Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28100232›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2017

Equitable health services for the young? A decomposition of income-related inequalities in young adults' utilization of health care in Northern Sweden.

Paola A Mosquera, Anna-Karin Waenerlund, Isabel Goicolea, Per E Gustafsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Developing the HLSBMC health services research · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The equity impact of a universal child health promotion programme.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Paola A MosqueraDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Unit of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå, SE-901 87, Sweden. paolamosquera@gmail.com.
Anna-Karin WaenerlundDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Unit of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå, SE-901 87, Sweden.
Isabel GoicoleaDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Unit of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå, SE-901 87, Sweden.
Per E GustafssonDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Unit of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå, SE-901 87, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the goal of the Swedish health system to offer health care according to the principle of horizontal equity, little is known about the equality in access to health care use among young people. To explore this issue, the present study aimed i) to assess horizontal inequity in health care utilization among young people in Northern Sweden; and ii) to explore the contribution of different factors to explain the observed inequalities.

methodsParticipants (N = 3016 youths aged 16-25 years) came from the "Health on Equal terms" survey conducted in 2014 in the four northernmost counties in Sweden. Concentration indices (C) and horizontal inequity indices (HI) were calculated to measure inequalities in the utilization of two health care services (general practitioners (GP) and youth clinics). The HI was calculated based on health care utilization and variables representing socioeconomic status (household income), health care needs factors and non-need factors affecting health care use. A decomposition analysis was carried out to explain the income-related inequalities.

resultsResults showed a significant positive income-related inequality for youth clinic utilization in women (C = 0.166) and total sample (C = 0.097), indicating that services were concentrated among the better-off. In contrast, general practitioner visits showed inequality pointing toward a higher utilization among less affluent individuals; significant in women (C = -0.079), men (C = -0.101) and pooled sample (C = -0.097). After taking health care needs into consideration, the utilization of youth clinics remained significantly pro-rich in women (HI = 0.121) and total sample (HI = 0.099); and consistently pro-poor for the GP visits in the pooled sample (HI = -0.058). The decomposition analyses suggest that socioeconomic inequalities explain a considerable portion of the pro-rich utilization of youth clinics services among young women. The corresponding analyses for GP visits showed that need factors and socioeconomic conditions accounted for the pro-poor concentration of GP visits.

conclusionThe distribution of GP visits among young people in Northern Sweden slightly favored the low-income group, and thus seems to meet the premises of horizontal equity. In contrast, the findings suggest substantial pro-rich horizontal inequity in the utilization of youth clinics among young women, which are largely rooted in socioeconomic inequalities.

Indexed as

IncomePatient Acceptance of Health CarePovertySocial ClassAdolescentAdultFamily CharacteristicsFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHealth Care SurveysHealth ServicesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaleSocioeconomic FactorsSwedenDecomposition analysisHealth care utilizationHealth InequalityHorizontal inequity indexSwedenYoung adults

Identifiers

PMID28100232
PMCPMC5241958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.