Skip to main content

Table 2 The role of SEP in explaining ethnic inequalities in oral health outcomes

From: Socioeconomic inequalities in adult oral health across different ethnic groups in England

  Prevalence Model 1a Model 2a Model 3a
% [95% CI] ORb [95% CI] ORb [95% CI] ORb [95% CI]
Regression models for edentulousness (n = 45,599)
Ethnicity
 White British 11.6 [11.2–12.0] 1.00 [Reference] 1.00 [Reference] 1.00 [Reference]
 Irish 12.1 [10.4–13.7] 1.05 [0.89–1.23] 1.25 [1.03–1.52]c 1.16 [0.94–1.41]
 Black Caribbean 11.0 [9.2–12.7] 0.94 [0.78–1.12] 1.72 [1.39–2.14]e 1.13 [0.90–1.42]
 Indian 3.9 [2.9–4.9] 0.31 [0.23–0.41]e 0.64 [0.47–0.87]d 0.55 [0.40–0.76]e
 Pakistani 2.6 [1.7–3.5] 0.21 [0.14–0.29]e 0.93 [0.63–1.37] 0.56 [0.38–0.83]d
 Bangladeshi 2.8 [1.8–3.8] 0.22 [0.15–0.32]e 0.80 [0.53–1.22] 0.35 [0.23–0.52]e
 Chinese 2.9 [1.6–4.2] 0.23 [0.14–0.36]e 0.53 [0.34–0.85]d 0.41 [0.25–0.66]e
SEP measure
 Q1 (wealthiest) 0.9 [0.7–1.2] 1.00 [Reference] 1.00 [Reference] 1.00 [Reference]
 Q2 2.5 [2.1–2.9] 2.70 [1.95–3.75]e 1.79 [1.28–2.50]d 1.80 [1.29–2.51]d
 Q3 6.6 [5.9–7.3] 7.51 [5.54–10.16]e 3.72 [2.72–5.08]e 3.77 [2.76–5.14]e
 Q4 15.1 [14.2–16.1] 18.91 [14.13–25.32]e 5.78 [4.28–7.81]e 5.91 [4.37–8.00]e
 Q5 (poorest) 29.0 [27.9–30.2] 43.40 [32.55–57.88]e 11.81 [8.77–15.91]e 12.31 [9.12–16.63]e
Regression models for toothache (n = 40,737)
Ethnicity
 White British 20.9 [20.3–21.5] 1.00 [Reference] 1.00 [Reference] 1.00 [Reference]
 Irish 24.8 [22.5–27.2] 1.25 [1.10–1.42]d 1.21 [1.06–1.38]d 1.22 [1.06–1.39]d
 Black Caribbean 29.6 [26.9–32.2] 1.59 [1.39–1.81]e 1.43 [1.25–1.65]e 1.37 [1.19–1.58]e
 Indian 24.9 [22.5–27.4] 1.26 [1.10–1.44]d 1.15 [1.00–1.32]c 1.13 [0.98–1.30]
 Pakistani 26.3 [23.7–28.9] 1.35 [1.18–1.55]e 1.16 [1.01–1.35]c 1.09 [0.93–1.26]
 Bangladeshi 22.5 [19.6–25.4] 1.10 [0.93–1.30] 0.93 [0.78–1.11] 0.83 [0.69–0.99]c
 Chinese 20.6 [17.3–23.9] 0.98 [0.80–1.20] 0.87 [0.71–1.08] 0.86 [0.69–1.06]
SEP measure
 Q1 (wealthiest) 20.8 [19.7–21.9] 1.00 [Reference] 1.00 [Reference] 1.00 [Reference]
 Q2 20.5 [19.4–21.5] 0.99 [0.90–1.09] 0.99 [0.90–1.10] 0.99 [0.90–1.10]
 Q3 21.9 [20.9–23.0] 1.05 [0.95–1.15] 1.06 [0.96–1.17] 1.06 [0.96–1.17]
 Q4 21.6 [20.5–22.8] 1.05 [0.95–1.16] 1.10 [0.99–1.21] 1.10 [0.99–1.21]
 Q5 (poorest) 24.3 [23.0–25.5] 1.21 [1.10–1.33]e 1.26 [1.15–1.39]e 1.27 [1.15–1.40]e
  1. a Model 1 reports the unadjusted associations of ethnicity and the composite measure of SEP with each oral health outcome. Model 2 included ethnicity (or the composite measure of SEP), sex, continuous age and dummy variables for survey years as explanatory variables. Model 3 included both ethnicity and the composite measure of SEP (mutually adjusted) as well as sex, continuous age and dummy variables for survey years as explanatory variables
  2. b Logistic regression was fitted and odds ratios (OR) reported
  3. cp < 0.05; dp < 0.01, ep < 0.001