Skip to main content

Table 5 Multivariate logistic regression models: predicting acute health care utilisation

From: Relationship between health-related quality of life, comorbidities and acute health care utilisation, in adults with chronic conditions

ED presentation with 1 year

ED presentations within 3 years

Predictor

OR

95 % CI

P Value

Predictor

OR

95 % CI

P Value

AQOL utility score <0.37

1.35

0.95 to 1.91

0.094

AQOL utility score <0.37

1.58

1.16 to 2.13

0.003

Charlson Score (2–3)

1.48

1.09 to 2.00

0.011

Charlson Score (2–3)

1.71

1.32 to 2.23

<0.001

Charlson Score (4–5)

2.39

1.66 to 3.45

<0.001

Charlson Score (4–5)

1.96

1.39 to 2.76

<0.001

Charlson Score (≥6)

4.91

3.26 to 7.40

<0.001

Charlson Score (≥6)

6.36

3.96 to 10.20

<0.001

Correct classification: 70.0 %; Hosmer and Lemeshow χ2 (9) = 11.53, p = 0.117.

Correct classification: 62.09 %; Hosmer and Lemeshow χ2 (8) = 34.00, p < 0 .00

Change in probability for AQoL utility score <0.37 at each level of the Charlson Score

 

Coeff

95 % CI

P Value

 

Coeff

95 % CI

P Value

Charlson Score 2–3*AQOL

0.53

-0.11 to 0.12

0.106

Charlson Score 2–3*AQOL

0.11

0.04 to 0.19

0.003

Charlson Score 4–5*AQOL

0.19

1.00 to 0.28

<0.001

Charlson Score 4–5*AQOL

0.19

0.10 to 0.28

<0.001

Charlson Score (≥6)*AQOL

0.11

-0.12 to 0.22

0.079

Charlson Score ≥ 6*AQOL

0.12

0.01 to 0.23

0.040

Sensitivity

24.85 %

False Negative

75.15 %

Sensitivity

69.7 %

False Negative

30.3 %

Specificity

92.12 %

False Positive

7.88 %

Specificity

52.2 %

False Positive

47.8 %

Positive Predictive value

60.30 %

False Positive

39.70 %

Positive Predictive value

63.3 %

False Positive

36.8 %

Negative Predictive value

71.8 %

False Negative

28.20 %

Negative Predictive value

59.4 %

False Negative

40.6 %

Emergency Inpatient admissions within 1 year

Inpatient admission within 3 years

Predictor

OR

95 % CI

P Value

Predictor

OR

95 % CI

P Value

AQOL utility score <0.37

1.25

0.82 to 1.91

0.299

AQOL utility score <0.37

1.67

1.21 to 2. 30

0.002

Charlson Score (2–3)

1.57

1.10 to 2.24

0.012

Charlson Score (2–3)

1.99

1.51 to 2.63

<0.001

Charlson Score (4–5)

2.79

1.87 to 4.18

<0.001

Charlson Score (4–5)

2.62

1.85 to 3.73

<0.001

Charlson Score (≥6)

6.30

4.11 to 9.66

<0.001

Charlson Score (≥6)

8.76

5.59 to 13.73

<0.001

Correct classification: 77.5 %; Hosmer and Lemeshow χ2 (8) = 5.71, p = 0.456

Correct classification: 68.2 %; Hosmer and Lemeshow χ2 (8) = 4.95, p = 0 .666

Change in probability for AQoL utility score <0.37 at each level of the Charlson Score

 

Coeff

95 % CI

P Value

 

Coeff

95 % CI

P Value

Charlson Score 2–3*AQOL

0.27

-0.13 to 0.08

0.316

Charlson Score 2–3*AQOL

0.11

0.04 to 0.18

0.003

Charlson Score 4–5*AQOL

0.16

0.08 to 0.25

<0.001

Charlson Score 4–5*AQOL

0.19

0.96 to 0.29

<0.001

Charlson Score (≥6)*AQOL

0.08

-0.03 to 0.19

0.147

Charlson Score ≥ 6*AQOL

0.11

-0.01 to 0.23

0.066

Sensitivity

18.2 %

False Negative

81.8 %

Sensitivity

44.3 %

False Negative

55.7 %

Specificity

96.8 %

False Positive

3.2 %

Specificity

86.2 %

False Positive

13.8 %

Positive Predictive value

65.0 %

False Positive

35.0 %

Positive Predictive value

70.1 %

False Positive

29.9 %

Negative Predictive value

78.5 %

False Negative

21.5 %

Negative Predictive value

67.9 %

False Negative f

32.1 %

 

Interaction between HRQoL measured by AQoL and Charlson Score not significant, adjusted by age Not significant

  1. * = Interaction between Charlson Score and AQoL score in the multivariate model
Back to article page

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

ISSN: 1477-7525

Contact us