ArticleInternational journal of public health2013
Equity in GP and specialist contacts by older persons in Belgium.
Article in International journal of public health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Socioeconomic inequalities in primary-care and specialist physician visits: a systematic review.International journal for equity in health · 2021Pooled it
- Socioeconomic disparities in health-related quality of life and healthcare use in the last year of life of patients with advanced cancer: longitudinal results from the eQuiPe study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Observational
- Access to primary care for socioeconomically disadvantaged older people in rural areas: a realist review.BMJ open · 2016Review
- Preventive care use among the Belgian elderly population: does socio-economic status matter?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the existence of socioeconomic differences in probability and intensity of general practitioner (GP) and specialist contacts among the Belgian elderly population, compared with the younger population.
methodsA nationally representative cross-sectional study based on 4,825 older (≥65) and 14,738 younger participants (<65) in the Belgian Health Interview Surveys 2001 and 2004. Socioeconomic differences in contacts with a GP and specialist were examined using two-part hurdle models; use versus nonuse by logistic regression, and intensity of use by zero-truncated negative binomial regression.
resultsThe intermediate income group was more likely to contact a GP and tenants reported more GP contacts. Lower educated older persons were less likely to contact a specialist and household income seemed to play a role in the intensity of specialist contacts.
conclusionsThe probability and intensity of general practitioner and specialist contacts among the Belgian older population are mainly determined by sociodemographic and health status variables, but a certain degree of inequity remains. The socioeconomic gradient differs in probability and intensity of contacts, indicating the advantage of using a two-part model in investigating socioeconomic differences in healthcare utilisation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.