Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2012

Open Access 01-12-2012 | Research article

Are acceptance rates of a national preventive home visit programme for older people socially imbalanced?: a cross sectional study in Denmark

Authors: Yukari Yamada, Anette Ekmann, Charlotte Juul Nilsson, Mikkel Vass, Kirsten Avlund

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Preventive home visits are offered to community dwelling older people in Denmark aimed at maintaining their functional ability for as long as possible, but only two thirds of older people accept the offer from the municipalities. The purpose of this study is to investigate 1) whether socioeconomic status was associated with acceptance of preventive home visits among older people and 2) whether municipality invitational procedures for the preventive home visits modified the association.

Methods

The study population included 1,023 community dwelling 80-year-old individuals from the Danish intervention study on preventive home visits. Information on preventive home visit acceptance rates was obtained from questionnaires. Socioeconomic status was measured by financial assets obtained from national registry data, and invitational procedures were identified through the municipalities. Logistic regression analyses were used, adjusted by gender.

Results

Older persons with high financial assets accepted preventive home visits more frequently than persons with low assets (adjusted OR = 1.5 (CI95%: 1.1-2.0)). However, the association was attenuated when adjusted by the invitational procedures. The odds ratio for accepting preventive home visits was larger among persons with low financial assets invited by a letter with a proposed date than among persons with high financial assets invited by other procedures, though these estimates had wide confidence intervals.

