Social inequity in chiropractic utilisation - a cross-sectional study in Denmark, 2010 and 2017.

Abstract

Background: Inequity in healthcare utilisation refers to differences between groups that remain after adjustment for need for health care. To our knowledge, no previous studies have aimed to assess social inequity in chiropractic utilisation in a general population. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate social inequity in chiropractic utilisation in the general Danish population adjusted for health status as a proxy of need for chiropractic care.

Methods: A population-based repeated cross-sectional study design was used based on the Danish National Health Survey in 2010 and 2017. Overall, we included 288,099 individuals aged 30 years or older in 2010 or 2017. For each individual, information on chiropractic utilisation, socioeconomic status, and health status as a proxy of need for chiropractic care was retrieved from nationwide registers using the unique personal identification number. Measures of health status included demographics, poor self-rated physical health, activity limitations, musculoskeletal pain, number of musculoskeletal conditions, and number of chronic diseases. We investigated social inequity in chiropractic utilisation (yes, no) using logistic regression adjusted for health status, stratified by sex and year. Three characteristics of socioeconomic status (educational level, employment status and income) were investigated. To further quantify the degree of social inequity in chiropractic utilisation, we estimated the concentration index of inequity for each of the three characteristics of socioeconomic status.

Results: We found significantly higher odds of chiropractic utilisation among individuals with short or medium/long education compared with individuals with elementary education, and among employed individuals compared with individuals who were unemployed, receiving disability pension or retired. Furthermore, the odds of chiropractic utilisation increased with higher income. The concentration index indicated social inequity in chiropractic utilisation in favour of individuals with higher socioeconomic status, with income and employment status contributing more to inequity than educational level.

Conclusion: The study demonstrated social inequity in chiropractic utilisation in Denmark beyond differences in health status as a proxy of need for chiropractic care in the general population. The results suggest that new strategies are required if equal treatment for equal need is the goal.