ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2025
Examining the magnitude of inequality and inequity in use of healthcare resources among older Australians with cognitive decline.
Article in International journal for equity in health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers and enablers to cognitive assessment in Parkinson's disease: A qualitative contextual inquiry.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2026Article
- Neighborhood Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Frailty among Mid-to-Older-Aged Adults in Australia: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Associations.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigates whether healthcare utilisation among older Australians is equitable, particularly focusing on people with cognitive decline from age 50. It investigates the economic concept of horizontal inequity in various types of healthcare use among older Australians and compares inequity among three groups: a representative sample of all individuals aged 50 and above, those with cognitive impairment, and individuals with a disability. Additionally, we examine changes in these patterns over time. METHODS AND DATA: This study utilizes cross-sectional data for 2013 and 2017 from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey to investigate four types of healthcare utilisation-general practitioner (GP), specialist, dental, and hospital admissions. We calculate the concentration index to measure the inequality and inequity in use. To quantify inequity, we correct for differences in needs and health status, following the indirect standardisation approach.
resultsOur findings suggest that among the three samples, the inequity faced by older Australians with cognitive impairment is the most pronounced. Individuals with higher socioeconomic status used dental care more, while GP visits were concentrated among the lower socioeconomic groups in 2013. By 2017, all types of healthcare except GP visits favour the better-off people (pro-rich). Among those with disabilities, we find a pro-rich distribution of dental care in both 2013 and 2017, and pro-rich inequity in the usage of specialist visits, even after adjusting for needs.
conclusionPronounced disparities are observed among older people with cognitive impairment. Further targeting of policies to improve access to healthcare for older vulnerable Australians is recommended, to help achieve equitable and universal coverage in Australia.
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.