An evaluation of gender equity in different models of primary care practices in Ontario

Background: The World Health Organization calls for more work evaluating the effect of health care reforms on gender equity in developed countries. We performed this evaluation in Ontario, Canada where primary care models resulting from reforms co-exist. // Methods: This cross sectional study of primary care practices uses data collected in 2005-2006. Healthcare service models included in the study consist of fee for service (FFS) based, salaried, and capitation based. We compared the quality of care delivered to women and men in practices of each model. We performed multi-level, multivariate regressions adjusting for patient socio-demographic and economic factors to evaluate vertical equity, and adjusting for these and health factors in evaluating horizontal equity. We measured seven dimensions of health service delivery (e.g. accessibility and continuity) and three dimensions of quality of care using patient surveys (n = 5,361) and chart abstractions (n = 4,108). // Results: Health service delivery measures were comparable in women and men, with differences ≤ 2.2% in all seven dimensions and in all models. Significant gender differences in the health promotion subjects addressed were observed. Female specific preventive manoeuvres were more likely to be performed than other preventive care. Men attending FFS practices were more likely to receive influenza immunization than women (Adjusted odds ratio: 1.75, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.05, 2.92). There was no difference in the other three prevention indicators. FFS practices were also more likely to provide recommended care for chronic diseases to men than women (Adjusted difference of -11.2%, CI -21.7, -0.8). A similar trend was observed in Community Health Centers (CHC). // Conclusions: The observed differences in the type of health promotion subjects discussed are likely an appropriate response to the differential healthcare needs between genders. Chronic disease care is non equitable in FFS but not in capitation based models. We recommend that efforts to monitor and address gender based differences in the delivery of chronic disease management in primary care be pursued.Funding for the original study on which this research is based was provided by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care Primary Health Care Transition Fund. The views expressed in this report are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care

Rural-urban disparity in oral health-related quality of life

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this population-based cross-sectional study was to estimate rural-urban disparity in the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of the Quebec adult population. METHODS: A 2-stage sampling design was used to collect data from the 1788 parents/caregivers of schoolchildren living in the 8 regions of the province of Quebec in Canada. Andersen's behavioural model for health services utilization was used as a conceptual framework. Place of residency was defined according to the Statistics Canada Census Metropolitan Area and Census Agglomeration Influenced Zone classification. The outcome of interest was OHRQoL measured using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-14 validated questionnaire. Data weighting was applied, and the prevalence, extent and severity of negative oral health impacts were calculated. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses and binary logistic regression. RESULTS: The prevalence of poor oral health-related quality life (OHRQoL) was statistically higher in rural areas than in urban zones (P = .02). Rural residents reported a significantly higher prevalence of negative daily-life impacts in pain, psychological discomfort and social disability OHIP domains (P < .05). Additionally, the rural population showed a greater number of negative oral health impacts (P = .03). There was no significant rural-urban difference in the severity of poor oral health. Logistic regression indicated that the prevalence of poor OHRQoL was significantly related to place of residency (OR = 1.6; 95% CI = 1.1-2.5; P = .022), perceived oral health (OR = 9.4; 95% CI = 5.7-15.5; P < .001), dental treatment needs factors (perceived need for dental treatment, pain, dental care seeking) (OR = 8.7; 95% CI = 4.8-15.6; P < .001) and education (OR = 2.7; 95% CI = 1.8-3.9; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest a potential difference in OHRQoL of Quebec rural and urban populations, and a need to develop strategies to promote oral health outcomes, specifically for rural residents. Further studies are needed to confirm these results