Table 1
Variables, measurement levels, and survey questions.
| VARIABLE | QUESTION IN THE SURVEY | DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|---|
| Dissatisfaction with activities and participation | How satisfied are you with your ability to carry out important activities in everyday life? | Ordinal: satisfied (0), dissatisfied (1) |
| Frequency of paratransit service use | Approximately how often do you ride paratransit? | Ordinal: weekly (1), monthly (2), less than once a month (3), never (4) |
| Using paratransit services outside the canton | How often do you travel by paratransit for extra-cantonal activities or further distances? | Ordinal: weekly (1), monthly (2), less than once a month (3), never (4) |
| Order in advance | How far in advance do you normally order the paratransit service? | Ordinal: spontaneous (less than two hours in advance) (1), same day (more than two hours in advance) (2), more than one day in advance (3) |
| Spontaneous use | How often would you spontaneously be glad to have a paratransit service? | Ordinal: weekly (1), monthly (2), less than once a month (3), never (4) |
| Choice of different paratransit services | Do you have a choice between paratransit service providers? | Nominal: no (1), yes (2), don’t know (3) |
| Availability of paratransit services | Do you always get a paratransit when you order it? | Nominal: yes (1), no (2) |
| Safety of paratransit services | How safe do you feel while traveling with the paratransit service? | Nominal: safe (1), unsafe (2) |
| Costs | How do you estimate the costs for the paratransit service? | Ordinal: (too) cheap (1), just right (2), (too) expensive (3) |
| Pickup location | If you use paratransit services, where does the driver pick you up? | Ordinal: with support to the car (incl. the way) (1), with support in the car (2), without support in the car (3) |
| Accompaniment after the ride | If you use paratransit services, what support/assistance do you receive from the driver at the end of the ride? | Ordinal: from car to destination (the way) with support (1), out of the car with support (2), out of the car without support (3) |
Table 2
Sociodemographic characteristics of participants at baseline in comparison to users of paratransit services in the canton of Bern.
| BASELINE CHARACTERISTIC | STUDY SAMPLE (N = 536)/CANTON OF BERN (N = 4967) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | MEAN | SD | |
| Age (years) | 63.6/75.4 | 19.4/18.4 | ||
| Gender | ||||
| Female | 312/3291 | 58.2/66.4 | ||
| Male | 222/1671 | 41.4/33.6 | ||
| Other | 2 | 0.4 | ||
| Language | ||||
| German | 501 | 93.5 | ||
| French | 31 | 5.8 | ||
| Italy | 4 | 0.8 | ||
| Residence | ||||
| Urban | 447/3987 | 83.4/80.3 | ||
| Intermediary | 59/648 | 11.0/13.1 | ||
| Rural | 26/332 | 4.9/6.7 | ||
| Missing | 4 | 0.8 | ||
| Annual household income (CHF) | ||||
| <20,000 | 83 | 18.7 | ||
| 20,000–50,000 | 235 | 53.1 | ||
| 50,001–80,000 | 86 | 19.4 | ||
| >80,000 | 39 | 8.8 | ||
| Missing | 93 | 17.4 | ||
| Housing | ||||
| Alone | 188 | 35.1 | ||
| With others (family, friends) | 171 | 32.0 | ||
| Residential home | 54 | 10.1 | ||
| Retirement home | 75 | 14.0 | ||
| With assistance | 44 | 8.2 | ||
| Missing | 4 | 0.8 | ||
| Impairments | ||||
| Cognitive | 81 | 15.1 | ||
| Mental | 62 | 11.6 | ||
| Walking | 435 | 81.2 | ||
| Sensory | 82 | 15.3 | ||
| Communication | 51 | 9.5 | ||
| Wheelchair user | 185/1853 | 34.5/37.3 | ||
| Occupation | ||||
| Part-time job | 104 | 19.4 | ||
| Full-time job | 31 | 5.8 | ||
| Housework & care | 26 | 4.9 | ||
| Education | 9 | 1.7 | ||
| Unemployed | 11 | 2.1 | ||
| Retired | 155 | 28.9 | ||
| Pension (e.g., disability insurance) | 301 | 56.2 | ||
[i] Note: Multiple choice for the variables: impairments, occupation, and housing. Sample comparison with the canton of Bern to estimate the sample size and to prove the representativeness of the sample. Due to rounding, percentages may not total exactly 100%.
