Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34281548›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2021

The cumulation of ill health and low agency in socially excluded city dwellers in the Netherlands: how to better identify high-risk/high-need population segments with public health survey data.

Addi P L van Bergen, Annelies van Loon, Stella J M Hoff, Judith R L M Wolf, Albert M van Hemert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

5 authors.

Addi P L van BergenGGD Hollands Midden, Parmentierweg 49, 2316ZV, Leiden, The Netherlands. avanbergen@ggdhm.nl.
Annelies van LoonGGD Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 100, 1018 WT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Stella J M HoffThe Netherlands Institute of Social Research|SCP, Bezuidenhoutseweg 30, 2594 AV, Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Judith R L M WolfImpuls, The Netherlands Center for Social Care Research, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 21, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Albert M van HemertDepartment of Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPopulation segmentation and risk stratification are important strategies for allocating resources in public health, health care and social care. Social exclusion, which is defined as the cumulation of disadvantages in social, economic, cultural and political domains, is associated with an increased risk of health problems, low agency, and as a consequence, a higher need for health and social care. The aim of this study is to test social exclusion against traditional social stratifiers to identify high-risk/high-need population segments.

methodsWe used data from 33,285 adults from the 2016 Public Health Monitor of four major cities in the Netherlands. To identify at-risk populations for cardiovascular risk, cancer, low self-rated health, anxiety and depression symptoms, and low personal control, we compared relative risks (RR) and population attributable fractions (PAF) for social exclusion, which was measured with the Social Exclusion Index for Health Surveys (SEI-HS), and four traditional social stratifiers, namely, education, income, labour market position and migration background.

resultsThe analyses showed significant associations of social exclusion with all the health indicators and personal control. Particular strong RRs were found for anxiety and depression symptoms (7.95) and low personal control (6.36), with corresponding PAFs of 42 and 35%, respectively. Social exclusion was significantly better at identifying population segments with high anxiety and depression symptoms and low personal control than were the four traditional stratifiers, while the two approaches were similar at identifying other health problems. The combination of social exclusion with a low labour market position (19.5% of the adult population) captured 67% of the prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms and 60% of the prevalence of low personal control, as well as substantial proportions of the other health indicators.

conclusionsThis study shows that the SEI-HS is a powerful tool for identifying high-risk/high-need population segments in which not only ill health is concentrated, as is the case with traditional social stratifiers, but also a high prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms and low personal control are present, in addition to an accumulation of social problems. These findings have implications for health care practice, public health and social interventions in large cities.

Indexed as

AnxietyDepressionInternal-External ControlSocial IsolationUrban HealthAdultAgedCitiesFemaleHealth SurveysHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeeds AssessmentNetherlandsPublic HealthAnxiety and depressionKessler-10Pearlin mastery scalePersonal controlPopulation healthPublic health monitoringSocial determinants of healthSocial exclusion

Identifiers

PMID34281548
PMCPMC8290568

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.