Socio-demographic differences in reports of doctor patient communication (scale 0–100)*
| Variable category | Overall difference* | Difference attributable to different evaluation of care within the same practice* | Difference attributable to concentration of different patient groups in practices with different mean scores | Percentage of overall difference attributable to patient group concentration in practices with different mean scores |
| Difference (SE) | Difference (SE) | |||
| Gender | ||||
| Men | Reference | |||
| Women | 0.6 (0.032) | 0.5 (0.031) | 0.1 | 0% |
| Age group | ||||
| 18–24 | −9.4 (0.082) | −9.2 (0.080) | −0.2 | 2% |
| 25–34 | −8.4 (0.061) | −8.1 (0.060) | −0.3 | 3% |
| 35–44 | −5.0 (0.054) | −4.9 (0.052) | −0.1 | 2% |
| 45–54 | −2.8 (0.050) | −2.8 (0.049) | −0.0 | 1% |
| 55–64 | Reference | |||
| 65–74 | 3.0 (0.052) | 2.9 (0.050) | 0.0 | 1% |
| 75–84 | 4.0 (0.062) | 3.9 (0.060) | 0.1 | 2% |
| 85+ | 3.4 (0.106) | 3.2 (0.103) | 0.2 | 5% |
| Ethnic group | ||||
| White | ||||
| British White | Reference | |||
| Irish | −0.2 (0.141) | 0.6 (0.138) | −0.8 | 353%§§ |
| Any other White | −4.1 (0·096) | −3.2 (0.094) | −0.9 | 22% |
| Mixed | ||||
| White & Black Caribbean | −1.9 (0.355) | −0.8‡ (0.346) | −1.1 | 56% |
| White & Black African | −3.5 (0.447) | −1.9 (0.435) | −1.6 | 46% |
| White & Black Asian | −3.4 (0.358) | −2.2 (0.348) | −1.1 | 33% |
| Any other Mixed | −4.7 (0.405) | −3.3 (0.394) | −1.4 | 31% |
| South-Asian | ||||
| Indian | −6.1 (0.101) | −3.2 (0.109) | −3.0 | 48% |
| Pakistani | −7.2 (0.132) | −3.8 (0.145) | −3.4 | 48% |
| Bangladeshi | −8.6 (0.233) | −5.3 (0.242) | −3.4 | 39% |
| Any other Asian | −4.3 (0.194) | −2.1 (0.192) | −2.2 | 51% |
| Black | ||||
| Black Carribean | −2.7 (0.155) | −0.5§ (0.156) | −2.2 | 82% |
| Black African | −2.6 (0.143) | −0.2¶ (0.144) | −2.4 | 94% |
| Any other Black | −2.0 (0.405) | −0.2** (0.394) | −1.8 | 89% |
| Chinese | ||||
| Chinese | −8.3 (0.230) | −7.2 (0.225) | −1.1 | 14% |
| Other ethnic group | ||||
| Other ethnic group | −4.7 (0.081) | −3.2 (0.081) | −1.5 | 32% |
| Deprivation group | ||||
| ‘1’ (least deprived) | Reference | |||
| ‘2’ | −0.0† (0.050) | 0.1†† (0.054) | −0.2 | 438%§§ |
| ‘3’ | −0.5 (0.050) | 0.1‡‡ (0.072) | −0.6 | 114%§§ |
| ‘4’ | −1.2 (0.051) | 0.3 (0.257) | −1.4 | 122%§§ |
| ‘5’ (most deprived) | −0.9 (0.052) | 0.7 (0.649) | −1.6 | 169%§§ |
| Self-rated health status | ||||
| Excellent | Reference | |||
| Very good | −4.0 (0.062) | −3.8 (0.060) | −0.2 | 5% |
| Good | −7.6 (0.061) | −7.2 (0.060) | −0.4 | 6% |
| Fair | −9.4 (0.067) | −8.8 (0.065) | −0.6 | 7% |
| Poor | −10.0 (0.086) | −9.3 (0.084) | −0.7 | 7% |
| Long-standing psychological or emotional condition | ||||
| ‘No’ | Reference | |||
| ‘Yes’ | 2.0 (0.070) | 1.7 (0.068) | 0.3 | 14% |
* All coefficients are significant at the <0·001 level except as annotated: †p=0.400; ‡p=0.015; §p=0.015; ¶p=0.269; **p=0.579; ††p=0.009; ‡‡p=0.211.
§§ Proportions >100% reflect situations where differences attributable to different evaluation of care within the same practice, and differences attributable to concentration of different patient groups in practices with different mean scores are opposite in direction.9 Here for example, more deprived patients are concentrated in low-scoring practices but report better care compared with more affluent patients looked after by the same practices. This is also the case for Irish White compared with British White patients.