European Geriatric Medicine

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 53–60 | Cite as

Mobility limitation as determinant of primary care use and ambulatory care sensitive conditions

  • Terese Sara Høj JørgensenEmail author
  • Volkert Siersma
  • Rikke Lund
  • Charlotte Juul Nilsson
Research Paper



First, to investigate associations between mobility limitations and use of general practitioners and hospitalizations of acute care sensitive conditions, respectively. Second, to investigate whether these associations vary by socio-demographic factors.


The study included 3574 females and males aged 75 or 80 years from the Danish Intervention Study on Preventive Home Visits. Fixed-effects logistic and poisson regression models were applied to study the relationship between mobility limitations (measured two-four times) and general practitioner consultations and hospitalizations with acute care sensitive conditions each subsequent year, respectively.


Each additional mobility limitation was associated with 15% higher odds of general practitioner home consultation (Odds ratio 1.15, 95% CI 1.07;1.23) and 4% increased incidence rate of general practitioner consultations among those with ≥ 1 consultation (Incidence rate ratio 1.04, 95% CI 1.03;1.04). There were no associations between mobility limitations and whether older adults had at least one general practitioner consultation nor acute care sensitive condition hospitalization. Test of interactions (p < 0.03) showed that more mobility limitations were associated with greater incidence rate of general practitioner consultations among males compared to females, married compared to unmarried, and older adults with high compared to low financial assets.


Older adults with more mobility limitations had more often a general practitioner home consultation. Mobility limitations were not associated with whether older adults had at least one general practitioner consultation, but increased mobility limitations were associated with higher contact rate among those who had ≥ 1 consultation, especially among males and older adults who were married or had high financial assets.


Mobility limitations Primary healthcare Ambulatory care sensitive conditions Fixed-effects model Socio-demographic factors 


Author contributions

All authors: study design, interpretation of results, critical revision of manuscript, approval of final version for submission.


This work was supported by the Social Inequalities in Ageing (SIA) project, funded by NordForsk, project no. 74,637 and the Faculty of Health Sciences and Center for Healthy Aging, University of Copenhagen.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki and the involved Regional Ethical Committees (number 1998-2-11G) approved the study. Danish law does not require ethical approval for register-based data.

Informed consent

All participants provided informed written consent at the last page of the baseline questionnaire.

Sponsor’s role

NordForsk and the Faculty of Health Sciences and Center for Healthy Aging, University of Copenhagen had no role in the design, methods, subject recruitment, data collections, analysis and preparation of the paper.

Supplementary material

41999_2018_149_MOESM1_ESM.docx (26 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 25 kb)


