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

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

Variable^a	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

^$Overall p-value for the variable
^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

ISSN: 1476-072X