Health and participation in the Lolland-Falster Health Study: a cohort study

T. Holmager, G. Napolitano, Neda Esmai­lzadeh Bruun-Rasmu­ssen, R. Jepsen, Søren Lophaven, Elsebeth Lynge
{"title":"Health and participation in the Lolland-Falster Health Study: a cohort study","authors":"T. Holmager, G. Napolitano, Neda Esmai­lzadeh Bruun-Rasmu­ssen, R. Jepsen, Søren Lophaven, Elsebeth Lynge","doi":"10.1136/bmjph-2023-000421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Lolland-Falster is the area of Denmark with highest mortality. However, clinical measurements from a population-based health survey showed prevalence of disease indicators similar to those in the rest of Denmark. The study aimed to disentangle this paradox.The Lolland-Falster Health Study (LOFUS) took place in 2016–2020. We followed the 53 000 invited persons up for mortality from invitation date to 1 February 2023. Log-binomial regression was used to calculate relative risk (RR) of non-participation versus participation in LOFUS by subgroups of sex, age, municipality, residency group, household composition and economic status. Using Poisson regression, mortality rate ratio (MRR) was calculated between subgroups and within subgroups for non-participants versus participants for all-cause mortality and mortality from cancer, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, external causes and other diseases.One-third (36%) of persons invited to LOFUS participated. Only modest differences were seen in participation across subgroups; the largest being an RR of 1.37 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.40) for publicly supported versus self-supported persons. However, non-participants had higher mortality than participants (MRR 3.08, 95% CI 2.82 to 3.37). This pattern was consistent across all subgroups and was found for both all-cause and cause-specific mortality.The paradox we observed could partly be attributed to participation differences between subgroups. However, for the lack of population representativeness of the survey data, our study indicated within-group selection, measured by excess mortality of non-participants, to be much more important than between-group selection. One should therefore be cautious in using even weighted health survey data for prioritising health interventions.","PeriodicalId":117861,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Public Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjph-2023-000421","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Lolland-Falster is the area of Denmark with highest mortality. However, clinical measurements from a population-based health survey showed prevalence of disease indicators similar to those in the rest of Denmark. The study aimed to disentangle this paradox.The Lolland-Falster Health Study (LOFUS) took place in 2016–2020. We followed the 53 000 invited persons up for mortality from invitation date to 1 February 2023. Log-binomial regression was used to calculate relative risk (RR) of non-participation versus participation in LOFUS by subgroups of sex, age, municipality, residency group, household composition and economic status. Using Poisson regression, mortality rate ratio (MRR) was calculated between subgroups and within subgroups for non-participants versus participants for all-cause mortality and mortality from cancer, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, external causes and other diseases.One-third (36%) of persons invited to LOFUS participated. Only modest differences were seen in participation across subgroups; the largest being an RR of 1.37 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.40) for publicly supported versus self-supported persons. However, non-participants had higher mortality than participants (MRR 3.08, 95% CI 2.82 to 3.37). This pattern was consistent across all subgroups and was found for both all-cause and cause-specific mortality.The paradox we observed could partly be attributed to participation differences between subgroups. However, for the lack of population representativeness of the survey data, our study indicated within-group selection, measured by excess mortality of non-participants, to be much more important than between-group selection. One should therefore be cautious in using even weighted health survey data for prioritising health interventions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
健康与参与洛兰-法尔斯特健康研究:一项队列研究
洛兰-法尔斯特是丹麦死亡率最高的地区。然而,一项基于人群的健康调查的临床测量结果显示,该地区的疾病患病率指标与丹麦其他地区相似。这项研究旨在解开这一悖论。Lolland-Falster健康研究(LOFUS)于2016-2020年进行。从邀请之日起至2023年2月1日,我们对53,000名受邀者的死亡率进行了随访。采用对数二项回归,按性别、年龄、城市、居住群体、家庭组成和经济状况等亚组计算不参加与参加LOFUS的相对风险(RR)。使用泊松回归,计算了非参与者与参与者的全因死亡率以及癌症、心血管疾病、呼吸系统疾病、外因和其他疾病的死亡率在亚组之间和亚组内的死亡率比(MRR)。三分之一(36%)被邀请参加联卢特派团的人参加了会议。亚组之间的参与程度差异不大;其中最大的是公共供养者与自食自力者的RR为1.37 (95% CI 1.35至1.40)。然而,非参与者的死亡率高于参与者(MRR 3.08, 95% CI 2.82至3.37)。这种模式在所有亚组中都是一致的,并且在全因死亡率和特定原因死亡率中都发现了这种模式。我们观察到的这种矛盾可以部分归因于子群体之间的参与差异。然而,由于调查数据缺乏人口代表性,我们的研究表明,通过非参与者的超额死亡率来衡量的组内选择比组间选择重要得多。因此,在使用加权卫生调查数据确定卫生干预措施的优先次序时应谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Psychosocial health stigma related to COVID-19 disease among COVID-19 patients in Jordan: a comparative study Evaluating and mapping the evidence that screening for diabetic foot disease meets the criteria for population-wide screening: a scoping review Effectiveness of direct patient outreach with a narrative naloxone and overdose prevention video to patients prescribed long-term opioid therapy in the USA: the Naloxone Navigator randomised clinical trial Social media use and anxiety levels among school adolescents: a cross-sectional study in Kathmandu, Nepal Community childhood obesity assessment in elementary school, anthropometric indices as screening tools: a community cross-sectional study in Indonesia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1