Table 4:

Logistic regression models showing the relationship between a patient’s ethnocultural group, patient–clinician concordance, and outcomes of quality of care and patient empowerment

CharacteristicQuality of care
OR (95% CI)
Patient empowerment
OR (95% CI)
Patient’s ethnocultural group
 European descentReference (–)Reference (–)
 Chinese0.24 (0.12–0.48)*0.79 (0.42–1.50)
 South Asian0.17 (0.09–0.31)*0.60 (0.34–1.06)
 Indigenous0.56 (0.31–1.00)1.05 (0.63–1.75)
Patient–clinician concordance
 Ethnocultural1.11 (0.84–1.48)1.11 (0.87–1.42)
 Language1.11 (0.60–2.05)0.73 (0.41–1.31)
 Ethnocultural and language1.10 (0.83–1.45)1.11 (0.87–1.41)
Patient-reported experiences of care
 First contact accessibility1.20 (1.09–1.33)*1.15 (1.06–1.25)
 Interpersonal communication1.53 (1.27–1.86)*1.61 (1.36–1.91)
Continuity of care
 Concentrated care with regular provider1.97 (1.24–3.11)*2.05 (1.38–3.06)
 Accumulated knowledge10.18 (7.72–13.43)*3.79 (2.99–4.81)
 Information transfer2.17 (1.64–2.86)*2.68 (2.11–3.40)
 No duplication of tests1.05 (0.67–1.63)0.68 (0.46–1.02)
  • Note: CI = confidence interval, OR = odds ratio (adjusted for patient sociodemographic characteristics [sex, age, level of education, annual household income and born in Canada], self-rated health status, province).

  • * Significant (p < 0.05). Responses of quality of care and patient empowerment were recoded into a dichotomous measure, where 0 = never/rarely/sometimes and 1 = usually/always.