Skip to main content

Table 6 Gender-stratified logistic stepwise regression analysis of associated factors for WPV among Chinese general practitioners

From: Prevalence and associated factors for workplace violence among general practitioners in China: a national cross-sectional study

Variable

Male

Female

Any type of WPV*a

Physical violenceb

Non-physical violencec

Any type of WPV*d

Physical violencee

Non-physical violencef

Education level (ref. Associate’s degree or vocational diploma)

 Bachelor degree

–

–

–

 

–

1.68 (1.14–2.47)

 Master degree or higher

–

–

–

 

–

2.11 (1.22–3.67)

Practice setting (ref. Urban)

 Rural

0.70 (0.52–0.94)

–

0.69 (0.51–0.93)

0.57 (0.37–0.86)

–

0.59 (0.38–0.89)

Weekly working hours (ref. < 40)

 40–

–

0.50 (0.30–0.81)

–

–

–

–

 ≥ 50

–

–

–

–

–

–

Daily consultation numbers (ref. < 20)

 20–

–

–

1.41 (1.01–1.97)

–

–

–

 ≥ 40

1.81 (1.29–2.56)

–

1.99 (1.41–2.81)

2.52 (1.76–3.63)

–

2.46 (1.71–3.55)

Home visit (ref. Never)

 Occasion

0.46 (0.27–0.81)

0.42 (0.22–0.83)

0.45 (0.26–0.79)

–

–

–

 Frequent

–

0.44 (0.23–0.83)

–

–

–

–

Occupational development opportunities (ref. Low)

 Middle

–

–

–

–

–

–

 High

–

–

–

–

–

0.54 (0.32–0.91)

Work environment (ref. Bad)

 Fair

–

–

–

0.57 (0.40–0.79)

–

0.55 (0.40–0.77)

 Good

0.58 (0.38–0.89)

–

0.57 (0.37–0.88)

0.65 (0.43–1.00)

–

0.65 (0.43–0.98)

Relationship between colleagues (ref. Bad)

 Fair

–

–

–

–

0.17 (0.03–0.81)

–

 Good

–

0.23 (0.07–0.77)

–

–

0.09 (0.02–0.41)

–

Physician–patient relations (ref. Bad)

 Fair

0.52 (0.38–0.72)

0.52 (0.36–0.77)

0.51 (0.37–0.70)

0.43 (0.31–0.60)

0.38 (0.23–0.62)

0.39 (0.29–0.53)

 Good

0.22 (0.14–0.35)

0.20 (0.12–0.36)

0.21 (0.13–0.34)

0.23 (0.15–0.36)

0.24 (0.13–0.45)

0.19 (0.13–0.28)

Practice environment (ref. Bad)

 Fair

0.62 (0.45–0.86)

–

0.61 (0.44–0.85)

0.68 (0.49–0.94)

–

–

 Good

–

–

–

0.56 (0.33–0.95)

–

–

  1. WPV workplace violence
  2. *Includes those who experienced only physical, only non-physical, or both types of workplace violence
  3. aAdjustment for practice setting (urban, rural), daily consultation numbers (< 20, 20–, ≥ 40), home visit (never, occasion, frequent), work environment (bad, fair, good), physician–patient relations (bad, fair, good), and practice environment (bad, fair, good), which were included in the final model during the stepwise process
  4. bAdjustment for weekly working hours (≤ 40, 40–, > 50), home visit (never, occasion, frequent), relationship between colleagues (bad, fair, good), and physician–patient relations (bad, fair, good), which were included in the final model during the stepwise process
  5. cAdjustment for practice setting (urban, rural), daily consultation numbers (< 20, 20–, ≥ 40), home visit (never, occasion, frequent), work environment (bad, fair, good), physician–patient relations (bad, fair, good), and practice environment (bad, fair good), which were included in the final model during the stepwise process
  6. dAdjustment for practice setting (urban, rural), daily consultation numbers (< 20, 20–, ≥ 40), work environment (bad, fair, good), physician–patient relations (bad, fair, good), and practice environment (bad, fair, good), which were included in the final model during the stepwise process
  7. eAdjustment for relationship between colleagues (bad, fair, good) and physician–patient relations (bad, fair, good), which were included in the final model during the stepwise process
  8. fAdjustment for education level (associate’s degree or vocational diploma, bachelor degree, master degree or higher), practice setting (urban, rural), daily consultation numbers (< 20, 20–, ≥ 40), occupational development opportunities (fewer, general, more), work environment (bad, fair, good), and physician–patient relations (bad, fair, good), which were included in the final model during the stepwise process
Back to article page

Human Resources for Health

ISSN: 1478-4491