Inequalities in access to diabetes care: evidence from a historical cohort study.

E C Goyder, P G McNally, J L Botha
{"title":"Inequalities in access to diabetes care: evidence from a historical cohort study.","authors":"E C Goyder,&nbsp;P G McNally,&nbsp;J L Botha","doi":"10.1136/qhc.9.2.85","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To establish which factors predict attendance at a hospital diabetes clinic and for diabetes review in general practice.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A historical cohort study of individuals with diabetes identified from general practice records. Information on service contacts and other clinical, social, and demographic variables was collected from general practice records and postal questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Seven Leicestershire general practices.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>Individuals registered with study practices who had a diagnosis of diabetes made before 1990.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measurements: </strong>Attendance at a hospital diabetes clinic or for a documented diabetes review in general practice at least once between 1990 and 1995.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>124 (20%) had at least one recorded diabetes review in general practice and 332 (54%) attended a hospital diabetes clinic at least once. The main predictors of attending a hospital clinic were younger age, longer duration of diabetes, and treatment with insulin. Access to a car (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.71), home ownership (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.58) and a non-manual occupation (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.24) were all associated with an increased likelihood of attending, although living in a less deprived area was not. The main predictors of attending for review in general practice were older age, less co-morbidity, and being white. Living in a more deprived area was related to a reduced chance of review in general practice (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.86) while individual socioeconomic indicators were not.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Whilst an indicator of area deprivation predicts reduced likelihood of review in general practice, individual indicators predict reduced likelihood of attending outpatients. This suggests a need for different approaches to tackling inequalities in access to care in primary and secondary care settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":20773,"journal":{"name":"Quality in health care : QHC","volume":"9 2","pages":"85-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qhc.9.2.85","citationCount":"34","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality in health care : QHC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.9.2.85","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

Abstract

Objective: To establish which factors predict attendance at a hospital diabetes clinic and for diabetes review in general practice.

Design: A historical cohort study of individuals with diabetes identified from general practice records. Information on service contacts and other clinical, social, and demographic variables was collected from general practice records and postal questionnaires.

Setting: Seven Leicestershire general practices.

Subjects: Individuals registered with study practices who had a diagnosis of diabetes made before 1990.

Main outcome measurements: Attendance at a hospital diabetes clinic or for a documented diabetes review in general practice at least once between 1990 and 1995.

Results: 124 (20%) had at least one recorded diabetes review in general practice and 332 (54%) attended a hospital diabetes clinic at least once. The main predictors of attending a hospital clinic were younger age, longer duration of diabetes, and treatment with insulin. Access to a car (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.71), home ownership (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.58) and a non-manual occupation (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.24) were all associated with an increased likelihood of attending, although living in a less deprived area was not. The main predictors of attending for review in general practice were older age, less co-morbidity, and being white. Living in a more deprived area was related to a reduced chance of review in general practice (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.86) while individual socioeconomic indicators were not.

Conclusions: Whilst an indicator of area deprivation predicts reduced likelihood of review in general practice, individual indicators predict reduced likelihood of attending outpatients. This suggests a need for different approaches to tackling inequalities in access to care in primary and secondary care settings.

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
获得糖尿病治疗的不平等:来自历史队列研究的证据
目的:确定哪些因素可以预测医院糖尿病门诊的出勤率,并在一般实践中进行糖尿病复查。设计:对从全科医疗记录中确定的糖尿病患者进行历史队列研究。有关服务联系人和其他临床、社会和人口变量的信息收集自全科医疗记录和邮寄问卷。背景:莱斯特郡的七个全科诊所。受试者:在研究实践中登记的1990年以前诊断为糖尿病的个体。主要结果测量:1990年至1995年间,至少一次到医院糖尿病门诊就诊,或至少一次在一般实践中记录在案的糖尿病复查。结果:124人(20%)在全科至少有一次糖尿病复查记录,332人(54%)至少到医院糖尿病门诊就诊一次。到医院就诊的主要预测因素是年龄较小、糖尿病持续时间较长和接受胰岛素治疗。拥有汽车(OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.06至1.71)、拥有住房(OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.14至1.58)和非体力职业(OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.09至2.24)都与住院的可能性增加有关,尽管生活在贫困程度较低的地区并非如此。参加全科检查的主要预测因素是年龄较大、合并症较少和白人。生活在更贫困的地区与一般临床检查机会减少有关(OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76至0.86),而个人社会经济指标与此无关。结论:虽然区域剥夺指标预测在一般实践中审查的可能性降低,但个体指标预测门诊就诊的可能性降低。这表明需要采取不同的方法来解决初级和二级保健环境中获得保健的不平等问题。
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
Engaging patients in decisions: a challenge to health care delivery and public health. The extent of patients' understanding of the risk of treatments. Preferences and understanding their effects on health. Evidence-based patient empowerment. Performance management at the crossroads in the NHS: don't go into the red.
×
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