4.3 Article

Decomposing differences in utilization of health services between depressed and non-depressed elders in Europe

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF AGEING
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 51-64

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10433-011-0213-5

关键词

Depression; Disparities; Decomposition methods; Aging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Utilization rates of non-psychiatric health services are often higher in depressed compared to non-depressed adults. We examine whether these differences can be explained by the increased prevalence or the increased impact of demographic, socioeconomic, geographic, and health-related factors. The sample was taken from The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (Wave 1 Release 2), a prospective observational study of 31,115 randomly selected people ages 50+ living in Austria, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, France, Denmark, Greece, Switzerland, Belgium, and Israel. Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition methods for multivariate linear regression models were used to estimate the influence of prevalence and impact of covariates on utilization among depressed and non-depressed participants. We find robust evidence that the gap in utilization between depressed and non-depressed can be accounted for by both prevalence (explained) and impact (unexplained) differences. The prevalence effect accounted for 57.7% whereas differences in the impact of covariates between depressed and non-depressed persons explained 42.3% of differences in utilization rates. Despite cross-national differences in quality and coverage of health services, in all countries, the prevalence effect was explained entirely by health measures, including: chronic diseases, functional mobility, painful symptoms, and self-reported health. The impact effect varied cross-nationally, but was largely explained by socioeconomic status and urbanicity. Hospitalization among depressed adults was twice that of non-depressed adults. Policies aimed at improving adherence and improving disease management among depressed adults should be explored.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据