Part 1 – Quantitative Analysis of Socioeconomic Status and Age Group, with Experience of Health Services
This section includes the main results in the form of contingency tables, statistics and bar charts. Some of the results in the contingency tables are highlighted where there is a dramatic difference in expected count and actual count. For a list of all variables and original values see Appendix 4. An unusual distribution was found for ‘age left education’ (see Appendix 5), therefore the distribution of age left education and age group was presented in bar charts and analysed (See Appendix 5) which revealed a large proportion (59.8%) missing for ‘age left education’, explaining the overrepresentation of those that left school age 16 or less; it is commented that those missing are likely to be aged 1635 (See Appendix 5). Age was then analysed in relation to age left education. As respondents still in fulltime education were so highly concentrated in the age group 1635 (See Appendix 6) and because this category was not useful for revealing socioeconomic status, those still in fulltime education were filtered out and age and age left education reexamined.
Analysis of Results Part 1 – Socioeconomic Status and Health Care Experience
Legend for Contingency Tables:
 + = higher than expected count
 – = lower than expected count
 / = little difference between actual and expected count
Table I. Contingency Table Age Group and Age Left FullTime Education, Filtering Out Respondents Still in FullTime Education
Age group, taken from response or from sample information if response missing  
Age left education  1635 years of age  3650 years of age  5165 years of age  Over 65 years of age  Row Total 
16 or less count  503  1205  1882+  1880 +  5470 
16 or less expected count  933.9  1426.1  1706.5  1403.5  5470.0 
17 or 18 count  461+  621+  521  312  1915 
17 or 18 expected count  327.0  499.2  597.4  491.4  1915.0 
19 or over count  651 +  640+  548  235 –  2074 
19 or over expected count  354.1  540.7  647.0  532.1  2074.0 
Column Total  1615  2466  2951  2427  9459 
The biggest differences in expected and actual count were between the youngest and oldest age groups, at the highest and lowest levels of education and fit the expected pattern: those that left school at 16 or less were overrepresented by the age groups 50 and over.
Table II. Chi Square Statistic  
Value  df  Asymp. Sig. (2sided)  
Pearson ChiSquare  1021.056a  6  .000 
Likelihood Ratio  1043.165  6  .000 
LinearbyLinear Association  950.882  1  .000 
N of Valid Cases  9459  
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 326.96. 
It is significant and valid. As the obtained value of 1021.056 is much higher than the critical value of 12.59 it suggests there is a strong correlation between age group and age left education.
Given that age has been shown to affect schoolleaving age, answers to questions were analysed in relation to both age group and age left education, to consider how this relationship interfered with the association between socioeconomic status and health care service received.
Indicator 1 – Time Waited for an Appointment
Table III. Contingency Table Age Left Education and Time Waited for Appointment
Case Processing Summary 

Cases 

Valid  Missing  Total  
N  Percent  N  Percent  N  Percent  
How old were you when you left fulltime education? * The last time you saw a doctor from your GP practice/ health centre, how long did you wait for an appointment?  6761  71.5%  2698  28.5%  9459  100.0% 
How long did you wait for an appointment? 

Age left education  I was seen without an appointment  I was seen on the same working day  I waited 1 or 2 working days  I waited more than 2 working days  Row total 
16 or less count  180+  1607/  1271+  893  3951 
16 or less expected count  167.7  1605.9  1237.1  940.3  3951.0 
17 or 18 count  39  554/  409  367+  1369 
17 or 18 expected count  58.1  556.4  428.7  325.8  1369.0 
19 or over count  68/  587/  437  349/  1441 
19 or over expected count  61.2  585.7  451.2  342.9  1441.0 
Column total  287  2748  2117  1609  6761 
Those that left school at 16 or less had a higher than expected count for being seen without an appointment and waiting one or two days, and lower than expected count for waiting more than two working days and the opposite is the case for those that left school at 17 or 18. Whilst this pattern is contrary to expected there is little actual difference in the expected counts and actual counts.
Table IV. ChiSquare Tests  
Value  df  Asymp. Sig. (2sided)  
Pearson ChiSquare  17.933a  6  .006 
Likelihood Ratio  18.560  6  .005 
LinearbyLinear Association  1.226  1  .268 
N of Valid Cases  6761  
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 58.11. 
Results are valid and significant. The obtained value is slightly higher than the critical value 12.59, suggesting there is not a particularly strong correlation between age left education and how long patients waited for an appointment.
Table V. Contingency Table for Age Group and Time Waited for Appointment
Case Processing Summary  
Cases 

Valid  Missing  Total  
N  Percent  N  Percent  N  Percent  
Age group, taken from response or from sample information if response missing * The last time you saw a doctor from your GP practice/ health centre, how long did you wait for an appointment?  6761  71.5%  2698  28.5%  9459  100.0% 
How long did you wait for an appointment? 

Age Group  I was seen without an appointment  I was seen on the same working day  I waited 1 or 2 working days  I waited more than 2 working days  Row total 
1635 years count  45/  506+  375/  270  1196 
1635 years expected count  50.8  486.1  374.5  284.6  1196.0 
3650 years count  64  741+  515  463+  1783 
3650 years expected count  75.7  724.7  558.3  424.3  1783.0 
5165 years count  78/  802  664+  489/  2033 
5165 years expected count  86.3  826.3  636.6  483.8  2033.0 
Over 65 years count  100+  699  563+  387  1749 
Over 65 years expected count  74.2  710.9  547.6  416.2  1749.0 
Column Total  287  2748  2117  1609  6761 
There is no clear pattern.
Table VI. Chi Square Statistic  
Value  df  Asymp. Sig. (2sided)  
Pearson ChiSquare  25.643a  9  .002 
Likelihood Ratio  24.937  9  .003 
LinearbyLinear Association  .844  1  .358 
N of Valid Cases  6761  
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 50.77. 
It is significant and valid. The obtained value of 25.643 is greater than the critical value of 16.92, however this does not suggest a strong correlation and it is not clear in which direction.
Indicator 2 – Whether Given Enough Time to Discuss Medical Problem
Table VII. Contingency Table for Education Leaving Age and Time Given to Discuss Medical Problem
Case Processing Summary  
Cases 

Valid  Missing  Total  
N  Percent  N  Percent  N  Percent  
How old were you when you left fulltime education? * Were you given enough time to discuss your health or medical problem with the doctor?  7986  84.4%  1473  15.6%  9459  100.0% 
Were you given enough time to discuss your problem? 

Age left education  Yes, definitely  Yes, to some extent  No  Row Total 
16 or less count  3579+  951  130  4660 
16 or less expected count  3514.0  986.7  159.3  4660.0 
17 or 18 count  1177  353+  68+  1598 
17 or 18 expected count  1205.0  338.4  54.6  1598.0 
19 or over count  1266  387+  75+  1728 
19 or over expected count  1303.0  365.9  59.1  1728.0 
Column total  6022  1691  273  7986 
The pattern is the opposite than expected; those that left school the earliest were more likely to have been given enough time to discuss their medical problem.
Table VIII. Chi Square Statistic  
Value  df  Asymp. Sig. (2sided)  
Pearson ChiSquare  19.009a  4  .001 
Likelihood Ratio  18.786  4  .001 
LinearbyLinear Association  15.126  1  .000 
N of Valid Cases  7986  
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 54.63. 
It is both significant and valid. The obtained value of 19.009 is higher than the critical value of 9.49; there appears to be a slight relationship between age left education and whether patients are given enough time to discuss their problem.
Table IX. Contingency Table for Age Group and Time Given to Discuss Medical Problem
Case Processing Summary  
Cases 

Valid  Missing  Total  
N  Percent  N  Percent  N  Percent  
Age group, taken from response or from sample information if response missing * Were you given enough time to discuss your health or medical problem with the doctor?  7986  84.4%  1473  15.6%  9459  100.0% 
Were you given enough time to discuss your problem? 

Age Group  Yes, definitely  Yes, to some extent  No  Row Total 
1635 years count  917  361+  74+  1352 
1635 years expected count  1019.5  286.3  46.2  1352.0 
3650 years count  1496  489+  82+  2067 
3650 years expected count  1558.7  437.7  70.7  2067.0 
5165 years count  1864+  494  79/  2437 
5165 years expected count  1837.7  516.0  83.3  2437.0 
Over 65 years count  1745+  347  38  2130 
Over 65 years expected count  1606.2  451.0  72.8  2130.0 
Column Total  6022  1691  273  7986 
There is a clear pattern the opposite to expected: the younger age group are less likely to be given enough time to discuss the problem and more likely to be given enough time ‘to some extent’ or not given enough time at all, whilst it is the opposite for older groups of respondents.
Table X. ChiSquare Statistic  
Value  df  Asymp. Sig. (2sided)  
Pearson ChiSquare  111.040a  6  .000 
Likelihood Ratio  112.354  6  .000 
LinearbyLinear Association  109.535  1  .000 
N of Valid Cases  7986  
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 46.22. 
It is significant and valid. The obtained value of 111.040 is much higher than the critical value of 12.59, which suggests there is a strong association between age group and whether patients are given enough time to discuss their medical problem.
Indicator 3 – Whether Treated with Respect and Dignity
Table XI. Contingency Table of Age Left Education and Whether Treated with Respect and Dignity
Case Processing Summary  
Cases 

Valid  Missing  Total  
N  Percent  N  Percent  N  Percent  
How old were you when you left fulltime education? * Did the doctor treat you with respect and dignity?  8016  84.7%  1443  15.3%  9459  100.0% 

Did the doctor treat you with respect and dignity? 

Age left education  Yes, all of the time  Yes, some of the time  No  Row Total 
16 or less count  4379+  265  42  4686 
16 or less expected count  4330.6  295.2  60.2  4686.0 
17 or 18 count  1453  120+  29/  1602 
17 or 18 expected count  1480.5  100.9  20.6  1602.0 
19 or over count  1576  120+  32+  1728 
19 or over expected count  1596.9  108.9  22.2  1728.0 
Column total  7408  505  103  8016 
There is a slight pattern the opposite to expected; those that left education at 16 or less had a higher than expected count for being treated with respect and dignity and those that left school aged 17 or over had a lower than expected count.
Table XII. ChiSquare Statistic  
Value  df  Asymp. Sig. (2sided)  
Pearson ChiSquare  22.435a  4  .000 
Likelihood Ratio  22.046  4  .000 
LinearbyLinear Association  16.718  1  .000 
N of Valid Cases  8016  
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 20.58. 
It is valid and significant. The obtained value of 22.435 is higher than 9.49; there is a slight correlation between age left education and whether patients were treated with respect and dignity.
Table XIII. Contingency Table of Age Group and Whether Treated with Respect and Dignity
Case Processing Summary  
Cases 

Valid  Missing  Total  
N  Percent  N  Percent  N  Percent  
Age group, taken from response or from sample information if response missing * Did the doctor treat you with respect and dignity?  8016  84.7%  1443  15.3%  9459  100.0% 
Did the doctor treat you with respect and dignity? 

Age Group  Yes, all of the time  Yes, some of the time  No  Row Total 
1635 years count  1178  143+  37+  1358 
1635 years expected count  1255.0  85.6  17.4  1358.0 
3650 years count  1857  175+  41+  2073 
3650 years expected count  1915.8  130.6  26.6  2073.0 
5165 years count  2289+  133  19  2441 
5165 years expected count  2255.9  153.8  31.4  2441.0 
Over 65 years count  2084+  54  6  2144 
Over 65 years expected count  1981.4  135.1  27.5  2144.0 
Column Total  7408  505  103  8016 
There is a pattern the opposite to expected; the older age groups had a higher than expected count for being treated by the doctor with respect and dignity and the opposite is the case for younger age groups ’1635’ and ’3650’.
Table XIV. ChiSquare Statistic  
Value  df  Asymp. Sig. (2sided)  
Pearson ChiSquare  168.848a  6  .000 
Likelihood Ratio  177.726  6  .000 
LinearbyLinear Association  162.996  1  .000 
N of Valid Cases  8016  
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 17.45. 
It is significant and valid. The obtained value of 168.848 is much higher than the critical value of 12.59, therefore there is a strong association between age and whether patients were treated with respect and dignity.
Indicator 4 – Whether Been Referred to a Specialist In the Last Twelve Months
Table XV. Contingency Table for Age Left Education and Whether Been Referred to Specialist
Case Processing Summary  
Cases 

Valid  Missing  Total  
N  Percent  N  Percent  N  Percent  
How old were you when you left fulltime education? * In the last 12 months, has anyone at your GP practice/ health centre referred you to a specialist (e.g. a hospital consultant)?  9298  98.3%  161  1.7%  9459  100.0% 
In the last 12 months has anyone at your GP referred you to a specialist? 

Age left education  Yes 
No 
Row Total 
16 or less count  2002+  3357  5359 
16 or less expected count  1925.0  3434.0  5359.0 
17 or 18 count  655  1232+  1887 
17 or 18 expected count  677.8  1209.2  1887.0 
19 or over count  683  1369+  2052 
19 or over expected count  737.1  1314.9  2052.0 
Column total  3340  5958  9298 
The pattern is the opposite to expected: those that left education age 16 or less had a higher than expected count for being referred to a specialist in the last 12 months; those that left education aged 17 or over had a lower than expected count.
Table XVI. ChiSquare Statistic  
Value  df  Asymp. Sig. (2sided)  
Pearson ChiSquare  12.202a  2  .002 
Likelihood Ratio  12.252  2  .002 
LinearbyLinear Association  11.969  1  .001 
N of Valid Cases  9298  
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 677.84. 
It is significant and valid. The obtained value of 12.202 is slightly higher than the critical value of 5.99, it suggests there is a slight association between age left education and referral to a specialist.
Table XVII. Contingency Table for Age Group and Whether Been Referred to a Specialist
Case Processing Summary  
Cases 

Valid  Missing  Total  
N  Percent  N  Percent  N  Percent  
Age group, taken from response or from sample information if response missing * In the last 12 months, has anyone at your GP practice/ health centre referred you to a specialist (e.g. a hospital consultant)?  9817  40.5%  14430  59.5%  24247  100.0% 
It is worth noting that the percentage missing for this particular question in relation to age group was very high (59.5%). This may have affected results. As suggested previously the greatest proportion missing is likely to be from the 1635 age group.

In the last 12 months has anyone at your GP referred you to a specialist? 

Age Group  Yes 
No 
Row Total 
1635 years count  566  1310+  1876 
1635 years expected count  670.6  1205.4  1876.0 
3650 years count  889/  1590/  2479 
3650 years expected count  886.1  1592.9  2479.0 
5165 years count  1009  1969+  2978 
5165 years expected count  1064.5  1913.5  2978.0 
Over 65 years count  1045+  1439  2484 
Over 65 years expected count  887.9  1596.1  2484.0 
Column Total  3509  6308  9817 
There is a slight pattern at opposite ends of the age spectrum: those aged 1635 had a lower than expected count for being referred to a specialist and those aged 65 or over had a higher than expected count.
Table XVIII. ChiSquare Statistic  
Value  df  Asymp. Sig. (2sided)  
Pearson ChiSquare  73.154a  3  .000 
Likelihood Ratio  72.884  3  .000 
LinearbyLinear Association  52.072  1  .000 
N of Valid Cases  9817  
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 670.56. 
It is significant and valid. The obtained value of 73.145 is much greater than the critical value of 7.82, therefore there is an association between age group and referral to a specialist.
Indicator 5 – Was the Main Reason Dealt With to Your Satisfaction?
Table XIX. Contingency Table for Age Left Education and Whether Problem Dealt With to Satisfaction
Case Processing Summary  
Cases  
Valid  Missing  Total  
N  Percent  N  Percent  N  Percent  
How old were you when you left fulltime education? * Was the main reason you went you your GP practice/ health centre dealt with to your satisfaction?  9179  97.0%  280  3.0%  9459  100.0% 
Was the main reason you went to your GP dealt with to your satisfaction?  
Age left education  Yes, completely  Yes, to some extent  No  Row Total 
16 or less count  4071+  1096  152  5319 
16 or less expected count  3979.3  1167.1  172.7  5319.0 
17 or 18 count  1361  432+  63/  1856 
17 or 18 expected count  1388.5  407.2  60.3  1856.0 
19 or over count  1435  486+  83+  2004 
19 or over expected count  1499.2  439.7  65.1  2004.0 
Column total  6867  2014  298  9179 
Results are the opposite to expected: those that left school earlier (16 or less) had a higher than expected count for having their problem dealt with to their satisfaction; those that left aged 19 or over had a lower than expected count.
Table XX. ChiSquare Statistic  
Value  df  Asymp. Sig. (2sided)  
Pearson ChiSquare  23.669a  4  .000 
Likelihood Ratio  23.298  4  .000 
LinearbyLinear Association  23.029  1  .000 
N of Valid Cases  9179  
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 60.26. 
It is significant and valid. The obtained value 23.669 is greater than the critical value of 9.49; there appears to be a slight correlation between age left education and having the problem deal with satisfactorily.
Table XXI. Contingency Table for Age Group and Whether Problem Dealt With to Satisfaction
Case Processing Summary  
Cases 

Valid  Missing  Total  
N  Percent  N  Percent  N  Percent  
Age group, taken from response or from sample information if response missing * Was the main reason you went you your GP practice/ health centre dealt with to your satisfaction?  9179  97.0%  280  3.0%  9459  100.0% 
Was the main reason you went to your GP dealt with to your satisfaction? 

