Systematic review of individual-level, community-level, and healthcare system-level factors contributing to socioeconomic differences in healthcare utilisation in OECD countries with universal health coverage.

OBJECTIVES: Countries with universal health coverage (UHC) strive for equal access for equal needs without users getting into financial distress. However, differences in healthcare utilisation (HCU) between socioeconomic groups have been reported in countries with UHC. This systematic review provides an overview individual-level, community-level, and system-level factors contributing to socioeconomic status-related differences in HCU (SES differences in HCU). DESIGN: Systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The review protocol was published in advance. DATA SOURCES: Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Econlit, and PsycInfo were searched on 9 March 2021 and 9 November 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies that quantified the contribution of one or more factors to SES difference in HCU in OECD countries with UHC. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Studies were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted using a predeveloped data-extraction form. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using a tailored version of Hoy's ROB-tool. Findings were categorised according to level and a framework describing the pathway of HCU. RESULTS: Of the 7172 articles screened, 314 were included in the review. 64% of the studies adjusted for differences in health needs between socioeconomic groups. The contribution of sex (53%), age (48%), financial situation (25%), and education (22%) to SES differences in HCU were studied most frequently. For most factors, mixed results were found regarding the direction of the contribution to SES differences in HCU. CONCLUSIONS: SES differences in HCU extensively correlated to factors besides health needs, suggesting that equal access for equal needs is not consistently accomplished. The contribution of factors seemed highly context dependent as no unequivocal patterns were found of how they contributed to SES differences in HCU. Most studies examined the contribution of individual-level factors to SES differences in HCU, leaving the influence of healthcare system-level characteristics relatively unexplored.

From test to rest: evaluating socioeconomic differences along the COVID-19 care pathway in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated healthcare needs and caused excess mortality, especially among lower socioeconomic groups. This study describes the emergence of socioeconomic differences along the COVID-19 pathway of testing, healthcare use and mortality in the Netherlands. METHODOLOGY: This retrospective observational Dutch population-based study combined individual-level registry data from June 2020 to December 2020 on personal socioeconomic characteristics, COVID-19 administered tests, test results, general practitioner (GP) consultations, hospital admissions, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admissions and mortality. For each outcome measure, relative differences between income groups were estimated using log-link binomial regression models. Furthermore, regression models explained socioeconomic differences in COVID-19 mortality by differences in ICU/hospital admissions, test administration and test results. RESULTS: Among the Dutch population, the lowest income group had a lower test probability (RR = 0.61) and lower risk of testing positive (RR = 0.77) compared to the highest income group. However, among individuals with at least one administered COVID-19 test, the lowest income group had a higher risk of testing positive (RR = 1.40). The likelihood of hospital admissions and ICU admissions were higher for low income groups (RR = 2.11 and RR = 2.46, respectively). The lowest income group had an almost four times higher risk of dying from COVID-19 (RR = 3.85), which could partly be explained by a higher risk of hospitalization and ICU admission, rather than differences in test administration or result. DISCUSSION: Our findings indicated that socioeconomic differences became more pronounced at each step of the care pathway, culminating to a large gap in mortality. This underlines the need for enhancing social security and well-being policies and incorporation of health equity in pandemic preparedness plans.

Disruption of hospital care during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted socioeconomic groups differently: population based study using routine registration data.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, provision of non-COVID healthcare was recurrently severely disrupted. The objective was to determine whether disruption of non-COVID hospital use, either due to cancelled, postponed, or forgone care, during the first pandemic year of COVID-19 impacted socioeconomic groups differently compared with pre-pandemic use. METHODS: National population registry data, individually linked with data of non-COVID hospital use in the Netherlands (2017-2020). in non-institutionalised population of 25-79 years, in standardised household income deciles (1 = low, 10 = high) as proxy for socioeconomic status. Generic outcome measures included patients who received hospital care (dichotomous): outpatient contact, day treatment, inpatient clinic, and surgery. Specific procedures were included as examples of frequently performed elective and acute procedures, e.g.: elective knee/hip replacement and cataract surgery, and acute percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Relative risks (RR) for hospital use were reported as outcomes from generalised linear regression models (binomial) with log-link. An interaction term was included to assess whether income differences in hospital use during the pandemic deviated from pre-pandemic use. RESULTS: Hospital use rates declined in 2020 across all income groups. With baseline (2019) higher hospital use rates among lower than higher income groups, relatively stronger declines were found for lower income groups. The lowest income groups experienced a 10% larger decline in surgery received than the highest income group (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.87 - 0.93). Patterns were similar for inpatient clinic, elective knee/hip replacement and cataract surgery. We found small or no significant income differences for outpatient clinic, day treatment, and acute PCI. CONCLUSIONS: Disruption of non-COVID hospital use in 2020 was substantial across all income groups during the acute phases of the pandemic, but relatively stronger for lower income groups than could be expected compared with pre-pandemic hospital use. Although the pandemic's impact on the health system was unprecedented, healthcare service shortages are here to stay. It is therefore pivotal to realise that lower income groups may be at risk for underuse in times of scarcity.

