Original ArticlesLow education, high gp consultation rates: the effect of psychosocial factors
Introduction
Socioeconomic differences in the use of health care systems has been widely reported 1, 2, 3, 4. Evidence from The Netherlands and the United Kingdom suggests that groups with a lower educational attainment or social class use the general practitioner services more than those with a higher educational qualification or those in the higher social class categories, even if the less favorable health status of those with a low socioeconomic status is taken into consideration 5, 6, 7, 8. Furthermore, when potentially important information about health insurance is taken into account, substantial socioeconomic differences remain [9]. The question then arises as to what other factors apart from health status and health insurance might be contributing to the socioeconomic differences in the use of general practitioner services?
To study health services utilization, Andersen formulated a widely used behavioral model describing the use of health services as a function of medical need, and enabling and predisposing characteristics of an individual [10]. The need component reflects the urge to seek medical care because of the individual's objective or subjective health status. The enabling component suggests that people, in addition to their medical need, must have the means (e.g., health insurance) to use health care facilities. The predisposing component involves characteristics existing prior to the onset of disease, which reflect a person's propensity to use health care services.
One group of predisposing characteristics is psychosocial factors. To understand the differences in the pattern of use of general practitioner services among different groups, it is useful therefore to determine the contribution of psychosocial factors. This understanding could be important when targeting interventions, both to help patients and perhaps also to find ways of reducing the workload for the general practitioner, especially in deprived areas.
In this study, we report the results of a cross-sectional analysis concerning the explanation of differences by level of education in consultation rates with the general practitioner in The Netherlands, controlling for health status and health insurance. We used data from a questionnaire that had elicited a response of approximately 72%. Explanatory variables used were long-term stressful conditions, social support, locus of control, coping styles, and attitudes toward health and health care. We tested the hypothesis that differences in the use of general practitioner services according to education remained after controlling for health status and health insurance and that the differences can be attributed to these psychosocial characteristics.
Our study was carried out in The Netherlands, but its results may have implications for other health systems that share certain characteristics with the Dutch health care system, such as the aim of universal access and the central role of the general practitioner in primary care.
Section snippets
Study population
We used cross-sectional data from the Longitudinal Study on Socio-Economic Differences in Utilization of Health Services (LS-SEDUHS). The LS-SEDUHS is part of the GLOBE study, a longitudinal study on inequalities in health in The Netherlands that began in Spring 1991 with a postal survey. The design and objective of this study have been described elsewhere [11]. The sample of the GLOBE study was based on a cohort of noninstitutionalized Dutch nationals aged 15–74 years. The highest and lowest
Results
Results of the associations between education and the explanatory factors are displayed in Table 2. Because so many associations and overall contributions of education in Table 2 were statistically significant, all coefficients of education are displayed in Table 3. Long-term stress was only statistically significantly more prevalent among the lower educated with respect to situational problems. Both types of social support did not significantly differ according to educational level, although
Discussion
In this study, we tested whether psychosocial factors contributed to explaining the higher general practitioner consultation rates among those in the lower socioeconomic strata, controlling for health status and health insurance. Analyses were carried out on cross-sectional Dutch survey data of 2867 mainly chronically ill persons. Tendency to consult was the only psychosocial factor that explained the socioeconomic differential partially. Therefore, our hypothesis has to be rejected because the
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgments—This project was supported by a grant from the Health Insurance Council (Ziekenfondsraad). It was part of the GLOBE study (Gezondheid en LevensOmstandigheden Bevolking Eindhoven en omstreken), a large-scale research project on health and living conditions of the population of Eindhoven and surroundings. The GLOBE study was conducted by the Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Rotterdam, in collaboration with the Community Health Services of the city of Eindhoven, the
References (26)
Health needs, demand for health services and expenditure across social groups in Italyan empirical investigation
Soc Sci Med
(1993)Socio-economic health differences in The Netherlandsa review of recent empirical findings
Soc Sci Med
(1992)- et al.
Socio-economic differences in general practitioner and outpatient specialist care in the Netherlandsa matter of health insurance?
Soc Sci Med
(1997) - et al.
A prospective cohort study investigating the explanation of socio-economic inequalities in health in The Netherlands
Soc Sci Med
(1994) - et al.
Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms
Appl Ergon
(1987) - et al.
Stress-coping in migraine
Soc Sci Med
(1988) - et al.
Socioeconomic differentials in the uptake of medical care in Great Britain
J Epidemiol Commun Health
(1987) - et al.
Do the poor cost more?
A multihospital study of patients' socioeconomic status and use of hospital resources. N Engl J Med
(1990) - et al.
Equity and the NHSself-reported morbidity, access, and primary care
BMJ
(1980) - Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Netherlands Health Interview Survey 1981–1991. 's Gravenhage: Sdu...
Societal and individual determinants of medical care utilization in the United States
Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc
Cited by (33)
Participants, Physicians or Programmes: Participants’ educational level and initiative in cancer screening
2018, Health PolicyCitation Excerpt :Patients identify the lack of a recommendation from the treating physician as an important reason for not participating in cancer screenings [32]. In addition, GPs should become more conscious about the vicious circle that might exist during consultations between themselves and patients with low levels of education [33,64–66]. More specifically, patients with less education might ask fewer questions, state fewer opinions, articulate less affective expression and have less of a preference for decision-making during consultations, thus resulting in less involved behaviour, fewer partnership-building utterances and a less active stance on the part of the GP.
Social inequality and utilization of health services
2008, Public Health ForumGender and health care utilization: The role of mental distress and help-seeking propensity
2007, Social Science and MedicineDisparities in stroke preventive care in general practice did not explain socioeconomic disparities in stroke
2006, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyCitation Excerpt :This suggests that, for some aspects, the quality of care may indeed be better for these patients. These findings are interesting in the light of substantial research showing that lower socioeconomic status is associated with more general practice care consultations and prescriptions [11,12,44]. More frequent contacts with lower socioeconomic groups may provide GPs with more opportunities to comply with preventive guidelines in these patients.
Ethnicity, socio-economic position and gender - Do they affect reported health - Care seeking behaviour?
2003, Social Science and Medicine