Equity in the use of antithrombotic drugs, beta-blockers and statins among Finnish coronary patients

Background Earlier studies have mainly reported the use of antithrombotic drugs, beta-blockers and statins among hospital patient populations or MI patients. This study aimed to describe the use of these drugs among middle-aged Finnish coronary patients and to identify patient groups in risk of being prescribed inadequate medication for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Methods One-year follow-up survey data from a random sample of a cohort of coronary patients were used along with register data linked to the survey. The response rate was 54% (n = 2650). The main outcome measures were use of antithrombotic drugs, beta-blockers and statins and the data were analysed using logistic regression analysis. Results Among men and women, respectively, 82% and 81% used beta-blockers, 95% and 89% used antithrombotic drugs, and 62% and 59% used statins. Younger men and men from higher socioeconomic groups were more likely to use statins, even after controlling for disease severity and comorbidity. In women, the age trend was reversed and no socioeconomic differences were found. Drug use increased with increased disease severity, but diabetes had only a slight effect. Conclusion The use of antithrombotic drugs and beta-blockers among Finnish coronary patients seemed to be rather appropriate and, to some extent, prescription practices of preventive medication varied according to patients' risk of coronary events. However, statin use was remarkably low among men with low socio-economic status, and there is need to improve preventive drug treatment among diabetic coronary patients.BioMed Central Open acces

Universal health care no guarantee of equity: Comparison of socioeconomic inequalities in the receipt of coronary procedures in patients with acute myocardial infarction and angina

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In Australia there is a socioeconomic gradient in morbidity and mortality favouring socioeconomically advantaged people, much of which is accounted for by ischaemic heart disease. This study examines if Australia's universal health care system, with its mixed public/private funding and delivery model, may actually perpetuate this inequity. We do this by quantifying and comparing socioeconomic inequalities in the receipt of coronary procedures in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and patients with angina.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using linked hospital and mortality data, we followed patients admitted to Western Australian hospitals with a first admission for AMI (n = 5539) or angina (n = 7401) in 2001-2003. An outcome event was the receipt, within a year, of a coronary procedure—angiography, angioplasty and/or coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). Socioeconomic status was assigned to each individual using an area-based measure, the SEIFA Index of Disadvantage. Multivariable proportional hazards regression was used to model the association between socioeconomic status and procedure rates, allowing for censoring and adjustment of multiple covariates. Mediating models examined the effect of private health insurance.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In the AMI patient cohort, socioeconomic gradients were not evident except that disadvantaged women were more likely than advantaged women to undergo CABG. In contrast, in the angina patient group there were clear socioeconomic gradients for all procedures, favouring more advantaged patients. Compared with patients in the most disadvantaged quintile of socioeconomic status, patients in the least disadvantaged quintile were 11% (1-21%) more likely to receive angiography, 52% (29-80%) more likely to undergo angioplasty and 30% (3-55%) more likely to undergo CABG. Private health insurance explained some of the socioeconomic variation in rates.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Australia's universal health care system does not guarantee equity in the receipt of high technology health care for patients with ischaemic heart disease. While such a system might ensure equity for patients with AMI, where guidelines for treatment are relatively well established, this is not the case for angina patients, where health care may be less urgent and more discretionary.</p

Inequality in treatment use among elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction: USA, Belgium and Quebec

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Previous research has provided evidence that socioeconomic status has an impact on invasive treatments use after acute myocardial infarction. In this paper, we compare the socioeconomic inequality in the use of high-technology diagnosis and treatment after acute myocardial infarction between the US, Quebec and Belgium paying special attention to financial incentives and regulations as explanatory factors.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We examined hospital-discharge abstracts for all patients older than 65 who were admitted to hospitals during the 1993–1998 period in the US, Quebec and Belgium with a primary diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. Patients' income data were imputed from the median incomes of their residential area. For each country, we compared the risk-adjusted probability of undergoing each procedure between socioeconomic categories measured by the patient's area median income.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our findings indicate that income-related inequality exists in the use of high-technology treatment and diagnosis techniques that is not justified by differences in patients' health characteristics. Those inequalities are largely explained, in the US and Quebec, by inequalities in distances to hospitals with on-site cardiac facilities. However, in both Belgium and the US, inequalities persist among patients admitted to hospitals with on-site cardiac facilities, rejecting the hospital location effect as the single explanation for inequalities. Meanwhile, inequality levels diverge across countries (higher in the US and in Belgium, extremely low in Quebec).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The findings support the hypothesis that income-related inequality in treatment for AMI exists and is likely to be affected by a country's system of health care.</p

Income and education as predictors of return to working life among younger stroke patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Socioeconomic conditions are not only related to poor health outcomes, they also contribute to the chances of recovery from stroke. This study examines whether income and education were predictors of return to work after a first stroke among persons aged 40-59.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>All first-stroke survivors aged 40-59 who were discharged from a hospital in 1996-2000 and who had received income from work during the year prior to the stroke were sampled from the Swedish national register of in-patient care (n = 7,081). Income and education variables were included in hazard regressions, modelling the probability of returning to work from one to four years after discharge. Adjustments for age, sex, stroke subtype, and length of in-patient care were included in the models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Both higher income and higher education were associated with higher probability of returning to work. While the association between education and return to work was attenuated by income, individuals with university education were 13 percent more likely to return than those who had completed only compulsory education, and individuals in the highest income quartile were about twice as likely to return as those in the lowest. The association between socioeconomic position and return to work was similar for different stroke subtypes. Income differences between men and women also accounted for women's lower probability of returning to work.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The study demonstrates that education and income were independent predictors of returning to work among stroke patients during the first post-stroke years. Taking the relative risk of return to work among those in the higher socioeconomic positions as the benchmark, there may be considerable room for improvement among patients in lower socioeconomic strata.</p

Employment status and differences in the one-year coverage of physician visits: different needs or unequal access to services?

BACKGROUND: The dichotomy employed vs. unemployed is still a relevant, but rather crude measure of status in current labour markets. Also, studies concerning the association of employment status with health have to specify the type of the employment as well as the characteristics of the unemployment. This study aims to reveal differences and potential inequalities in physician visits among seven groups in the core-periphery structures of the labour markets. METHODS: A total of 16 000 Finns responded to a postal survey in 2003. Their visits to physicians in public primary health care, occupational health care, private health services, hospital outpatient clinics and dental care services during previous year were measured as indicators of service utilisation. Participants were classified as employees having a permanent or fixed-term and full-time or part-time contract and as those experiencing short-term, prolonged or long-term unemployment. Differences in the one-year coverage of physician visits between these groups of employees were analysed using logistic regression analyses where differences in the need for services were controlled for by including demographics and self-rated health assessments in the models. RESULTS: Permanently employed respondents had visited a physician most often, and the need-adjusted regression models showed significantly lower odds ratios for a visit among fixed-term employees (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.53–0.81) and in particular among the long-term unemployed (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.14–0.31). A stratified analysis according to health care sector showed the lowest odds ratios in occupational health care and private physicians (ORs between 0.05 and 0.73) and also low odds ratios for dentists (ORs between 0.45 and 0.91), whereas visits to public primary health care were more common among non-permanent employees and the unemployed (ORs between 1.46 and 2.39). CONCLUSION: The use of physician services varies according to labour market status, being relatively low among the non-permanently employed and the unemployed. This underuse is emphasised when clinical need is taken into account. The main reasons for the variance evidently lie in the structures of the Finnish health service system. The result may indicate non-optimal health care of the population on the periphery of the labour market, but it may also reflect the importance of employment status as a context for need and the decision to visit a physician