Skip to main content

Table 5 Summary statistics of parameters in the non-spatial and spatial regression model for outcomes ADHD, diagnosis and medication use given by odds ratio (OR), 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) for the non-spatial analysis and 95 % credible interval (95 % CI) for the spatial analysis

From: Geographic analysis of the variation in the incidence of ADHD in a country with free access to healthcare: a Danish cohort study

Variablea Non-spatial Spatial
No adjustment for overdispersion Adjustment for overdispersion  
OR 95 % CI p value$ 95 % CI p value$ OR
95 % CI
ADHD
 Family income
  Low versus high 0.94 0.88; 0.99 <0.001 0.75; 1.17 0.40 0.94 0.76; 1.14
  Medium versus high 0.87 0.81; 0.92   0.70; 1.07   0.96 0.81; 1.14
 Municipal spending
  Low versus high 1.15 1.08; 1.22 <0.001 0.93; 1.43 0.05 1.03 0.88; 1.22
  Medium versus high 1.29 1.22; 1.36   1.06; 1.56   1.05 0.89; 1.23
 Conduct disorder
  Low versus high 0.97 0.92; 1.03 0.005 0.80; 1.18 0.66 1.00 0.80; 1.25
  Medium versus high 1.07 1.00; 1.14   0.85; 1.34   1.07 0.89; 1.30
 Absence of hospital/child psychiatrist 1.14 1.08; 1.20 <0.001 0.95; 1.37 0.16 1.14 0.97; 1.33
  Estimate      Estimate 95 % CI
 Dispersion parameter 12.7       
 Spatial correlation, ρ       0.69 0.40; 0.90
 Spatial variation, τ2       0.21 0.15; 0.30
  OR 95 % CI p value$ 95 % CI p value$ OR 95 % CI
Medication no hospital diagnosis
 Family income        
  Low versus high 1.15 0.98; 1.34 0.07 0.77; 1.70 0.66 0.97 0.70; 1.36
  Medium versus high 0.98 0.84; 1.13   0.67; 1.43   1.10 0.83; 1.46
 Municipal spending
  Low versus high 1.11 0.95; 1.30 0.02 0.74; 1.64 0.54 1.01 0.77; 1.33
  Medium versus high 1.22 1.06; 1.40   0.86; 1.74   0.99 0.77; 1.27
 Conduct disorder
  Low versus high 1.00 0.86; 1.15 0.02 0.69; 1.45 0.55 1.01 0.68; 1.48
  Medium versus high 1.20 1.02; 1.42   0.79; 1.83   1.20 0.87: 1.69
 Absence of a child psychiatrist 0.82 0.71; 0.94 0.006 0.57; 1.17 0.28 0.94 0.70; 1.26
  Estimate      Estimate 95 % CI
 Dispersion parameter 6.4       
 Spatial correlation, ρ       0.84 0.62; 0.96
 Spatial variation, τ2       0.41 0.27; 0.63
  OR 95 % CI p value$ 95 % CI p value$ OR 95 % CI
Diagnosis
 Family income
  Low versus high 0.92 0.86; 0.99 <0.001 0.70; 1.21 0.49 0.98 0.77; 1.23
  Medium versus high 0.86 0.80; 0.92   0.67; 1.10   0.94 0.77; 1.13
 Municipal spending
  Low versus high 1.17 1.09; 1.25 <0.001 0.91; 1.51 0.12 1.05 0.87; 1.26
  Medium versus high 1.28 1.21; 1.36   1.01; 1.63   1.05 0.87; 1.25
 Conduct disorder
  Low versus high 0.95 0.90; 1.01 0.06 0.75; 1.20 0.83 0.95 0.73; 1.22
  Medium versus high 1.02 0.95; 1.09   0.78; 1.33   1.02 0.82; 1.25
 Absence of a hospital 1.25 1.18; 1.33 <0.001 0.98; 1.59 0.07 1.36 0.80; 1.66
  Estimate      Estimate 95 % CI
 Dispersion parameter 15.0       
 Spatial correlation, ρ       0.77 0.53; 0.94
 Spatial variation, τ2       0.27 0.19; 0.39
  1. $Overall p-value for the variable
  2. aFamily income: average yearly total family income. Municipal spending: average municipal spending on primary health care for children. Conduct disorder: percent of children with ICD-10 F91 and F92 diagnoses. All three explanatory variables are categorized into three groups of equal size (33.3 %), low, medium and high