Artigo - Headache
Luis Anunciacao
23 January, 2020
1 Data cleaning process
Data cleaning is the first step of data analysis. The function clean_names from janitor package will be used.
2 Mastery
Mastery is formed of all 20 items that, in sequence, give the opportunity to have results of optimism,self-efficacy, and adaptability. Based on the DSM-5 criterion for learning disabilities, if the standardized result of a raw score was less or equal than -1.5 standard deviation (using all group as reference), the participant was allocated in the cattegory of being ‘at risk’.
Following this criterion, 23 (7%) children were classified in ‘at risk’ group.
| mastery_prob | n | prop |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 316 | 0.93 |
| 1 | 23 | 0.07 |
2.1 Optimism
I’m assuming optimis is composed of items 1-4 and 18-20, as exposed in excel spreadsheet. The standardized score was computed based on their sum.
In this sample, 22 (6%) of the children were classified in ‘at risk’ group.
| optimism_prob | n | prop |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 317 | 0.94 |
| 1 | 22 | 0.06 |
2.2 Self-efficacy
I’m assuming Self-efficacy is composed of 10 items (5-14), as exposed in excel spreadsheet. The standardized score was computed based on their sum.
In this sample, 20 (6%) of the children were classified in ‘at risk’ group.
| self_prob | n | prop |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 319 | 0.94 |
| 1 | 20 | 0.06 |
2.3 Adaptability
I’m assuming adaptability is composed of 3 items (15-17), as exposed in excel spreadsheet. This (sub)scale is applied to certain age-interval. The standardized score was computed based on their sum.
In this sample, 12 (4%) of the children were classified in ‘at risk’ group.
| adaptability_prob | n | prop |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 128 | 0.38 |
| 1 | 12 | 0.04 |
| NA | 199 | 0.59 |
4 Reactivity
Reactivity is composed of 20 items that form 3 subscales. The higher the score in this scale, the greater the risk of developmental problems.
In this study, 32 (9%) children were classified at risk.
| reactivity_prob | n | prop |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 307 | 0.91 |
| 1 | 32 | 0.09 |
4.1 Sensitivity
Sensitivy subscale is composed of 6 items.
In this study, 27 (8%) children were classified at risk.
| sensitivity_prob | n | prop |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 312 | 0.92 |
| 1 | 27 | 0.08 |
4.2 Recovery
Sensitivy subscale is composed of 4 items (10-13.)
In this study, 30 (9%) children were classified at risk.
| recovery_prob | n | prop |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 309 | 0.91 |
| 1 | 30 | 0.09 |
4.3 Impairment
Impairment subscale is composed of 10 items (7-9 and 14-20)
In this study, 28 (8%) children were classified at risk.
| impairment_prob | n | prop |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 311 | 0.92 |
| 1 | 28 | 0.08 |
5 Total ressources
Total ressources are formed of the average of the raw scores of Mastery and Relatedness. In this scale, the lower the result, the greater the risk.
The standardized score of Total Ressources was computed. If a participant has 0 as his/her result, it means an average score. Results above than 0 indicates a protective environment and results below 0 indicates a risk factor.
In this study, 28 (8%) children were classified at risk.
| resources_prob | n | prop |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 311 | 0.92 |
| 1 | 28 | 0.08 |
6 Vulnerability
This scale is composed of the difference between Reactivity and Resources. To achieve these results, one needs to subtract the resource T-score from the emotional Reactivity t-score. In this study, we used the raw score.
Positive results reveal risk outcomes. It means the child has more reactivity behaviors than ressources to deal with them. On the other hand, negative results means child has more resources than emotional reactivity.
In this study, 18 (5%) children were classified at risk.
| vulnerability_prob | n | prop |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 321 | 0.95 |
| 1 | 18 | 0.05 |
The distribution of the raw results of vulnerability is exposed below.
7 Introdução
Essa é uma pesquisa que contou com a utilização de escalas psicológicas. A escala Mastery é formada por um indicador geral e indicadores sobre otimismo, auto-eficácia e adaptabilidade. A escala Relatedness é formado por um indicador geral e indicadores especÃficos sobre confiança (Trust), suporte (Support), conforto (Comfort) e tolerância (Tolerance). A escala Reactivity é formada por um indicador geral e sensibilidade (Sensitivity), recuperação (Recovery) e disfunção (Impairment). A escala de Resource é composta pela média simples dos escores T da mastery (t score) com os os escores T da escala Relatedness (t score) e Vulberanbilidade (VUL) é a diferença do escore T da Reactivity pelo RIS da vulnerabilidade.
Cefaleia foi acessada por diferentes questionamentos. Se o participante já teve cefaleia alguma vez na vida (CEFALEIA LIFETIME) e quantos episÃdios ele havia apresentado no último mês (Último mês: (0) zero; (1) 1-4; (2) 5-9; (3) 10-14; (4) > 14).
Variáveis sociodemográficas de interesse são IDADE, Sexo, Cor: 1 branca, 2 não branca, 3 não informou e CLASSE ECONÔMICA.
##CONFERIR COM ARRUDA! **
8 Missing data and outliers
9 Methods
9.1 Participants
9.2 Instruments / Measures
This research relied on the results obtained by several scales developed to access and measure different domains of children’s resilience. All scales had its psychometric properties previously studied and this research accessed the realibility of the data gathered through the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The following information presents the measures.
The Sense of Mastery scale (α = .87) is composed of 20 items and aims to access three different domains, i.e., Optimism, SeItslf-Efficacy, and Adaptability. Its manual guide defines optimis as a positive attitude(s) about the world/life in general and about individual’s life specifically, currenly, and in the future. Self-efficacy is conceived as the sense that one can master his or her environment. Adaptability is the ability to learn from one’s mistakes and to accept feedback from others. In the present research, results were roughly normally distributed (Mean = 50, Median = 50).
The Sense of Relatedness scale (α = .90) is composed of 24 items and access fours domains, such as sense of trust, perceived access to comfort with others, and tolerance. The Sense of Turst is conceptualized as the extent to which others are perceived as reliable and the extent to which one can be authentic in relationship with others. Results were slightly left skewed (Mean = 63, Median = 65).
The Emotional Reactivity Scale (α = .90) is composed of 20 items and access two domains, that is sensitivity and recovery. In addition to that, this scale also includes a measure of the participant’s overall resources (named as Resource Index Score) and Vulnerability (named as Vulnerability Index Score. The Resource Index Score is computed by the standardized average of the sense of Mastery T score and Sense of Relatedness T score. Similarly, the Vulnerability Index Score is derived by the standardized difference between the Resource Index and the Emotional Reactivity T score. Results were slightly right skewed (Mean = 31, Median = 29).
The table below summarises the main statistics. Double checked on January 21 2020.
| mastery_total_mean | 50.1 |
| optimism_mean | 17.9 |
| self_efficacy_mean | 23.9 |
| adaptability_numeric_mean | 8.3 |
| relatedness_total_mean | 63.8 |
| trust_mean | 18.5 |
| support_mean | 17.5 |
| comfort_mean | 10.4 |
| tolerance_numeric_mean | 17.3 |
| reactivity_total_mean | 31.0 |
| sensitivity_mean | 11.3 |
| recovery_mean | 6.3 |
| impairment_mean | 13.5 |
| ressources_total_mean | 57.0 |
| vulnerability_total_mean | -25.9 |
| mastery_total_sd | 12.0 |
| optimism_sd | 4.9 |
| self_efficacy_sd | 6.8 |
| adaptability_numeric_sd | 2.3 |
| relatedness_total_sd | 14.9 |
| trust_sd | 4.9 |
| support_sd | 4.7 |
| comfort_sd | 3.4 |
| tolerance_numeric_sd | 4.7 |
| reactivity_total_sd | 15.3 |
| sensitivity_sd | 4.9 |
| recovery_sd | 4.1 |
| impairment_sd | 8.7 |
| ressources_total_sd | 12.1 |
| vulnerability_total_sd | 20.6 |
10 Results
We accessed the relationship between headache and the results obtained by each scales descriptively by using graphs and frequencies. Bar graphs are easy to understan, and very useful for showing the pattern of the results.
Thus, to check the effect of the headache intensity (independent variable) on the different domains of children’s resilience (dependent variable), independents robust linear models were carried out (Robust ANOVA). Their estimates were also computed using bootstrap resampling techniques of 1,000 replicates. Robust models take advange of the M-estimation and the specific literature states that the results obtained by this procedure are more stable. It happens because they are not overly affected by violations of the common linear model assumptions (Huber, 1981).
A Robust ANOVA has the following properties: i it’s a omnibus test, with significant results implying that at least one of many possible mathematical linear contrasts that can be formulated is significant, ii the dependent variable is treated as continuous whereas the independent variable is categorical, iii its results explore the main effects, and iv the effect of a particular level of the factor must be obtained by comparying all factor levels and adjusting the p-value (Foundational and Applied Statistics for Biologists Using R).
