Sex disparities in the prevalence of physical function disabilities: a population-based study in a low-income community

Table 5 Prevalence ratio (PR) of functional disability between sexes by different indexes

		Logistic Regression Model
		Univariate Model with all subjects	Multivariate Models with all subjects	Multivariate Models in participants with high impact	Multivariate Models participants with low-moderate impact
Functional disability index	Sex	\( {PR}_{unadjusted}^{Fem\ vs\ Males} \) ⁽¹⁾ (95% CI) (95% CI)	\( {PR}_{adjusted}^{Fem\ vs\ Males} \)⁽²⁾ (95% CI)	\( {PR}_{adjusted}^{Fem\ vs\ Males} \) ⁽³⁾ (95% CI)	\( {PR}_{adjusted}^{Fem\ vs\ Males} \) ⁽⁴⁾ (95% CI)
T-score	Male	1	1	1	1
T-score	Female	1.64 (1.2,2.1) ^a	2.70 (1.4,5.1) ^a	2.11 (1.1,3.5) ^b	1.02 (0.2,6.7)
IADL	Male	1	1	1	1
IADL	Female	1.82 (1.3,2.5) ^a	3.64 (1.1,4.4) ^a	2.63 (1.2,5.7) ^b	0.95 (0.4,2.3)
Self-Care	Male	1	1	1	1
Self-Care	Female	1.50 (1.1,2.1) ^b	3.29 (1.1,9.9) ^b	3.42 (1.3,5.8) ^a	1.85 (0.1,7.4)
Functional Mobility	Male	1	1	1	1
Functional Mobility	Female	1.68 (1.2,2.3) ^a	2.81 (1.3,5.7) ^a	2.60 (1.1,4.5) ^b	1.04 (0.2,6.9)

^a (p < 0.001), ^b (p < 0.05), ^(*) No significant interaction terms were found in the model (p > 0.05),
⁽¹⁾ Unadjusted for any potential confounders (only the sampling design was taking into account)
⁽²⁾ Adjusted for age, income, marital status, number of chronic conditions and sampling design
⁽³⁾ Adjusted for age, income, marital status and sampling design; among participants with high impact on functional disabilities
⁽⁴⁾ Adjusted for age, income, marital status and sampling design; among participants with low-moderate impact on functional disabilities

ISSN: 1471-2318