# Table 3 Significant predictors of institutionalization at a follow-up time of 2.5 years

Variable Bivariate predictor analysis Binary logistic regressiona
Institutionalization yes Institutionalization no Test value P Regression coefficient B Standard error Wald P
n = 32 (12%) n = 237 (88%)
n (n%) or mean (SD) n (n%) or mean (SD)
Living situation:    Χ2 = 6.59 .015 −1.60 .52 9.41 .002
- togetherb 15 (8%) 165 (92%)
- separately 17 (19%) 72 (81%)
Caregiver burdenc 13.7 (9.0) 9.3 (7.8) T = −2.89 .004 .07 .03 7.38 .007
Care-receiver’s age (years) 84.4 (7.0) 79.2 (6.2) T = −4.20 < .001 .09 .03 7.34 .007
MMSEd 17.4 (3.2) 19.0 (3.8) T = 2.68 .010 -.14 .06 5.87 .015
Caregiver’s age (years) 63.1 (11.2) 58.6 (13.7) T = −2.07 .044 .03 .02 2.57 .109
Region:    Χ2 = 4.56 .046 .72 .48 2.26 .133
- urbane 10 (21%) 38 (79%)
- rural 21 (10%) 193 (90%)
1. n = 269 cases; 351 cases of the total sample less 82 care-receivers who died at home.
2. aChi2 = 41.36 (p < .001); Nagelkerke’s R2 = .283 (none of the 6 potential predictors had to be excluded from the multivariate analysis due to multicollinearity).
3. bFamily caregiver and care-receiver with dementia share a flat or house.
4. cScore of the BSFC-s.
5. dMini-Mental Status Examination.
6. eUrban region: cities with at least 100,000 citizens; rural region: cities with less than 100,000 citizens and villages.
7. Other variables were not significantly correlated with institutionalization: study arm (p = .500); sex of family caregiver (p = .527); caregiver spouse yes/no (p = .434); sex of care-receiver with dementia (p = .538); NOSGER subscale “Disturbing behavior” (p = .073); NOSGER subscale “IADL” (p = .257); family caregiver diagnosed with depression yes/no (p = .696); care level yes/no (p = .249); Barthel Index (p = .737); caregiving tasks at night yes/no (p = .532); average hours of daily care (p = .389).