11 Mastery
To check the RSCA indexes, scales, and subscales as a function of headache frequency, a Robust one-way ANOVA was carried out using the raw score results as the dependent variable. The effect of headache on the Mastery results was significant (F(3, 335) = 3.13, p = 0.03). Post-hoc comparison revealed significant differences between the headache-free group and the intermediate (Δ: -6.096, CI 95% [-11.96, -0.97]) and high frequency group (Δ: -8.39, CI 95% [-15.17, -1.23]).
| Df | F | Pr(>F) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 1 | 761.5 | 0.00 |
| factor(cefaleia_mes) | 3 | 3.1 | 0.03 |
| Residuals | 335 | NA | NA |
| estimate | original | boot_bias | boot_se | boot_med | boot_skew | boot_kurtosis | x2_5_percent | x97_5_percent | sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 52.7 | -0.02 | 1.7 | 52.7 | -0.08 | -0.21 | 49.5 | 56.03 | p < 0.05 |
| factor(cefaleia_mes)Low frequency | -1.9 | -0.02 | 1.9 | -1.9 | 0.04 | -0.15 | -5.5 | 1.79 | ns |
| factor(cefaleia_mes)Intermediate | -6.5 | -0.02 | 2.8 | -6.5 | -0.09 | 0.02 | -12.0 | -0.97 | p < 0.05 |
| factor(cefaleia_mes)High frequency | -8.4 | -0.20 | 3.6 | -8.5 | -0.14 | -0.20 | -15.2 | -1.23 | p < 0.05 |
11.1 Graphical analysis
The following images report the confidence interval and the variables distribution. These results provide evidence that after the bootstrap, data were normally distributed.
11.2 Categorical outcomes
Based on DSM-5 recommendation, we used results below of 1.5 standard deviation to assign children to a ‘at risk’ group, as previously cited.
|
|
|
The table below reports the estimate values in the log-odds form, the standard error of each estimate, and the odds ratio. The interpretation of the estimates considers the log odds scale. As an example, the expected change in log odds is 0.57 for those with a low-frequency headache when compared to those with no headache. The Odds-Ratio is the ratio of the odds for the groups, is always non-negative, and between 0 and \(infinity\). its interpretation is recommended, once its results are more straightforward and intuitive. The odds ratio of having a low sense of mastery among those with low-frequency headache is 1.77 compared to those with no headache, i.e, the odds of low sense of mastery in headache-free participants is estimated to be 1.77 times the odds of low sense of mastery in children experiencing low-frequency headache (77.1% higher = (1-1.771*100)). However, this result is not significant. Significant results are marked by asterisks.
11.3 Relative Risk
Relative risks can be estimated by OR applying this equation:
\[\hat{RR} = \frac{OR}{1-Risk_{control}+Risk_{control}*OR}\]
are computed below from the contingency table between the factor and the outcome:
The following plot shows the Odds-ratio results. The overall effect estimate and its 95% confidence intervals are plotted, and the vertical line right over the number 1 means equal chances.
12 Relatedness
Contrasting to this result, no significant effect was found on the results of the Relatedness scale (F(3,335) = 2.04, p = 0.11).
| D | f | F Pr | (>F) |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 1 | 863 | 0.00 |
| cefaleia_mes | 3 | 2 | 0.11 |
| Residuals | 335 | NA | NA |
12.1 Categorical outcomes
The sense of Relatedness scale is composed of 24 items and includes four components aspects that contribute to a sense of relatedness, such as the sense of trust, perceived access to support, comfort with others and tolerance. children with scores equal to or lower than 45 in the T-score scale were considered at risk and, therefore, assigned a value of 1.
|
|
|
12.2 Relative Risk
The graph below illustrated the Odds-ratio of having low sense of relatedness. The higher the odds, the more likely the child is to suffer from a low sense of relatedness.
