Skip to main content

Table 6 Multiple logistic regression models†(Enter) to predict patients’ (model 1) overall satisfaction with treatment, i.e. that the periodontal treatment was worth the cost, in terms of time, money and efforts (Definitely) and (model 2) patient reported satisfaction with oral health outcome of therapy compared to the way it was before (Very much better/Much better)

From: Patient-reported experiences and outcomes following two different approaches for non-surgical periodontal treatment: a randomized field study

Variables

OR

95% CI

p value

Model 1: ‘treatment was worth the cost and efforts’

 Test group (ref: control group)

1.01

0.65–1.55

0.975

 Current smoker (ref: non-smoker)

0.90

0.54–1.50

0.672

 I have definitely been as involved as I wish in treatment (ref: else)

4.80

3.10–7.43

 < 0.001

 GOHAI, mean score at baseline

1.02

0.97–1.07

0.514

 VAS, pain/discomfort during treatment

1.00

0.99–1.01

0.600

Model 2: ‘satisfaction with oral health outcome of therapy’

 Test group (ref: control group)

1.09

0.67–1.78

0.772

 Current smoker (ref: non-smoker)

0.45

0.26–0.78

0.004

 I have definitely been as involved as I wish in treatment (ref: else)

4.93

2.95–8.24

 < 0.001

 GOHAI, mean score at baseline

0.98

0.93–1.03

0.620

 VAS, pain/discomfort during treatment

1.00

0.99–1.01

0.389

  1. Model 1: n = 427. Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness of fit x2 = 4.94, degrees of freedom (d.f.) = 8, p = 0.76
  2. Model 2: n = 428. Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness of fit x2 = 13.74, degrees of freedom (d.f.) = 8, p = 0.089
  3. †Adjusted for background variables regarding, age, gender and education. Significance level of the models =  < 0.05