4.5 Article

IS THERE EQUITY IN LONG-TERM HEALTHCARE UTILIZATION AFTER TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY?

Journal

JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE
Volume 41, Issue 1, Pages 59-65

Publisher

FOUNDATION REHABILITATION INFORMATION
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0294

Keywords

traumatic brain injury; craniocerebral trauma; healthcare utilization; healthcare quality; healthcare access; healthcare evaluation

Funding

  1. Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development [1435.0020]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To quantify the long-term use of various types of healthcare services in patients with traumatic brain injury and to estimate the relative contribution of predisposing characteristics, enabling factors and health-related needs to determine whether there is equity in healthcare utilization. Design: Cross-sectional study. Patients: Seventy-nine non-institutionalized moderate to severe patients with traumatic brain injury (age range 16-67 years). Methods: Healthcare use was measured at 3-5 years post-injury. The relative contribution of predisposing characteristics, enabling factors, and health-related needs to the utilization of various types of care was analysed using logistic regression to determine whether there was equity in healthcare utilization. Results: At least one healthcare service was used by 68% of the patients. Health-related needs explained most of the utilization. However, predisposing characteristics were also related to the use of other medical care and supportive care. Patients with a high internal locus of control were more likely to be users of supportive care, and patients with a high locus of control with the physician were more likely to visit medical specialists. Conclusion: The results suggest that most of our patients who needed care, received care. However, inequity could not be ruled out completely as predisposing characteristics also contributed to some types of healthcare utilization.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available