Decision-making in breast cancer screening: A qualitative exploration of the match between women's beliefs and screening information in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: Decision-making about breast cancer screening requires balanced and understandable information that takes prior beliefs of screening invitees into account. METHODS: In qualitative interviews with 22 Dutch women who were invited for screening for the first time (49-52 years of age, varying health literacy levels), we gained insight in their beliefs on breast cancer and breast cancer screening, and explored how the current screening information matched these beliefs. RESULTS: Breast cancer was perceived as an unpredictable, severe, and uncontrollable disease. Women considered screening as self-evident and an important mean to gain some control over breast cancer. Information on benefits of screening was in line with women's prior beliefs and confirmed women's main reasons to participate. Information about false-positive outcomes, overtreatment, and false negative outcomes did not correspond to women's prior beliefs and this information was generally not considered relevant for decision-making. Preferences for additional information merely concerned practical information on the screening procedure. CONCLUSION: Complex information on the harms of screening does not match women's beliefs and is not taken into account in their decision-making. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Information regarding breast cancer screening could be further aligned to prior beliefs by taking into account values, filling knowledge gaps and correct misconceptions.

Relative contributions of pre-pandemic factors and intra-pandemic activities to differential COVID-19 risk among migrant and non-migrant populations in the Netherlands: lessons for future pandemic preparedness.

BACKGROUND: Although risk factors for differences in SARS-CoV-2 infections between migrant and non-migrant populations in high income countries have been identified, their relative contributions to these SARS-CoV-2 infections, which could aid in the preparation for future viral pandemics, remain unknown. We investigated the relative contributions of pre-pandemic factors and intra-pandemic activities to differential SARS-CoV-2 infections in the Netherlands by migration background (Dutch, African Surinamese, South-Asian Surinamese, Ghanaians, Turkish, and Moroccan origin). METHODS: We utilized pre-pandemic (2011-2015) and intra-pandemic (2020-2021) data from the HELIUS cohort, linked to SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results from Public Health Service of Amsterdam (GGD Amsterdam). Pre-pandemic factors included socio-demographic, medical, and lifestyle factors. Intra-pandemic activities included COVID-19 risk aggravating and mitigating activities such as physical distancing, use of face masks, and other similar activities. We calculated prevalence ratios (PRs) in the HELIUS population that was merged with GGD Amsterdam PCR test data using robust Poisson regression (SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result as outcome, migration background as predictor). We then obtained the distribution of migrant and non-migrant populations in Amsterdam as of January 2021 from Statistics Netherlands. The migrant populations included people who have migrated themselves as well as their offspring. We used PRs and the population distributions to calculate population attributable fractions (PAFs) using the standard formula. We used age and sex adjusted models to introduce pre-pandemic factors and intra-pandemic activities, noting the relative changes in PAFs. RESULTS: From 20,359 eligible HELIUS participants, 8,595 were linked to GGD Amsterdam PCR test data and included in the study. Pre-pandemic socio-demographic factors (especially education, occupation, and household size) resulted in the largest changes in PAFs when introduced in age and sex adjusted models (up to 45%), followed by pre-pandemic lifestyle factors (up to 23%, especially alcohol consumption). Intra-pandemic activities resulted in the least changes in PAFs when introduced in age and sex adjusted models (up to 16%). CONCLUSION: Interventions that target pre-pandemic socio-economic status and other drivers of health inequalities between migrant and non-migrant populations are urgently needed at present to better prevent infection disparities in future viral pandemics.