Conclusion

High socioeconomic status was associated with a higher acceptance rate of preventive home visits, but the association was attenuated by invitational procedures. The results indicate that the social inequality in acceptance of publicly offered preventive services might decrease if municipalities adopt more proactive invitational procedures.
Literature
1.
Vass M, Avlund K, Hendriksen C, Philipson L, Riis P: Preventive home visits to older people in Denmark–why, how, by whom, and when?. Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2007, 40 (4): 209-216. 10.1007/s00391-007-0470-2.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Avlund K, Vass M, Lund R, Yamada Y, Hendriksen C: Influence of psychological characteristics and social relations on receiving preventive home visits in older men and women. Eur J Ageing. 2008, 5 (3): 191-201. 10.1007/s10433-008-0086-4.CrossRef
3.
Palència L, Espelt A, Rodríguez-Sanz M, Puigpinós R, Pons-Vigués M, Pasarín MI, Spadea T, Kunst AE, Borrell C: Socio-economic inequalities in breast and cervical cancer screening practices in Europe: influence of the type of screening program. Int J Epidemiol. 2010, 39 (3): 757-765. 10.1093/ije/dyq003.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Frederiksen BL, Jorgensen T, Brasso K, Holten I, Osler M: Socioeconomic position and participation in colorectal cancer screening. Br J Cancer. 2010, 103 (10): 1496-1501. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605962.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Katz S, Zemencuk J, Hofer T: Breast cancer screening in the United States and Canada, 1994: socioeconomic gradients persist. Am J Public Health. 2000, 90 (5): 799-803.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Kjellen M, von Euler-Chelpin M: Socioeconomic status as determinant for participation in mammography screening: assessing the difference between using women's own versus their partner's. Int J Public Health. 2010, 55 (3): 209-215. 10.1007/s00038-010-0137-4.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Katz SJ, Hofer TP: Socioeconomic disparities in preventive care persist despite universal coverage. Breast and cervical cancer screening in Ontario and the United States. JAMA. 1994, 272 (7): 530-534. 10.1001/jama.1994.03520070050037.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Damiani G, Federico B, Basso D, Ronconi A, Bianchi C, Anzellotti GM, Nasi G, Sassi F, Ricciardi W: Socioeconomic disparities in the uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening in Italy: a cross sectional study. BMC Publ Health. 2012, 12 (1): 99-10.1186/1471-2458-12-99.CrossRef
9.
Ekmann A, Vass M, Avlund K: Preventive home visits to older home-dwelling people in Denmark: are invitational procedures of importance?. Health Soc Care Commun. 2010, 18 (6): 563-571. 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2010.00941.x.CrossRef
10.
Vass M, Avlund K, Hendriksen C, Andersen CK, Keiding N: Preventive home visits to older people in Denmark: methodology of a randomized controlled study. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2002, 14 (6): 509-515.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Vass M, Avlund K, Lauridsen J, Hendriksen C: Feasible model for prevention of functional decline in older people: municipality-randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005, 53 (4): 563-568. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53201.x.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Vass M, Avlund K, Kvist K, Hendriksen C, Andersen CK, Keiding N: Structured home visits to older people. Are they only of benefit for women? A randomised controlled trial. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2004, 22 (2): 106-111. 10.1080/02813430410005829.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Avlund K, Vass M, Kvist K, Hendriksen C, Keiding N: Educational intervention toward preventive home visitors reduced functional decline in community-living older women. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007, 60 (9): 954-962. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.06.015.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Robert S, House JS: SES differentials in health by age and alternative indicators of SES. J Aging Health. 1996, 8 (3): 359-388. 10.1177/089826439600800304.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Nilsson CJ, Avlund K, Lund R: Onset of mobility limitations in old age: the combined effect of socioeconomic position and social relations. Age Ageing. 2011, 40 (5): 607-614. 10.1093/ageing/afr073.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Rothman KJ: Measuring interactions. 2002, Oxford University Press, New York, 168-180.
17.
Diderichsen F, Andersen I, Manuel C: Health Inequality - determinants and policies. 2011, Sundhedsstyrelsen, Copenhagen
18.
Hansen F, Hansen H, Hussain M: Individuals and families with the lowest social benefits-an registry study. 2009, Center for Alternativ Samfundsanalyse (CASA), Copenhagen
19.
Dixon-Woods M, Kirk D, Agarwal S, Annandale E, Arthur T, Harvey J, Hsu R, Katbamna S, Olsen R, Smith L, et al: Vulnerable groups and access to health care : a critical interpretive review. 2005, National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R & D (NCCSDO), London
20.
Gettleman L, Winkleby MA: Using focus groups to develop a heart disease prevention program for ethnically diverse, low-income women. J Commun Health. 2000, 25 (6): 439-453. 10.1023/A:1005155329922.CrossRef
21.
Marilyn AW: Accelerating cardiovascular risk factor change in ethnic minority and low socioeconomic groups. Ann Epidemiol. 1997, 7 (7, Supplement): S96-S103. 10.1016/S1047-2797(97)80012-9.CrossRef
22.
William FB: Disadvantaged persons’ participation in health promotion projects: some structural dimensions. Soc Sci Med. 2001, 52 (10): 1551-1564. 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00268-9.CrossRef
23.
van der Waerden JE, Hoefnagels C, Jansen MW, Hosman CM: Exploring recruitment, willingness to participate, and retention of low-SES women in stress and depression prevention. BMC Publ Health. 2010, 10: 588-10.1186/1471-2458-10-588.CrossRef
24.
Paskett ED, Reeves KW, McLaughlin JM, Katz ML, McAlearney AS, Ruffin MT, Halbert CH, Merete C, Davis F, Gehlert S: Recruitment of minority and underserved populations in the United States: the Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities experience. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008, 29 (6): 847-861. 10.1016/j.cct.2008.07.006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Mendez-Luck CA, Trejo L, Miranda J, Jimenez E, Quiter ES, Mangione CM: Recruitment strategies and costs associated with community-based research in a Mexican-origin population. Gerontologist. 2011, 51 (Suppl 1): S94-S105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Bopp M, Fallon E: Community-based interventions to promote increased physical activity: a primer. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2008, 6 (4): 173-187.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Goldman N: Social inequalities in health disentangling the underlying mechanisms. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001, 954: 118-139.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Kennedy BP, Kawachi I, Glass R, Prothrow-Stith D: Income distribution, socioeconomic status, and self rated health in the United States: multilevel analysis. BMJ. 1998, 317 (7163): 917-921. 10.1136/bmj.317.7163.917.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Mulatu MS, Schooler C: Causal connections between socio-economic status and health: reciprocal effects and mediating mechanisms. J Health Soc Behav. 2002, 43 (1): 22-41. 10.2307/3090243.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Lantz PM, Lynch JW, House JS, Lepkowski JM, Mero RP, Musick MA, Williams DR: Socioeconomic disparities in health change in a longitudinal study of US adults: the role of health-risk behaviors. Soc Sci Med. 2001, 53 (1): 29-40. 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00319-1.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Marra CA, Lynd LD, Harvard SS, Grubisic M: Agreement between aggregate and individual-level measures of income and education: a comparison across three patient groups. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011, 11: 69-10.1186/1472-6963-11-69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Are acceptance rates of a national preventive home visit programme for older people socially imbalanced?: a cross sectional study in Denmark
Authors
Yukari Yamada
Anette Ekmann
Charlotte Juul Nilsson
Mikkel Vass
Kirsten Avlund
Publication date
01-12-2012
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2012
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-396

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

BMC Public Health 1/2012 Go to the issue

Research article

Utilization of bar and izakaya-pub establishments among middle-aged and elderly Japanese men to mitigate stress

Research article

Increased risk of cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A retrospective cohort study in China

Study protocol

Testing the effectiveness of a self-efficacy based exercise intervention for inactive people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: design of a controlled clinical trial

Research article

The comparative effectiveness of statin therapy in selected chronic diseases compared with the remaining population

Research article

Why physicians and nurses ask (or don’t) about partner violence: a qualitative analysis

Research article

Adherence to a Mediterranean diet in Morocco and its correlates: cross-sectional analysis of a sample of the adult Moroccan population