Skip to main content

Table 10 Results from likelihood ratio test (LRT) for physicians working at the clinics

From: Evaluating the effect of Japan’s 2004 postgraduate training programme on the spatial distribution of physicians

  R squared LR statistic a DF b P- value R squared LR statistic a DF b P- value
Model only with control variables (#1)c 0.709     0.449    
#1 + Age-adjusted mortalityd 0.718 11.37 1 .001 0.448 0.62 1 .429
#1 + hospital physician densitye 0.728 24.64 1 < .001 0.532 57.54 1 < .001
#1 + clinic physician densityf 0.709 1.42 1 .233 0.459 7.79 1 .005
#1 + urban/rural statusg 0.714 8.65 2 .013 0.467 13.87 2 < .001
#1 + SES c indexh 0.730 27.46 1 < .001 0.500 34.66 1 < .001
Full modeli 0.747 54.20 6 < .001 0.560 83.92 6 < .001
  1. aThe likelihood ratio test statistic.
  2. bDegree of freedom.
  3. cThe models included only control variables, which are total population, number of primary school students per number of primary schools, crime rate, discomfort index calculated by temperature and humidity, hospital beds per 1,000 population, and the presence or absence of medical schools.
  4. dThe models included control variables and age-adjusted mortality.
  5. eThe models included control variables and ratio of number of physicians working at the hospitals to population.
  6. fhe models included control variables and ratio of number of physicians working at the clinics to population.
  7. gThe models included control variables and urban centre and suburban.
  8. hThe models included control variables and socioeconomic status (SES) composite index, which was created from the percent of the population with a college-level education, percent of white-collar workers, the unemployment rate, and per capita income.
  9. iThe models included all variables.