Modela
| Aged 60–74 | Aged 75+ |
---|
OR | CI | Ph
| Pi
| OR | CI | Ph
| Pi
|
---|
Model Ab
| 1.17 | (1.08,1.27) | <0.001 | <0.0001 | 1.10 | (0.95,1.27) | 0.205 | <0.0001 |
Model Bc
| 1.14 | (1.05,1.24) | 0.001 | <0.0001 | 1.06 | (0.91,1.22) | 0.467 | <0.0001 |
Model Cd
| 1.15 | (1.06,1.26) | 0.001 | <0.0001 | 1.03 | (0.89,1.19) | 0.714 | <0.0001 |
Model De
| 1.15 | (1.05,1.25) | 0.002 | <0.0001 | 1.04 | (0.89,1.20) | 0.647 | <0.0001 |
Model Ef
| 1.15 | (1.05,1.25) | 0.002 | <0.0001 | 1.04 | (0.89,1.20) | 0.624 | <0.0001 |
Model Fg
| 1.16 | (1.06,1.26) | 0.002 | <0.0001 | 1.01 | (0.86,1.18) | 0.939 | <0.0001 |
-
aFor all the multilevel logistic regression models in this table, the variable of county/district was treated as the group variable in multilevel logistic regression
-
bModel A was the basic model and only adjusted for gender
-
cModel B was additionally adjusted for education, employment status and perception of economic status
-
dModel C was additionally adjusted for marriage and having a child
-
eModel D was additionally adjusted for smoking, drinking and physical activity
-
fModel E was additionally adjusted for underlying conditions
-
gModel F was finally adjusted for living alone
-
hThe P value was obtained by the multilevel logistic regression for the association between eating arrangement and depressive symptom
-
iThe P value was obtained by the likelihood ratio test comparing multilevel logistic regression model with logistic regression model for the association between eating arrangement and depressive symptom