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

Table 8 Results from likelihood ratio test (LRT) for physicians working at the hospitals

	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	0.274				0.632
#1 + Age-adjusted mortality^d	0.279	3.20	1	.074	0.637	5.64	1	.018
#1 + hospital physician density^e	0.291	9.21	1	.002	0.742	123.55	1	< .001
#1 + clinic physician density^f	0.279	3.07	1	.080	0.689	59.87	1	< .001
#1 + urban/rural status^g	0.291	10.29	2	.006	0.662	31.85	2	< .001
#1 + SES composite index^h	0.274	0.90	1	.342	0.676	45.05	1	< .001
Full modelⁱ	0.310	23.39	6	.001	0.761	156.11	6	< .001

^aThe likelihood ratio test statistic.
^bDegree of freedom.
^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.
^dThe models included control variables and age-adjusted mortality.
^eThe models included control variables and ratio of number of physicians working at the hospitals to population.
^fThe models included control variables and ratio of number of physicians working at the clinics to population.
^gThe models included control variables and urban centre and suburban.
^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.
ⁱThe models included all variables.

ISSN: 1478-4491