13 Reactivity.
The effect of headache on the Reactivity results was significant (F(3, 335) = 3.04, p =.03). The higher frequency headache group had higher results on the Reactivity scale when compared to group headache-free (Δ: 11.07, CI 95% [2.43, 20.12]).
| Df | F | Pr(>F) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 1 | 134 | 0.00 |
| cefaleia_mes | 3 | 3 | 0.03 |
| Residuals | 335 | NA | NA |
| estimate | original | boot_bias | boot_se | boot_med | boot_skew | boot_kurtosis | x2_5_percent | x97_5_percent | sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 27.7 | 0.07 | 2.9 | 27.8 | 0.17 | 0.39 | 22.0 | 33.3 | p < 0.05 |
| cefaleia_mesLow frequency | 1.7 | -0.06 | 3.0 | 1.8 | -0.14 | 0.04 | -4.1 | 7.7 | ns |
| cefaleia_mesIntermediate | 6.5 | 0.09 | 4.1 | 6.5 | 0.10 | 0.11 | -1.6 | 14.4 | ns |
| cefaleia_mesHigh frequency | 11.1 | -0.20 | 4.5 | 10.9 | -0.06 | -0.10 | 2.4 | 20.1 | p < 0.05 |
13.1 Categorical outcomes
|
|
|
13.2 Relative Risk
14 Resources
The effect of headache on the Resources scale was significant F(3, 335) = 2.99, p = 0.03). The high frequency group had significant results (Δ: -9.44, CI 95% [-15.02, -4.12]) when compared to headache-free group.
| Df | F | Pr(>F) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 1 | 1065 | 0.00 |
| cefaleia_mes | 3 | 3 | 0.03 |
| Residuals | 335 | NA | NA |
| estimate | original | boot_bias | boot_se | boot_med | boot_skew | boot_kurtosis | x2_5_percent | x97_5_percent | sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 60.8 | -0.02 | 1.9 | 60.8 | -0.08 | -0.15 | 57.0 | 64.60 | p < 0.05 |
| cefaleia_mesLow frequency | -3.2 | 0.01 | 2.1 | -3.2 | 0.08 | 0.02 | -7.3 | 0.89 | ns |
| cefaleia_mesIntermediate | -5.7 | -0.02 | 3.0 | -5.8 | -0.12 | 0.12 | -11.6 | 0.16 | ns |
| cefaleia_mesHigh frequency | -9.4 | 0.13 | 2.8 | -9.3 | 0.03 | -0.01 | -15.0 | -4.12 | p < 0.05 |
14.1 Categorical outcomes
The Resource Index is the standardized average of the Sense of Mastery and Sense of Relatedness scales.
|
|
|
14.2 Relative Risk
15 vulnerability
In the same direction of the results of Ressources, the main effect of headache on Vulnerability results was significant F(3, 335) = 4.05, p < 0.01) and the comparison revealed that intermediate (Δ: 11.04, CI 95% [0.12, 21.51]) and high fequency group (Δ: 18.34, CI 95% [7.42, 29.71]) had higher results than the disease-free group.
| Df | F | Pr(>F) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 1 | 87 | 0.00 |
| cefaleia_mes | 3 | 4 | 0.01 |
| Residuals | 335 | NA | NA |
| estimate | original | boot_bias | boot_se | boot_med | boot_skew | boot_kurtosis | x2_5_percent | x97_5_percent | sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | -31 | -0.08 | 3.8 | -30.9 | 0.02 | 0.21 | -38.22 | -23 | p < 0.05 |
| cefaleia_mesLow frequency | 4 | 0.10 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 0.03 | -0.01 | -4.00 | 12 | ns |
| cefaleia_mesIntermediate | 11 | 0.22 | 5.5 | 11.2 | 0.19 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 22 | p < 0.05 |
| cefaleia_mesHigh frequency | 18 | -0.23 | 5.7 | 18.3 | -0.08 | -0.15 | 7.42 | 30 | p < 0.05 |
15.1 Categorical outcomes
The Vulnerability Index scrore is the standardized difference between the Emotional Reactivy T-score and the Resource Index score. It quantifies children’s personal vulnerability as the relative discrepancy between their combined self-perceived resources (the Resource Index) and their fragility as described by emotional reactivity (the Emotional Reactitivy Scale).
|
|
|
15.2 Relative Risk
16 Migraine
First, I’ll add a specific variable to the dataset.
