Use of health services, contrasted between SIM-welfare and SIM-work (model 1) and between subgroups of SIM-welfare assessed with a different distance to the labour market (model 2), controlled for differences in relevant health needs and sociodemographic background variables*
| Binary logistic regression models | Contact with healthcare services in past 12 months (1=yes) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GP | Specialist care | Mental healthcare | Addiction care | No care | |
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Model 1: comparing SIM-welfare to SIM-work† | |||||
| Welfare | |||||
| SIM-welfare | ns 1.0 | 1.9 (1.3 to 2.8) | 2.9 (1.6 to 5.3) | 5.6 (1.6 to 20.3) | ns 1.3 |
| SIM-work | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Model 2: comparing between subgroups of SIM-welfare‡ | |||||
| Distance to labour market | |||||
| Step 1 ‘care’ | ns 0.8 | 1.8 (1.0 to 3.0) | 2.3 (1.2 to 4.7) | ns 3.2 | ns 1.0 |
| Step 2 ‘social activation’ | ns 0.5 | ns 1.5 | 2.0 (1.0 to 4.1) | ns 1.6 | ns 2.6 |
| Step 3 and 4 ‘re-employment’ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
*All analyses were conducted with control variables: age, education, deprivation area and migration history.
†Relevant health variables controlled for in model 1: GP: mental illness, somatic illness and excessive drinking; Specialist care: somatic illness; Mental healthcare: mental illness; Addiction care: excessive drinking; No care: mental illness, somatic illness and excessive drinking.
‡Relevant health variables controlled for in model 2: same as model 1 except instead of excessive drinking, harmful drinking, daily cannabis use and recent substance abuse were entered as control variables. Bold typeface indicates significance at p<0.05 level.
ns: association is non-significant (p>0.05).
GP, general practitioner; SIM-welfare, single male welfare recipients; SIM-work, single employed men.