Age Group  Yes, completely  Yes, to some extent  No  Row Total 
1635 years count  1065  437+  78+  1580 
1635 years expected count  1182.0  346.7  51.3  1580.0 
3650 years count  1653  631+  103+  2387 
3650 years expected count  1785.8  523.7  77.5  2387.0 
5165 years count  2183+  606  75  2864 
5165 years expected count  2142.6  628.4  93.0  2864.0 
Over 65 years count  1966+  340  42  2348 
Over 65 years expected count  1756.6  515.2  76.2  2348.0 
Column Total  6867  2014  298  9179 
There is a clear pattern and a large difference between expected and actual counts though it is the opposite than expected. The younger age groups of 1635 and 3650 had a higher than expected count for only having their problem dealt with ‘to some extent’ or not at all; older age groups 5165 and 65+ had a higher than expected count for having their problem dealt with ‘completely’ to their satisfaction.
Table XXII. ChiSquare Statistic  
Value  df  Asymp. Sig. (2sided)  
Pearson ChiSquare  194.196a  6  .000 
Likelihood Ratio  199.492  6  .000 
LinearbyLinear Association  178.098  1  .000 
N of Valid Cases  9179  
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 51.30. 
It is significant and valid. The obtained value of 194.196 is much greater than the critical value 12.59; therefore there is a strong association between age group and whether or not the main problem was dealt with satisfactorily.
Indicator 6 – Whether or Not Been Put Off Going to GP Due to Inconvenient Opening Times
Table XXIII. Contingency Table for Age Left Education and Whether Been Put Off Appointments Due to Inconvenient Opening Times
Case Processing Summary  
Cases 

Valid  Missing  Total  
N  Percent  N  Percent  N  Percent  
How old were you when you left fulltime education? * In the last 12 months, have you ever been put off going to your GP practice/ health centre because the opening times are inconvenient for you?  9286  98.2%  173  1.8%  9459  100.0% 
Have you been put off going to your GP because of inconvenient opening times? 

Age left education  Yes, often  Yes, sometimes  No  Row Total 
16 or less count  282  770  4314+  5366 
16 or less expected count  371.6  924.6  4069.9  5366.0 
17 or 18 count  175+  388+  1322  1885 
17 or 18 expected count  130.5  324.8  1429.7  1885.0 
19 or over count  186+  442+  1407  2035 
19 or over expected count  140.9  350.6  1543.5  2035.0 
Column total  643  1600  7043  9286 
There is a strong pattern: Those that left education aged 16 or less had a lower than expected count for being put off going to their GP because of inconvenient opening times and those that left school at 17 or 18 or 19 had a higher than expected count.
Table XXIV. ChiSquare Statistic  
Value  df  Asymp. Sig. (2sided)  
Pearson ChiSquare  147.941a  4  .000 
Likelihood Ratio  146.423  4  .000 
LinearbyLinear Association  121.274  1  .000 
N of Valid Cases  9286  
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 130.52. 
It is valid and significant. The obtained value of 147.941 is much greater than the critical value of 9.49, suggesting there is a strong relationship between age left education and whether or not they are likely to be put off going to their GP due to inconvenient opening times.
Table XXV. Contingency Table for Age Group and Whether Been Put Off Making an Appointment Due to Inconvenient Opening Times
Case Processing Summary  
Cases 

Valid  Missing  Total  
N  Percent  N  Percent  N  Percent  
Age group, taken from response or from sample information if response missing * In the last 12 months, have you ever been put off going to your GP practice/ health centre because the opening times are inconvenient for you?  9286  98.2%  173  1.8%  9459  100.0% 
Have you been put off going to your GP because of inconvenient opening times? 

Age Group  Yes, often  Yes, sometimes  No  Row Total 
1635 years count  196+  388 +  1006 –  1590 
1635 years expected count  110.1  274.0  1205.9  1590.0 
3650 years count  238+  538+  1651 –  2427 
3650 years expected count  168.1  418.2  1840.8  2427.0 
5165 years count  176  509+  2215+  2900 
5165 years expected count  200.8  499.7  2199.5  2900.0 
Over 65 years count  33 –  165 –  2171 +  2369 
Over 65 years expected count  164.0  408.2  1796.8  2369.0 
Column Total  643  1600  7043  9286 
The results show a pattern opposite to expectations: the younger age groups (1635 and 3650) had a higher count than expected for being put off from making an appointment either ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ whereas those aged 65 or over had a much lower than expected count for being put off due to inconvenient opening times.
Table XXVI. ChiSquare Statistic  
Value  df  Asymp. Sig. (2sided)  
Pearson ChiSquare  561.500a  6  .000 
Likelihood Ratio  629.109  6  .000 
LinearbyLinear Association  505.170  1  .000 
N of Valid Cases  9286  
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 110.10. 
It is valid and significant. The obtained value of 561.500 is much greater than the critical value of 12.59, therefore there is likely to be a very strong association between age group and whether put off due to inconvenient opening times.
Share
Print