0.001

0.98 (0.87–1.11)

0.730

1.62 (1.41–1.86)

< 0.001

Female

1.40 (1.31–1.50)

< 0.001

1.85 (1.72–1.99)

< 0.001

1.60 (1.49–1.72)

< 0.001

1.94 (1.80–2.09)

< 0.001

1.55 (1.44–1.68)

< 0.001

1.79 (1.65–1.94)

< 0.001

  1. Abbreviations: OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, Q quintile
  2. These regressions contained all socio-demographic variables listed in the table (wealth quintile, education, marital status, and sex), age as a continuous variable with restricted cubic splines with five knots (the knots were placed at the 5th, 27.5th, 50th, 72.5th, and 95th percentiles), and a binary indicator for each district (district-level fixed effects) as explanatory variables. The regressions were weighted using sampling weights. Results for regressions run without sampling weights, not stratified by rural versus urban areas (but including rural/urban as a socio-demographic variable and interaction terms for education-rural/urban location and household wealth quintile-rural/urban location) and separately for women and men can be found in Additional file 1: Table S14-S18. Nineteen thousand four hundred fifty-three individuals with diabetes were included in the regressions for this table; 10,504 were “aware”, 8269 “treated”, and 5329 “controlled”. The P value for trend is for a linear trend
Back to article page

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

Contact us