Table 3
Ten separate logistic regression models for dissatisfaction with activities and participation N = 536.
| PREDICTOR | ODDS RATIO | 95% CI. (LL, UL) | HLχ2(df) | HLp-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Frequency of paratransit service use | 2.81 (8) | .95 | ||
| Weekly | 1.00 | |||
| Monthly | 1.09 | 0.59, 2.09 | ||
| Less than once a month | 2.18* | 1.11, 4.40 | ||
| 2) Costs | 7.00 (8) | .54 | ||
| (Too) cheap | 1.00 | |||
| Just right | 0.95 | 0.54, 1.71 | ||
| (Too) expensive | 1.97* | 1.03, 3.81 | ||
| 3) Using paratransit services outside the canton | 6.60 (8) | .58 | ||
| Weekly | 1.00 | |||
| Monthly | 1.07 | 0.40, 3.40 | ||
| Less than once a month | 1.80 | 0.68, 5.69 | ||
| Never | 2.15 | 0.84, 6.66 | ||
| 4) Ordering in advance | 6.27 (8) | .62 | ||
| Spontaneous (less than two hours in advance) | 1.00 | |||
| Same day (more than two hours in advance) | 0.76 | 0.36, 1.59 | ||
| More than one day in advance | 1.34 | 0.77, 2.42 | ||
| 5) Availability of paratransit services | 16.43 (8) | .04 | ||
| Yes | 1.00 | |||
| No | 1.40 | 0.81, 2.34 | ||
| 6) Safety of paratransit services | 15.09 (8) | .06 | ||
| Safe | 1.00 | |||
| Unsafe | 2.33* | 1.08, 4.86 | ||
| 7) Spontaneous use | 7.36 (8) | .60 | ||
| Weekly | 1.00 | |||
| Monthly | 0.65 | 0.34, 1.26 | ||
| Less than once a month | 0.82 | 0.41, 1.68 | ||
| Never | 0.65 | 0.29, 1.47 | ||
| 8) Choice between different paratransit service providers | 10.43 (8) | .24 | ||
| Yes | 1.00 | |||
| No | 2.38** | 1.40, 4.09 | ||
| Don’t know | 1.80* | 1.03, 3.18 | ||
| 9) Pickup location | 9.87 (8) | .27 | ||
| With support to the car (incl. the way) | 1.00 | |||
| With support in the car | 1.12 | 0.68, 1.85 | ||
| Without support in the car | 1.51 | 0.80, 2.80 | ||
| 10) Accompaniment after the ride | 7.36 (8) | .50 | ||
| From car to destination (the way) with support | 1.00 | |||
| Out of the car with support | 0.97 | 0.59, 1.60 | ||
| Out of the car without support | 1.57 | 0.82, 2.95 |
[i] Note: Control variables: gender, age, and impairment (cognitive, psychological, walking, sensory, and communication). An odds ratio >1 indicates higher odds of being dissatisfied with performance of OR engagement in activities and participation. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; HL = Hosmer-Lemeshow. Statistically significant codes: ‘***’ 0.001; ‘**’ 0.01; ‘*’ 0.05; ‘.’ 0.1.
Table 4
Logistic regression analysis for dissatisfaction with activities and participation and four independent variables N = 436.
| PREDICTORS | ODDS RATIO | 95% CI. (LL, UL) |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | ||
| (Too) cheap | 1.00 | |
| Just right | 1.14 | 0.59, 2.26 |
| (Too) expensive | 2.12. | 1.00, 4.80 |
| Frequency of paratransit service use | ||
| Weekly | 1.00 | |
| Monthly | 1.91 | 0.87, 4.62 |
| Less than once a month | 2.83* | 1.18, 7.24 |
| Safety of paratransit services | ||
| Safe | 1.00 | |
| Unsafe | 1.45 | 0.59, 3.41 |
| Choice between different paratransit service providers | ||
| Yes | 1.00 | |
| No | 2.22* | 1.21, 4.13 |
| Don’t Know | 1.63 | 0.84, 3.16 |
[i] Note: Control variables: gender, age, impairment (cognitive, psychological, walking, sensory, and communication), income, residence, and housing. An odds ratio >1 indicates higher odds of being dissatisfied with performance of OR engagement in activities and participation. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit. Statistically significant codes: ‘***’ 0.001; ‘**’ 0.01; ‘*’ 0.05; ‘.’ 0.1. Hosmer–Lemeshow χ2(8) = 4.90, p = .80.