4.6 Article

Racial/ethnic disparities in the use of preventive services among the elderly

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 29, 期 5, 页码 388-395

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.08.006

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Minorities have worse health outcomes compared to whites, which are partially explained by racial/ethnic disparities in use of health services. Less well known, however, are whether these disparities persist among the elderly, the only group that possesses near universal health insurance coverage by Medicare, and how variation in Medicare coverage affects the receipt of preventive services. The scope of racial/ethnic disparities in the use of preventive services in the elderly was assessed, and the impact of the type of health insurance coverage on the use of preventive services was measured. Methods: Data were derived from the 2001 California Health Interview Survey, a random-digit-dial population-based survey, collected between November 2000 and October 2001. Analysis for this project was conducted in 2004. The association of race/ethnicity and type of health insurance with receipt of preventive services was assessed using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models. Results: African Americans and Latinos were significantly less likely to be vaccinated for influenza, and Asian Americans were significantly less likely to obtain a mammogram compared to whites, while controlling for other explanatory factors. Moreover, those with Medicare plus Medicaid coverage were significantly less likely to use all four preventive services compared to those with Medicare plus private supplemental insurance. Conclusions: Despite near-universal coverage by Medicare, racial/ethnic disparities in the use of some preventive services among the elderly persist. Further research should focus on identifying potential cultural and structural barriers to receipt of preventive services aimed at designing effective intervention among high-risk groups.

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

4.6
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