Skip to main content

Table 3 Factors associated with care home as the least preferred place (in bold) and model fitting statistics

From: Choosing care homes as the least preferred place to die: a cross-national survey of public preferences in seven European countries

 

EN

FL

DE

IT

NL

PT

ES

 

AOR (95% CI)

AOR (95% CI)

AOR (95% CI)

AOR (95% CI)

AOR (95% CI)

AOR (95% CI)

AOR (95% CI)

Variables in the model

       

Age (ref 16–49)

       

  50+

1.12 (0.87–1.45)

0.96 (0.69–1.33)

1.24 (0.95–1.62)

1.20 (0.89–1.61)

1.40 (1.10–1.79)

0.97 (0.73–1.29)

1.11 (0.86–1.42)

Born in country(ref born overseas)

-

-

1.77 (1.05–2.99)

-

1.74 (1.03–2.95)

-

-

Unemployed in last seven days (ref no)

-

-

-

0.47 (0.27–0.83)

-

-

-

Doing housework in last seven days (ref no)

-

-

0.72 (0.54–0.96)

-

0.68 (0.52–0.90)

-

-

Permanently sick or disabled in last seven days (ref no)

-

2.34 (1.17–4.69)

-

-

-

-

-

Wanting information about symptoms and problems (ref Yes, but only if ask for it/No)

       

  Yes, always

-

-

-

0.64 (0.45–0.89)

-

-

-

Concerns about symptoms and problems

       

  Being in pain as top concern (ref no)

-

1.56 (1.06–2.30)

-

-

-

-

-

  Being alone as top concern (ref no)

-

-

-

1.31 (0.96–1.81)

-

-

1.41 (1.07–1.86)

Decision making in capacity and incapacity scenarios

       

  Partner deciding in a scenario of capacity (ref no)

-

-

-

1.78 (1.25–2.53)

-

-

-

  Doctor deciding in a scenario of capacity (ref no)

-

-

-

-

-

1.45 (1.08–1.94)

-

  Oneself deciding in a scenario of incapacity (ref no)

-

     

1.44 (1.12–1.84)

  Other relative deciding in a scenario of incapacity (ref no)

-

-

-

2.09 (1.48–2.96)

-

-

-

Keeping positive attitude top priority (ref no)

-

0.83 (0.60–1.15)

-

1.48 (1.04–2.11)

-

0.69 (0.51–0.93)

-

Quality of life versus life extension (ref extending life most important)

       

  Improving quality most important priority

-

-

-

-

1.58 (0.86–2.92)

-

-

  Both equally important

-

-

-

-

2.18 (1.14–4.17)

-

-

Model-fitting statistics

       

Nagelkerke R2

0.002

0.040

0.033

0.119

0.029

0.021

0.017

Hosmer and Lemeshow test - χ2(df) = chi-square, p-value

χ2(2) = 0.056, p = 0.973

χ2(8) = 15.554, p = 0.049

χ2(8) = 6.007, p = 0.646

χ2(8) = 7.668, p = 0.467

χ2(8) = 8.287, p = 0.406

χ2(8) = 1.382, p = 0.995

χ2(7) = 4.247, p = 0.751

Area under the ROC curve

0.521

0.603

0.601

0.673

0.581

0.574

0.569

Care homes classified correctly as least preferred place,%

0.0%

1.4%

0.0%

29.5%

9.3%

0.0%

1.0%

  1. CI: confidence intervals; DE: Germany; df: degrees of freedom; EN: England; ES: Spain; FL: Flanders; IT: Italy; NL: Netherlands; OR: odds ratio; PT: Portugal; ROC: receiver operating characteristic.
  2. - Variable not in regression model in this country. Significant variables in bold. Table excludes variables which were included in the models for being significant in the bivariate analysis but were not significant in any country after adjusting for confounders. Valid cases per model: 1271 in England, 1040 in Flanders, 1261 in Germany, 910 in Italy, 1219 in the Netherlands, 1065 in Portugal and 1127 in Spain.
Back to article page

BMC Palliative Care

ISSN: 1472-684X

Contact us