Richard Cookson1, Mark Dusheiko, Geoffrey Hardman. 1. Department of Social Policy and Social Work, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK. rc503@york.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare socioeconomic inequality in small area use of elective total hip replacement in the English National Health Service (NHS) in 1991 and 2001. METHODS: Hospital Episode Statistics and Census data were aggregated to a common geography of 'frozen' 1991 English electoral wards. The Townsend deprivation score was used as the primary indicator of socioeconomic status for each ward, and the sensitivity analysis used other Census indicators. Two main measures of inequality were examined: the indirectly age-sex standardized utilization rate ratio between most and least deprived quintile groups, and the concentration index of deprivation-related inequality in age-sex standardized utilization ratios between small areas. Each standardized utilization ratio is the observed use divided by the expected use, if each age and sex group in the study population had the same use rate as the national population. RESULTS: In both years, observed use was below expected use for the bottom third of areas by socioeconomic status. The standardized utilization rate ratio between top and bottom Townsend quintiles fell from 1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-1.47) in 1991 to 1.27 (95% CI 1.23-1.32) in 2001. The proportionate increase in use required to bring the bottom quintile to the level of top thus fell significantly from 41% to 27%. The Town-send-based concentration index also fell from 0.069 (95% CI 0.059-0.079) in 1991 to 0.060 (95% CI 0.050-0.071) in 2001, although this fall was not statistically significant (P = 0.085). Other socioeconomic indicators yielded a similar pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic small area inequality in use of total hip replacement appears to have fallen between 1991 and 2001. One possible explanation is that increased hip replacement rates in the 1990s may have lowered barriers to access, thus allowing this health technology to diffuse further among lower socioeconomic groups.
OBJECTIVES: To compare socioeconomic inequality in small area use of elective total hip replacement in the English National Health Service (NHS) in 1991 and 2001. METHODS: Hospital Episode Statistics and Census data were aggregated to a common geography of 'frozen' 1991 English electoral wards. The Townsend deprivation score was used as the primary indicator of socioeconomic status for each ward, and the sensitivity analysis used other Census indicators. Two main measures of inequality were examined: the indirectly age-sex standardized utilization rate ratio between most and least deprived quintile groups, and the concentration index of deprivation-related inequality in age-sex standardized utilization ratios between small areas. Each standardized utilization ratio is the observed use divided by the expected use, if each age and sex group in the study population had the same use rate as the national population. RESULTS: In both years, observed use was below expected use for the bottom third of areas by socioeconomic status. The standardized utilization rate ratio between top and bottom Townsend quintiles fell from 1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-1.47) in 1991 to 1.27 (95% CI 1.23-1.32) in 2001. The proportionate increase in use required to bring the bottom quintile to the level of top thus fell significantly from 41% to 27%. The Town-send-based concentration index also fell from 0.069 (95% CI 0.059-0.079) in 1991 to 0.060 (95% CI 0.050-0.071) in 2001, although this fall was not statistically significant (P = 0.085). Other socioeconomic indicators yielded a similar pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic small area inequality in use of total hip replacement appears to have fallen between 1991 and 2001. One possible explanation is that increased hip replacement rates in the 1990s may have lowered barriers to access, thus allowing this health technology to diffuse further among lower socioeconomic groups.
Authors: S Samuel Bederman; Charles D Rosen; Nitin N Bhatia; P Douglas Kiester; Ranjan Gupta Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2011-08-05 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Kristiina Manderbacka; Markku Satokangas; Martti Arffman; Eeva Reissell; Ilmo Keskimäki; Alastair H Leyland Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-07-09 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Sharon L Brennan; Tyman Stanford; Anita E Wluka; Margaret J Henry; Richard S Page; Stephen E Graves; Mark A Kotowicz; Geoffrey C Nicholson; Julie A Pasco Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2012-04-30 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Sharon L Brennan; Stephen E Lane; Michelle Lorimer; Rachelle Buchbinder; Anita E Wluka; Richard S Page; Richard H Osborne; Julie A Pasco; Kerrie M Sanders; Kara Cashman; Peter R Ebeling; Stephen E Graves Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Elizabeth M Badley; Mayilee Canizares; Crystal MacKay; Nizar N Mahomed; Aileen M Davis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-06-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sharon Lee Brennan; Tyman Stanford; Anita E Wluka; Richard S Page; Stephen E Graves; Mark A Kotowicz; Geoffrey C Nicholson; Julie A Pasco Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 2.692