Then all previous relation will be checked again. No significant effect was found on Mastery results (F(6, 331) = 1.63, p = 0.14), Relatedness (F(6, 331) = 1.79, p = 0.1), Reactivity (F(6, 331) = 0.39, p = 0.89), Resources (F(6, 331), F = 2.15, p = 0.05), and Vulnerability (F(6, 331) = 1.13, p = 0.34).
| Df | F | Pr(>F) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 1 | 756.3 | 0.00 |
| factor(migraine_status) | 6 | 1.6 | 0.14 |
| Residuals | 331 | NA | NA |
| Df | F | Pr(>F) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 1 | 851.3 | 0.0 |
| factor(migraine_status) | 6 | 1.8 | 0.1 |
| Residuals | 331 | NA | NA |
| Df | F | Pr(>F) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 1 | 130.78 | 0.00 |
| factor(migraine_status) | 6 | 0.39 | 0.89 |
| Residuals | 331 | NA | NA |
| Df | F | Pr(>F) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 1 | 1069.6 | 0.00 |
| factor(migraine_status) | 6 | 2.1 | 0.05 |
| Residuals | 331 | NA | NA |
| Df | F | Pr(>F) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 1 | 84.7 | 0.00 |
| factor(migraine_status) | 6 | 1.1 | 0.34 |
| Residuals | 331 | NA | NA |
17 Membership groups
Another aim of this study is to check which variables are related to children at great psychological risk. These children were assigned to specific groups. The first one was composed of children that experienced at least one episode of headache in their lifetime and previously classified at low resources risk group (n =27). The second group included children with at last one episode of headache during his/her life and previously classified at high vulnerability group (n =17).
logistic regression was conducted including all established risk factors and subject variables (Migraine, age, race, sex, socioeconomic status, problems at sleeping, prematurity, use of tobacco and alcohol during pregnancy, low birth weight during delivery, low psychological strengths, and having ADHD). The variance inflation factor was calculated to determine the degree of multicollinearity present in the data results.
## Frequencies
## base_uso$age
## Type: Numeric
##
## Freq % Valid % Valid Cum. % Total % Total Cum.
## ----------- ------ --------- -------------- --------- --------------
## 10 7 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06
## 11 50 14.75 16.81 14.75 16.81
## 12 42 12.39 29.20 12.39 29.20
## 13 52 15.34 44.54 15.34 44.54
## 14 48 14.16 58.70 14.16 58.70
## 15 60 17.70 76.40 17.70 76.40
## 16 33 9.73 86.14 9.73 86.14
## 17 39 11.50 97.64 11.50 97.64
## 18 8 2.36 100.00 2.36 100.00
## <NA> 0 0.00 100.00
## Total 339 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
##
## base_uso$race
## Type: Factor
##
## Freq % Valid % Valid Cum. % Total % Total Cum.
## ----------- ------ --------- -------------- --------- --------------
## white 239 72.64 72.64 70.50 70.50
## Other 90 27.36 100.00 26.55 97.05
## <NA> 10 2.95 100.00
## Total 339 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
##
## base_uso$sex
## Type: Factor
##
## Freq % Valid % Valid Cum. % Total % Total Cum.
## ------------ ------ --------- -------------- --------- --------------
## Female 181 53.39 53.39 53.39 53.39
## Male 158 46.61 100.00 46.61 100.00
## <NA> 0 0.00 100.00
## Total 339 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
##
## base_uso$ses
## Type: Factor
##
## Freq % Valid % Valid Cum. % Total % Total Cum.
## ----------- ------ --------- -------------- --------- --------------
## AB 93 27.43 27.43 27.43 27.43
## C 203 59.88 87.32 59.88 87.32
## DE 43 12.68 100.00 12.68 100.00
## <NA> 0 0.00 100.00
## Total 339 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
##
## base_uso$sleeping
## Type: Factor
##
## Freq % Valid % Valid Cum. % Total % Total Cum.
## ----------- ------ --------- -------------- --------- --------------
## no 321 96.69 96.69 94.69 94.69
## yes 11 3.31 100.00 3.24 97.94
## <NA> 7 2.06 100.00
## Total 339 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
##
## base_uso$premature
## Type: Factor
##
## Freq % Valid % Valid Cum. % Total % Total Cum.
## ----------- ------ --------- -------------- --------- --------------
## no 293 87.99 87.99 86.43 86.43
## yes 40 12.01 100.00 11.80 98.23
## <NA> 6 1.77 100.00
## Total 339 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
##
## base_uso$smoking
## Type: Factor
##
## Freq % Valid % Valid Cum. % Total % Total Cum.
## ----------- ------ --------- -------------- --------- --------------
## no 263 78.04 78.04 77.58 77.58
## yes 74 21.96 100.00 21.83 99.41
## <NA> 2 0.59 100.00
## Total 339 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
##
## base_uso$alcohol
## Type: Factor
##
## Freq % Valid % Valid Cum. % Total % Total Cum.
## ----------- ------ --------- -------------- --------- --------------
## no 301 89.58 89.58 88.79 88.79
## yes 35 10.42 100.00 10.32 99.12
## <NA> 3 0.88 100.00
## Total 339 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
##
## base_uso$sdq_risk
## Type: Factor
##
## Freq % Valid % Valid Cum. % Total % Total Cum.
## ----------- ------ --------- -------------- --------- --------------
## no 306 90.27 90.27 90.27 90.27
## yes 33 9.73 100.00 9.73 100.00
## <NA> 0 0.00 100.00
## Total 339 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
##
## base_uso$adhd
## Type: Factor
##
## Freq % Valid % Valid Cum. % Total % Total Cum.
## ----------- ------ --------- -------------- --------- --------------
## no 329 97.05 97.05 97.05 97.05
## yes 10 2.95 100.00 2.95 100.00
## <NA> 0 0.00 100.00
## Total 339 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00| Â | risk cefaleia resources |
risk cefaleia vulnerability |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictors | Odds Ratios | CI | Statistic | p | Odds Ratios | CI | Statistic | p |
| (Intercept) | 0.98 | 0.04 – 26.35 | -0.01 | 0.992 | 0.98 | 0.04 – 26.35 | -0.01 | 0.992 |
| age | 0.87 | 0.67 – 1.10 | -1.15 | 0.250 | 0.87 | 0.67 – 1.10 | -1.15 | 0.250 |
| race [Other] | 1.15 | 0.35 – 3.33 | 0.24 | 0.808 | 1.15 | 0.35 – 3.33 | 0.24 | 0.808 |
| sex [Male] | 0.24 | 0.07 – 0.70 | -2.40 | 0.016 | 0.24 | 0.07 – 0.70 | -2.40 | 0.016 |
| ses [C] | 0.38 | 0.12 – 1.13 | -1.72 | 0.085 | 0.38 | 0.12 – 1.13 | -1.72 | 0.085 |
| ses [DE] | 0.58 | 0.10 – 2.60 | -0.66 | 0.507 | 0.58 | 0.10 – 2.60 | -0.66 | 0.507 |
| sleeping [yes] | 1.77 | 0.20 – 10.13 | 0.59 | 0.558 | 1.77 | 0.20 – 10.13 | 0.59 | 0.558 |
| premature [yes] | 1.88 | 0.47 – 6.10 | 0.99 | 0.323 | 1.88 | 0.47 – 6.10 | 0.99 | 0.323 |
| smoking [yes] | 0.83 | 0.19 – 3.01 | -0.27 | 0.786 | 0.83 | 0.19 – 3.01 | -0.27 | 0.786 |
| alcohol [yes] | 1.05 | 0.20 – 4.15 | 0.07 | 0.948 | 1.05 | 0.20 – 4.15 | 0.07 | 0.948 |
| sdq_risk [yes] | 2.67 | 0.49 – 10.93 | 1.27 | 0.204 | 2.67 | 0.49 – 10.93 | 1.27 | 0.204 |
| adhd [yes] | 16.10 | 2.15 – 158.16 | 2.57 | 0.010 | 16.10 | 2.15 – 158.16 | 2.57 | 0.010 |
| Observations | 314 | 314 | ||||||
| R2 Tjur | 0.154 | 0.154 | ||||||
## # A tibble: 4 x 2
## int_dor_cabeca n
## <chr> <int>
## 1 1 49
## 2 2 53
## 3 3 188
## 4 <NA> 49## # A tibble: 4 x 2
## fotofobia n
## <dbl> <int>
## 1 0 166
## 2 1 118
## 3 2 2
## 4 NA 53## # A tibble: 4 x 2
## fonofobia n
## <dbl> <int>
## 1 0 108
## 2 1 174
## 3 2 2
## 4 NA 55## # A tibble: 4 x 2
## nausea n
## <dbl> <int>
## 1 0 158
## 2 1 122
## 3 2 1
## 4 NA 58## # A tibble: 3 x 2
## vomito n
## <dbl> <int>
## 1 0 226
## 2 1 54
## 3 NA 59## # A tibble: 10 x 2
## duracao n
## <chr> <int>
## 1 ? 1
## 2 0 1
## 3 1 60
## 4 2 77
## 5 3 37
## 6 4 9
## 7 5 4
## 8 6 2
## 9 7 105
## 10 <NA> 43