Skip to main content

Table 3 Regional difference in model estimates of time trends in log-odds by coercive measure (standard error in brackets)

From: Trends in the use of coercive measures in Finnish psychiatric hospitals: a register analysis of the past two decades

 Any coercive measureSeclusionLimb restraintsForced injectionPhysical restraints
Reference group
 Intercept−5.43(.795)‡−5.92(.907) ‡−6.49(1.04)‡−7.62(.919)‡−5.55(.757)‡
 Year−.0014(.0136).012(.014)−.014(.020).016(.016)−.043(.022)*
 Year^2−.0057(.0019)†−.0072(.0020)†−.014(.0006)‡−.0057(.0023)*−.0089(.0026)†
Western Finland vs Reference
 Intercept−.500(.323)−.588(.367)−.693(.400)−.458(.366)−.149(.318)†
 Year.0006(.026).0021(.026)−.015(.040)−.0062(.028).039(.037)
 Year^2.0045(.0037).0065(.0040).010(.0010)*.0077(.0043).018(.0044)†
Eastern Finland vs Reference
 Intercept.276(.339).263(.384).915(.415).071(.378).363(.337)
 Year.0031(.028)−.0066(.029)−.0086(.039)−.025(.031)−.039(.041)
 Year^2.0025(.0038).000032(.0041).014(.0009)‡.0054(.0045).0031(.0048)
Northern Finland vs Reference
 Intercept−.898(.374)−1.85(.433)−.436(.462)−1.46(.428)†−.639(.374)
 Year.0085(.030).0309(.032).029(.044)−.044(.034)−.032(.042)
 Year^2.0068(.0041).0092(.0046)*.015(.001)‡.010(.0045)*.014(.0051)*
Åland vs Reference
 Intercept−.293(.920)−.306(1.07)−1.03(1.20).255(1.07).317(.996)
 Year.079(.078).081(.080).220(.131).111(.084)−.111(.097)
 Year^2.011(.011).011(.011).015(.012).012(.012).017(.012)
  1. Estimates were adjusted for age, gender and treatment periods of care providers using a multilevel logistic regression model with random intercepts and random slopes of linear and quadratic terms. The reference group consisted of male patients of a median age of 40 from hospitals with minimum treatment periods in Southern Finland. The significant result was based on a Z-score test for each parameter estimate: ‡p < 0.001, †p < 0.01, *p < 0.05