  1. 1.
    Bussiere C, Sicsic J, Pelletier-Fleury N (2016) Simultaneous effect of disabling conditions on primary health care use through a capability approach. Soc Sci Med. 154:70–84. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L (2003) Assessing the building blocks of function: utilizing measures of functional limitation. AmJPrevMed 25(3 Suppl 2):112–121Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Olejaz MJNA, Okkels Birk H, Krasnik A, Hernández-Quevedo C (2012) Denmark: health system review. WHO, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Loenen T, van den Berg MJ, Westert GP, Faber MJ (2014) Organizational aspects of primary care related to avoidable hospitalization: a systematic review. Fam Pract 31(5):502–516. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Agency_for_Healthcare_Research_and_Quality (2001) AHRQ quality indicators—guide to prevention quality indicators: hospital admission for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. AHRQ Pub. No. 02-R0203Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gibson OR, Segal L, McDermott RA (2013) A systematic review of evidence on the association between hospitalisation for chronic disease related ambulatory care sensitive conditions and primary health care resourcing. BMC Health Serv Res 13:336. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Busby J, Purdy S, Hollingworth W (2017) How do population, general practice and hospital factors influence ambulatory care sensitive admissions: a cross sectional study. BMC Fam Pract 18(1):67. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schüssler-Fiorenza Rose SM, Stineman MG, Pan Q, Bogner H, Kurichi JE, Streim JE et al (2017) Potentially avoidable hospitalizations among people at different activity of daily living limitation stages. Health Serv Res 52(1):132–155. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vass M, Avlund K, Hendriksen C, Andersen CK, Keiding N (2002) Preventive home visits to older people in Denmark: methodology of a randomized controlled study. Aging Clin Exp Res 14(6):509–515Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lynge E, Sandegaard JL, Rebolj M (2011) The Danish national patient register. Scand J Publ Health 39(7 Suppl):30–33. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kildemoes HW, Sorensen HT, Hallas J (2011) The Danish national prescription registry. Scand J Publ Health 39(7 Suppl):38–41. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baadsgaard M, Quitzau J (2011) Danish registers on personal income and transfer payments. Scand J Publ Health 39(7 Suppl):103–105. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Helweg-Larsen K (2011) The Danish register of causes of death. Scand J Publ Health 39(7 Suppl):26–29. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pedersen CB (2011) The Danish civil registration system. Scand J Publ Health 39(7 Suppl):22–25. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Avlund K, Kreiner S (1996) Schultz-Larsen K Functional ability scales for the elderly. A validation study. Euro J Publ Health 6:35–42Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Avlund K, Thudium D, Davidsen M, Fuglsang-Sørensen B (1995) Are self-ratings of functional ability reliable? Scand J Occup Ther 2:10–16Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Andersen JS, Olivarius Nde F, Krasnik A (2011) The Danish national health service register. Scand J Publ Health 39(7 Suppl):34–37. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davydow DS, Fenger-Gron M, Ribe AR, Pedersen HS, Prior A, Vedsted P et al (2015) Depression and risk of hospitalisations and rehospitalisations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions in Denmark: a population-based cohort study. BMJ Open 5(12):e009878. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Robert S, House JS (1996) SES differentials in health by age and alternative indicators of SES. J Aging Health 8(3):359–388Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hvidberg MF, Johnsen SP, Glumer C, Petersen KD, Olesen AV, Ehlers L (2016) Catalog of 199 register-based definitions of chronic conditions. Scand J Publ Health 44(5):462–479. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Glymour MM, Rudolph KE (2016) Causal inference challenges in social epidemiology: bias, specificity, and imagination. Soc Sci Med 166:258–265. Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Models Fixed effects regression (2009) Thousand oaks. SAGE Publications, Inc., CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23. Hausman. 2018. Accessed June 8 2018
  24. 24.
    Henning-Smith C, McAlpine D, Shippee T, Priebe M (2013) Delayed and unmet need for medical care among publicly insured adults with disabilities. Med Care 51(11):1015–1019. Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ford JA, Turley R, Porter T, Shakespeare T, Wong G, Jones AP et al (2018) Access to primary care for socio-economically disadvantaged older people in rural areas: a qualitative study. PLoS One 13(3):e0193952. Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Long SK, Coughlin TA, Kendall SJ (2002) Access to care among disabled adults on Medicaid. Health Care Financ Rev 23(4):159–173Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oksuzyan A, Juel K, Vaupel JW, Christensen K (2008) Men: good health and high mortality. Sex differences in health and aging. Aging Clin Exp Res 20(2):91–102Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Iwashyna TJ, Christakis NA (2003) Marriage, widowhood, and health-care use. Soc Sci Med 57(11):2137–2147Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chesser AK, Keene Woods N, Smothers K, Rogers N (2016) Health literacy and older adults: a systematic review. Gerontol Geriatr Med 2:2333721416630492. Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Muenchberger H, Kendall E (2010) Predictors of preventable hospitalization in chronic disease: priorities for change. J Publ Health Policy 31(2):150–163. Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cooper R, Hardy R, Sayer AA, Kuh D (2013) A life course approach to physical capability. In: Kuh D, Cooper R, Hardy R, Richards M, Ben-Shlomo Y (eds) A life course approach to healthy ageing. Oxford University Press, UK, p 16Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Seidel D, Brayne C, Jagger C (2011) Limitations in physical functioning among older people as a predictor of subsequent disability in instrumental activities of daily living. Age Ageing 40(4):463–469. Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fors S, Thorslund M, Parker MG (2006) Do actions speak louder than words? Self-assessed and performance-based measures of physical and visual function among old people. Eur J Ageing 3(1):15–21. Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jakobsen HR, Rønholt L, Hammer F, Andreasen AV, Nissen AH, Kjellberg A, Stadsgaard JK (2007) Opfølgende hjemmebesøg til ældre efter udskrivelse fra sygehus—en medicinsk teknologivurdering. Sundhedsstyrelsen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Forde IN, Nader C, Socha-Dietrich K, Oderkirk K, Colombo JF (2016) Primary care review of Denmark. OECD, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Geriatric Medicine Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Social Medicine, Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medical SciencesUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Center for Healthy AgingUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen KDenmark
  3. 3.The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public HealthUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.Danish Aging Research Center, University of Southern DenmarkUniversity of Aarhus and University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations