Skip to main content

Table 3 Adjusted logistic regression analysis of treatment recommendations

From: Understanding the public’s profile of mental health literacy in China: a nationwide study

Panel A: Situation Will Not Improve On Its Own (N = 1620)

OR (95% CI)

Model 1

 

Model 2

  

Model 3

 

Model 4

 

Age (<=35 vs. 36–64)

0.91 (0.72, 1.16)

 

0.91 (0.71, 1.16)

0.94 (0.73, 1.2)

0.93 (0.73, 1.2)

Age (> = 65 vs. 36–64)

1.13 (0.84, 1.51)

 

1.12 (0.83, 1.5)

1.09 (0.81, 1.47)

1.1 (0.82, 1.48)

Male (1)

1.05 (0.85, 1.29)

 

1.05 (0.85, 1.29)

1.06 (0.86, 1.3)

1.06 (0.86, 1.3)

Urban (1)

1.33 (1.07, 1.65)*

 

1.28 (1.03, 1.59)*

1.29 (1.04, 1.6)*

1.32 (1.06, 1.64)*

Exact Recognition+ (1)

  

1.81 (1.41, 2.32)*

1.82 (1.42, 2.34)*

1.71 (1.33, 2.21)*

Illness Explanation-Biological/Genetic Cause (1)

  

1.26 (1.01, 1.57)*

1.22 (0.97, 1.52)

Perceived Illness Severity

   

1.36 (1.17, 1.58)*

Panel B: Importance of Specific Providers

Variable

Importance of Medical Doctor

Importance of Psychiatrist

Importance of Mental Health Professional

ß (95% CI)a

ß (95% CI)b

ß (95% CI)c

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Age (<=35 vs. 36–64)

−0.45 (−0.76, −0.14)*

− 0.44 (− 0.76, − 0.13)*

− 0.34 (− 0.65, − 0.03)*

− 0.34 (− 0.65, − 0.03) *

− 0.45 (− 0.82, − 0.09)*

− 0.47 (− 0.83, − 0.1) *

−0.39 (− 0.76, − 0.02) *

−0.4 (− 0.77, − 0.04) *

0.02 (− 0.28, 0.32)

0.01 (− 0.28, 0.31)

−0.04 (− 0.34, 0.25)

−0.05 (− 0.34, 0.24)

Age (> = 65 vs. 36–64)

0.3 (− 0.09, 0.68)

0.31 (− 0.07, 0.69)

0.24 (− 0.14, 0.62)

0.24 (− 0.14, 0.62)

0.3 (− 0.16, 0.75)

0.27 (− 0.18, 0.72)

0.21 (−0.24, 0.66)

0.25 (− 0.2, 0.69)

−0.48 (− 0.85, − 0.1)*

−0.51 (− 0.88, − 0.14) *

−0.47 (− 0.84, − 0.1) *

−0.42 (− 0.78, − 0.06) *

Male (1)

−0.27 (− 0.54, − 0.01)*

−0.27 (− 0.53, 0)*

−0.24 (− 0.5, 0.02)

−0.24 (− 0.5, 0.02)

0.08 (− 0.23, 0.4)

0.08 (− 0.23, 0.39)

0.1 (− 0.21, 0.41)

0.1 (− 0.2, 0.41)

0.06 (− 0.2, 0.31)

0.05 (−0.2, 0.31)

0.04 (− 0.21, 0.29)

0.04 (− 0.2, 0.29)

Urban (1)

0.01 (− 0.27, 0.29)

0.06 (− 0.22, 0.34)

0.07 (− 0.21, 0.35)

0.07 (− 0.21, 0.35)

0.07 (− 0.27, 0.4)

−0.02 (− 0.35, 0.32)

−0.01 (− 0.34, 0.33)

0.03 (− 0.3, 0.36)

0.49 (0.21, 0.76)*

0.4 (0.13, 0.67) *

0.39 (0.12, 0.66) *

0.42 (0.16, 0.69) *

Exact Recognition+ (1)

 

−0.66 (− 1, − 0.33)*

−0.65 (− 0.98, − 0.31) *

−0.65 (− 0.99, − 0.32) *

 

1.14 (0.75, 1.53) *

1.15 (0.76, 1.54) *

0.99 (0.6, 1.38) *

 

1.24 (0.92, 1.55) *

1.23 (0.91, 1.55) *

1.07 (0.76, 1.39) *

Illness Explanation-Biological/Genetic Cause (1)

  

0.75 (0.48, 1.03) *

0.75 (0.47, 1.03) *

  

0.54 (0.21, 0.87) *

0.45 (0.12, 0.78) *

  

−0.39 (−0.65, − 0.12) *

−0.47 (− 0.74, − 0.21) *

Perceived Illness Severity

   

0.02 (−0.17, 0.21)

   

0.71 (0.49, 0.93) *

   

0.68 (0.51, 0.86) *

  1. Note. N number of subjects, CI Confidence interval, OR odds ratio, ß beta coefficient; *p < 0.05
  2. +Model using some MI recognition were conducted and no difference between exact and some recognition were observed
  3. aPopulation size (N) = 1671, R2 = 0.041; b Population size (N) = 1649, R2 = 0.056; c Population size (N) = 1655, R2 = 0.081