Impact of rurality on health care utilization among Australian residents from 2009 to 2021.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Rural Health Pub Date : 2024-10-03 DOI:10.1111/jrh.12884
Engida Yisma, Martin Jones, Lee San Pauh, Sandra Walsh, Sara Jones, Esther May, Marianne Gillam
{"title":"Impact of rurality on health care utilization among Australian residents from 2009 to 2021.","authors":"Engida Yisma, Martin Jones, Lee San Pauh, Sandra Walsh, Sara Jones, Esther May, Marianne Gillam","doi":"10.1111/jrh.12884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>In Australia, there is limited research regarding the effect of rurality on health care utilization using longitudinal data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed data from four annual waves (2009, 2013, 2017, and 2021) of the longitudinal Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey to examine changes in the health care utilization over time among urban and rural residents. Poisson regression models estimated adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for rural versus urban residents, accounting for a range of health-related and sociodemographic characteristics. Health care utilization was measured using four key indicators: visits to family doctor or another general practitioner (GP visits from hereon), hospital admissions, total nights' stay in the hospital, and prescribed medications taken on a regular basis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The aIRR for GP visits among rural versus urban Australian residents increased over time, from 0.89 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.97) in 2009 to 0.96 (95% CI: 0.89 to 1.04) in 2021 although not consistently increased in a statistically significant manner. While there were no consistent temporal patterns, our analysis found that rural residents experienced higher number of hospital admissions (aIRR, 1.12 to 1.15) and number of nights in the hospital in the last 12 months (aIRR, 1.18 to 1.25) compared to urban residents. Moreover, rurality had little to no effect on the number of prescribed medications taken on a regualar basis in the 12 months preceding the HILDA Surveys in 2013, 2017, and 2021.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study found that GP visits were less frequent among rural residents compared to metropolitan residents in 2009, indicating health care access disparities between rural and urban areas in Australia. However, the differences in GP visits between rural and urban areas were less pronounced  from 2013 to 2021.</p>","PeriodicalId":50060,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rural Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12884","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: In Australia, there is limited research regarding the effect of rurality on health care utilization using longitudinal data.

Methods: We analyzed data from four annual waves (2009, 2013, 2017, and 2021) of the longitudinal Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey to examine changes in the health care utilization over time among urban and rural residents. Poisson regression models estimated adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for rural versus urban residents, accounting for a range of health-related and sociodemographic characteristics. Health care utilization was measured using four key indicators: visits to family doctor or another general practitioner (GP visits from hereon), hospital admissions, total nights' stay in the hospital, and prescribed medications taken on a regular basis.

Results: The aIRR for GP visits among rural versus urban Australian residents increased over time, from 0.89 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.97) in 2009 to 0.96 (95% CI: 0.89 to 1.04) in 2021 although not consistently increased in a statistically significant manner. While there were no consistent temporal patterns, our analysis found that rural residents experienced higher number of hospital admissions (aIRR, 1.12 to 1.15) and number of nights in the hospital in the last 12 months (aIRR, 1.18 to 1.25) compared to urban residents. Moreover, rurality had little to no effect on the number of prescribed medications taken on a regualar basis in the 12 months preceding the HILDA Surveys in 2013, 2017, and 2021.

Conclusions: This study found that GP visits were less frequent among rural residents compared to metropolitan residents in 2009, indicating health care access disparities between rural and urban areas in Australia. However, the differences in GP visits between rural and urban areas were less pronounced  from 2013 to 2021.

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
2009 至 2021 年乡村地区对澳大利亚居民使用医疗服务的影响。
目的:在澳大利亚,利用纵向数据研究农村地区对医疗保健利用率影响的研究十分有限:我们分析了澳大利亚纵向家庭、收入和劳动力动态调查(HILDA)四次年度波次(2009 年、2013 年、2017 年和 2021 年)的数据,以研究城市居民和农村居民医疗保健利用率随时间的变化。泊松回归模型估算了农村居民与城市居民的调整后发病率比 (aIRR) 和 95% 置信区间 (CI),并考虑了一系列健康相关特征和社会人口特征。医疗保健利用率用四个关键指标来衡量:看家庭医生或其他全科医生(以下简称 "全科医生")、入院、住院总天数和定期服用处方药:澳大利亚农村居民与城市居民的全科医生就诊率 aIRR 随时间推移而增加,从 2009 年的 0.89(95% CI:0.82 至 0.97)增加到 2021 年的 0.96(95% CI:0.89 至 1.04),但增加的幅度在统计学上并不显著。虽然没有一致的时间模式,但我们的分析发现,与城市居民相比,农村居民在过去 12 个月中的入院次数(aIRR,1.12 至 1.15)和住院天数(aIRR,1.18 至 1.25)较高。此外,在2013年、2017年和2021年进行的HILDA调查之前的12个月中,农村居民对定期服用处方药的数量几乎没有影响:本研究发现,2009年,农村居民看全科医生的频率低于城市居民,这表明澳大利亚城乡之间存在医疗服务差异。然而,从2013年到2021年,农村和城市地区的全科医生就诊率差异并不明显。
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
Journal of Rural Health
Journal of Rural Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Rural Health, a quarterly journal published by the NRHA, offers a variety of original research relevant and important to rural health. Some examples include evaluations, case studies, and analyses related to health status and behavior, as well as to health work force, policy and access issues. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies are welcome. Highest priority is given to manuscripts that reflect scholarly quality, demonstrate methodological rigor, and emphasize practical implications. The journal also publishes articles with an international rural health perspective, commentaries, book reviews and letters.
期刊最新文献
The lived experiences and unmet needs of prostate and colorectal male cancer survivors in rural Virginia: A qualitative study. Is Walk Score a useful tool for measuring walkability in rural communities? Clinical outcomes and profitability following rural hospital mergers and acquisitions. Community responses and adaptations following the closure of a rural pharmacy and primary care facility. Weight status underestimation and weight management goals among adults in the rural South of the United States.
×
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