Table 1
Characteristics of the study population, presented as mean (SD) and proportion. The sample is from birth cohorts in 2000–2005.
| Full sample | ||
|---|---|---|
| Receiving the attendance benefit | Not receiving the attendance benefit | |
| Attendance benefit (%) | 2.64 | 97.36 |
| Characteristic of the mother | ||
| Non-immigrant (%) | 84.29 | 83.06 |
| Immigrant (%) | 15.71 | 16.94 |
| Length of residency at birth (yrs) | 9.04 (8.95) | 8.54 (8.98) |
| Upper secondary education and below (%) | 62.85 | 54.92 |
| Any college/university education (%) | 37.15 | 45.08 |
| <= median income (%) | 57.21 | 47.08 |
| > Median income (%) | 42.79 | 52.32 |
| Single mother (%) | 9.78 | 7.52 |
| Married/cohabiting (%) | 90.22 | 92.48 |
| Age at birth (yrs) | 29.41 (5.21) | 29.45 (5.02) |
| Characteristic of the child | ||
| Age (yrs) | 5.89 (1.65) | 5.49 (1.71) |
| Total | 9043 | 326372 |
Table 2
Model 1: Logistic regression with regard to the uptake of the attendance benefit for children with a disability by socioeconomic status and immigrant background. OR (95% CI) and average marginal effects. The sample is from birth cohorts in 2000–2005, n = 335.415.
| OR | AME | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | Coeff. | St. error | P-value | |
| Characteristic of the mother | ||||
| Non-immigranta | 1.28 (1.15–1.42) | 0.006 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Length of residency | 1.03 (1.01–1.05) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Length of residency quadratic term | 0.99 (0.98–0.99) | –0.000 | 0.000 | 0.021 |
| Any college/university educationb | 0.81 (0.77–0.84) | –0.005 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| <= median incomec | 1.44 (1.38–1.51) | 0.009 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Single mother at birthd | 1.18 (1.10–1.27) | 0.005 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Age at child birth | 1.01 (1.00–1.01) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Age of the child | 1.14 (1.13–1.16) | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Constant | 0.006 (0.00–0.00) | |||
[i] Reference categories: a ‘Immigrant’; b ‘Upper secondary education and below’; c ‘> Median income’; d ‘Married/cohabiting at birth’.
Table 3
Model 2: Logistic regression with regard to the uptake of the attendance benefit for children with Down syndrome by socioeconomic status and immigrant background. OR (95% CI) and average marginal effects. The sample is from birth cohorts in 2000–2005, n = 482.
| OR | AME | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | Coeff. | St.error | P-value | |
| Characteristic of the mother | ||||
| Non-immigranta | 20.11 (6.76–59.81) | 0.262 | 0.066 | 0.000 |
| Length of residency | 1.07 (1.02–1.13) | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Any college/university educationb | 1.76 (0.70–4.39) | 0.024 | 0.019 | 0.219 |
| <= median incomec | 3.61 (1.20–10.79) | 0.056 | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Single mother at birthd | 0.41 (0.09–1.82) | –0.048 | 0.050 | 0.340 |
| Age at child birth | 1.00 (0.93–1.08) | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.886 |
| Age of the child | 1.31 (0.97–1.77) | 0.011 | 0.006 | 0.076 |
| Constant | 0.21 (0.01– 2.42) | |||
[i] Reference categories: a ‘Immigrant’; b ‘Upper secondary education and below’; c ‘> Median income’; d ‘Married/cohabiting at birth.’ Length of residency quadratic term was not significant and was omitted because of collinearity.
Table 4
Model 3: Logistic regression with regard to the uptake of a higher rate of attendance benefits for children with Down syndrome amongst those receiving the attendance benefit by socioeconomic status and immigrant background. OR (95% CI) and average marginal effects. The sample is from birth cohorts in 2000–2005, n = 457.
| OR | AME | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | Coeff. | St.error | P-value | |
| Characteristic of the mother | ||||
| Non-immigranta | 2.02 (0.70–5.81) | 0.064 | 0.058 | 0.268 |
| Length of residency | 1.03 (0.97–1.09) | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.311 |
| Any college/university educationb | 0.69 (0.34–1.39) | –0.027 | 0.026 | 0.300 |
| <= median incomec | 0.89 (0.43–1.82) | –0.008 | 0.027 | 0.753 |
| Single mother at birthd | 0.69 (0.21–2.17) | –0.031 | 0.05 | 0.573 |
| Age at child birth | 0.98 (0.91–1.05) | –0.001 | 0.002 | 0.604 |
| Age of the child | 1.46 (1.18–1.80) | 0.028 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Constant | 1.92 (0.12–30.10) | 0.615 | 0.076 | 0.000 |
[i] Reference categories: a ‘Immigrant’; b ‘Upper secondary education and below’; c ‘> Median income’; d ‘Married/cohabiting at birth.’ Length of residency quadratic term was not significant and was omitted because of collinearity.
Table 5
Characteristics of the study population (children with Down syndrome), presented as mean (SD) and proportion. The sample is from birth cohorts in 2000–2005.
| Sample of children with Down syndrome | ||
|---|---|---|
| Receiving the attendance benefit | Not receiving the attendance benefit | |
| Attendance benefit (%) | 94.81 | 5.19 |
| Characteristic of the mother | ||
| Non-immigrant (%) | 97.47 | 2.53 |
| Immigrant (%) | 82.56 | 17.44 |
| Length of residency at birth (yrs) | 11.31 (11.02) | 6.46 (4.08) |
| Upper secondary education and below (%) | 50 | 64 |
| Any college/university education (%) | 50 | 36 |
| <= median income (%) | 49 | 40 |
| > Median income (%) | 50 | 60 |
| Single mother (%) | 9 | 12 |
| Married/cohabiting (%) | 91 | 88 |
| Age at birth (yrs) | 33.18 (5.69) | 32.8 (4.65) |
| Characteristic of the child | ||
| Age (yrs) | 5.61 (1.65) | 4.96 (1.61) |
| Total | 457 | 25 |
[i] Note: Crosstabs between immigrants/non-immigrants and uptake of attendance benefit shows that non-immigrants mothers are 15 percentage points more likely to receive attendance benefit compared to the immigrant mothers, Chi quadrat value = 31.968, p value = 0.000.