Mobility limitation as determinant of primary care use and ambulatory care sensitive conditions
- 16 Downloads
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.
KeywordsMobility limitations Primary healthcare Ambulatory care sensitive conditions Fixed-effects model Socio-demographic factors
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.
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.
All participants provided informed written consent at the last page of the baseline questionnaire.
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.
- 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.Olejaz MJNA, Okkels Birk H, Krasnik A, Hernández-Quevedo C (2012) Denmark: health system review. WHO, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015- Google Scholar
- 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
- 22.Models Fixed effects regression (2009) Thousand oaks. SAGE Publications, Inc., CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
- 23.stata.com. Hausman. stata.com. 2018. https://www.stata.com/manuals13/rhausman.pdf. Accessed June 8 2018
- 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.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.Iwashyna TJ, Christakis NA (2003) Marriage, widowhood, and health-care use. Soc Sci Med 57(11):2137–2147Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.Forde IN, Nader C, Socha-Dietrich K, Oderkirk K, Colombo JF (2016) Primary care review of Denmark. OECD, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar