Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2012, 9 949 Table 2. Multinomial regression analyses of sociodemographic and disease-related variables with SRH as dependent variable (N = 1,519). Adjusted Odds Ratios (95% CI) 1 Unadjusted Odds Ratios (95% CI) Very good vs. Poor Good vs. Poor Very good vs. Poor Good vs. Poor Gender (Male vs. Female) 1.76 (1.27–2.43) * 1.49 (1.1–2.02) * 1.79 (1.24–2.58) * 1.53 (1.09–2.12) * Age categories ≤45 vs. >65 12.75 (7.88–20.65) ** 3.62 (2.28–7.56) ** 5.27 (2.9–9.59) ** 2.21 (1.25–3.91) * 46–65 vs. >65 2.23 (1.51–3.28) ** 1.58 (1.15–2.22) * 1.89 (1.25–2.88) * 1.52 (1.06–2.18) * Education categories Primary vs. Tertiary 0.11 (0.05–0.23) ** 0.34 (0.16–0.69) * 0.44 (0.2–0.96) * 0.67 (0.31–1.44) Secondary vs. Tertiary 0.36 (0.17–0.75) * 0.57 (0.27–1.2) 0.5 (0.23–1.06) † 0.69 (0.33–1.46) Health status Healthy vs. Co morbidity 11.24 (7.19–17.55) ** 2.98 (2.06–4.31) ** 4.43 (2.66–7.38) ** 2.09 (1.36–3.2) ** One disease vs. Co morbidity 2.78 (1.77–4.35) ** 1.33 (0.93–1.88) 2.07 (1.3–3.3) * 1.19 (0.83–1.7) 1 Nagelkerke R square 16.6%, meaning that 16.6% of SRH variance is explained by gender, age, education and disease status. ** Level of significance <0.001; * Level of significance <0.05; † Level of significance <0.1; Reference categories: Female, 65 years old, tertiary, co morbidity, poor SRH. Table 3. Multinomial regression analysis of adjusted lifestyle factors with SRH as dependent variable (N = 1,519). Adjusted Odds Ratios (95%CI) 1 Nagelkerke R2 change 2 Very good vs. Poor Good vs. Poor Smoking(No vs. Yes) 1.37 (0.84–2.24) 1.3 (0.82–2.07) +0.1% Regular exercise(Yes vs. No) 4.19 (1.75–10.03) ** 1.87 (0.78–4.48) +1.7% Healthy diet categories +2.1% High vs. Low 1.89 (1.2–2.97) * 0.78 (0.52–1.18) Moderate vs. Low 1.64 (1.1–2.46) * 0.96 (0.67–1.38) Quality of Sleep Categories +2.0% High vs. Low 2.65 (1.68–4.18) ** 2.88 (1.89–4.37) ** Moderate vs. Low 1.69 (1.09–2.63) * 1.8 (1.21–2.7) * Religiosity categories +0.9% High vs. Low 2.03 (1.01–4.05) * 2.53 (1.38–4.63) * Moderate vs. Low 1.93 (1.22–3.03) * 2.03 (1.34–3.08) ** 1 Adjusted for gender, age, education and health status; 2 Nagelkerke R2 change above the 16.6% of the adjustment model (see Table 2); ** Level of significance <0.001; * Level of significance <0.05; † Level of significance <0.1; Reference categories: Yes smoking, no regular exercise, low diet, low quality of sleep, religiosity, poor SRH. 3. Results 3.1. Univariate Analyses of Independent Variables vs. the Three SRH Categories Among the 1,519 participants, 489 (32.2%), 790 (52%) and 237 (15.6%) rated their health as very good, good and poor respectively (missing 0.2%). Table 1 presents distribution of the sociodemographic, disease-related and lifestyle variables across SRH categories with the chi-square tests and Kendall’s tau b coefficients. Missing values were low with the largest found in education