4.5 Article

Health-care and home-care utilization among frail elderly persons in Belgium

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 22, 期 5, 页码 671-677

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckr133

关键词

-

资金

  1. Belgian Federal Science Policy Office
  2. AGORA Programme [AG/00/130]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The patterns of health- and home-care utilization among Belgian frail elderly persons living at home with varying socio-economic status are currently unknown. Methods: In this cross-sectional study based on a representative sample of 4777 elderly participants (epsilon 65 years) in the Belgian Health Interview Survey the prevalence of frailty, as determined by items referring to the Fried phenotype, was estimated according to age, gender, comorbidity, place of residence, survey year, living situation and socio-economic status. Differing health-care utilization [contacts with a general practitioner (GP), specialist and emergency department; and hospital admission) and home-care utilization (home nursing, home help and meals-on-wheels] patterns among the frail, prefrail and robust subpopulations were examined. Results: Overall, 9.3% respondents (426) were classified as frail, 30.7% (1636) as prefrail and 60.0% (2715) as robust. Frailty was associated with age, gender, comorbidity, region, survey year and socio-economic status. The frail and prefrail groups were more likely than the robust to contact a GP, a specialist or an emergency department and were more likely to be admitted to hospital, independent of age, gender, comorbidity, survey year, living situation, region and socio-economic status. They were also more likely to appeal to home nursing, home help and meals-on-wheels than the robust participants. Conclusion: Even after adjustment for potential confounders, including age, gender and comorbidity, frailty among Belgian elderly persons is associated with their socio-economic status and is strongly associated with their health- and home-care utilization.

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

4.5
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