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