Skip to main content

Table 2 Logistic regression analysis children with dental neglect (n = 1655)

From: Associations of socioeconomic status and lifestyle factors with dental neglect of elementary school children: the MEXT Super Shokuiku School Project

 

Univariate

Multivariate

 

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

Sex

 Girls

1

1

 Boys

1.07(0.62–1.85)

1.00(0.57–1.76)

Grade

 

1

 Low (1st–3rd)

1

1

 High (4th–6th)

2.18(1.21–3.91)**

2.08(1.14–3.78)*

Skipping breakfast

 No

1

1

 Yes

2.26(1.00–5.14)

1.86(0.79–4.39)

Eating alone at dinner

  

 No

1

1

 Yes

3.45(0.78–15.27)

3.36(0.70–16.03)

Number of treated teeth

 ≤ 2

1

1

 ≥ 3

1.84(1.06–3.19)*

1.68(0.95–2.94)

Father’s BHPS

 Not poor (2–7)

1

1

 Poor (0–1)

2.53(1.05–6.10)*

1.73(0.34–8.86)

Mother’s BHPS

Not poor (2–7)

1

1

Poor (0–1)

3.27(0.74–14.40)

2.04(0.77–5.43)

Father’s Internet and game use at home, h/day

 < 2 h

1

1

 ≥ 2 h

2.20(1.17–4.11)*

1.99(1.02–3.88)*

Mother’s Internet and game use at home, h/day

 < 2 h

1

1

 ≥ 2 h

1.46(0.51–4.13)

0.65(0.21–2.02)

Perceived family affluence

 Affluent

1

1

 Neither

2.13(0.92–4.94)

1.87(0.79–4.42)

 No

3.19(1.34–7.63)**

2.78(1.14–6.81)*

Mother’s employment status

 Full-time

1

1

 Part-time

0.78(0.42–1.45)

0.73(0.39–1.38)

 Unemployment

1.55(0.75–3.18)

1.78(0.83–3.80)

Number of after school activities

 ≥ 1

1

1

 0

2.58(1.46–4.55)**

1.99(1.10–3.62)*

  1. Model was adjusted for sex, age, lifestyle, SES
  2. OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, significance level, BPPS Breslow’s health practice score
  3. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, Hosmer-Lemeshow: P = 0.38