Differences in the Mediating Role of HL in Socioeconomic Inequalities in Health Across Age Groups: Results from the Dutch Doetinchem Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Although it is known that health literacy (HL) plays an explanatory role in educational inequalities in health, it is unknown whether this role varies across age groups. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the mediating role of HL in educational inequalities in four health outcomes varies across age groups: age 46 to 58 years, age 59 to 71 years, and age 72 to 84 years. METHODS: We used data from the Dutch Doetinchem Cohort Study, which included 3,448 participants. We included years of education as predictor, chronic illness prevalence and incidence, mental and self-perceived health as outcomes, and HL, based on self-report, as mediator. We used multiple-group mediation models to compare indirect effects across age groups. KEY RESULTS: In the complete sample without age stratification, HL partly mediated the effect of education on all health outcomes except for incidence of chronic diseases. These indirect effect estimates were larger for subjective (self-perceived health, proportion mediated [PM] = 37%, and mental health, PM = 37%) than for objective health outcomes (prevalence of chronic disease, PM = 17%). For the prevalence of chronic disease, the indirect effect estimate was significantly larger among individuals age 46 to 58 years compared to individuals age 59 to 71 years and for incidence of chronic disease also compared to individuals age 72 to 84 years. All other indirect effect estimates did not differ significantly between age groups. Using an alternative cut-off point for HL or adjusting for cognitive functioning did not meaningfully change the results. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we found that the explanatory role of HL in educational inequalities in mental and subjective health was stable but that it varied across age groups for chronic diseases, where it was largest among individuals age 46 to 58 years. Future studies may investigate the benefits of starting to intervene on HL from a younger age but means to improve HL may also benefit the subjective health of older adults with lower education. [HLRP: HL Research and Practice. 2023;7(1):e26-e38.] Plain Language Summary: This study examined age-group differences in the mediating role of HL in the relationship between education and health. Overall, we found that the explanatory role of HL in educational inequalities in mental and subjective health was stable but that it varied across age groups for chronic diseases, where it was largest among individuals age 46 to 58 years compared to individuals age 59 to 71 years and individuals age 72 to 84 years.

Estimating healthcare expenditures after becoming divorced or widowed using propensity score matching.

Becoming divorced or widowed are stressful life events experienced by a substantial part of the population. While marital status is a significant predictor in many studies on healthcare expenditures, effects of a change in marital status, specifically becoming divorced or widowed, are less investigated. This study combines individual health claims data and registered sociodemographic characteristics from all Dutch inhabitants (about 17 million) to estimate the differences in healthcare expenditure for individuals whose marital status changed (n = 469,901) compared to individuals who remained married, using propensity score matching and generalized linear models. We found that individuals who were (long-term) divorced or widowed had 12-27% higher healthcare expenditures (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.11-1.14; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.26-1.29) than individuals who remained married. Foremost, this could be attributed to higher spending on mental healthcare and home care. Higher healthcare expenditures are observed for both divorced and widowed individuals, both recently and long-term divorced/widowed individuals, and across all age groups, income levels and educational levels.

Stepping into the shoes of the policy maker: Results of a Participatory Value Evaluation for the Dutch long term COVID-19 strategy.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 outbreak early 2020 was followed by an unprecedented package of measures. The relative calmness of the pandemic early 2022 provides a momentum to prepare for various scenarios. OBJECTIVES: As acceptance of COVID-19 measures is key for public support we investigated citizens' preferences towards imposing measures in four scenarios: 1) spring/summer scenario with few hospitalizations; 2) autumn/winter scenario with many hospitalizations; 3) a new contagious variant, the impact on hospitalizations is unclear; 4) a new contagious variant, hospitalizations will substantially increase. METHODS: Study 1 comprised a Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) in which 2011 respondents advised their government on which measures to impose in the four scenarios. Respondents received information regarding the impact of each measure on the risk that the health system would be overloaded. To triangulate the results, 2958 respondents in Study 2 evaluated the acceptability of the measures in each scenario. RESULTS: Measures were ranked similarly by respondents in Study 1 and 2: 1) the majority of respondents thought that hygiene measures should be upheld, even in the spring/summer; 2) the majority supported booster vaccination, working from home, encouraging self-testing, and mandatory face masks from scenario 2 onwards; 3) even in scenario 4, lockdown measures were not supported by the majority. Young respondents were willing to accept more risks for the health system than older respondents. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that policies that focus on prevention (through advising low-impact hygiene measures) and early response to moderate threats (by scaling up to moderately restrictive measures and boostering) can count on substantial support. There is low support for lockdown measures even under high-risk conditions, which further emphasizes the importance of prevention and a timely response to new threats. Our results imply that young citizens' concerns, in particular, should be addressed when restrictive COVID-19 measures are to be implemented.

Behavioural insights and the evolving COVID-19 pandemic.

Behavioural sciences have complemented medical and epidemiological sciences in the response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. As vaccination uptake continues to increase across the EU/EEA - including booster vaccinations - behavioural science research remains important for both pandemic policy, planning of services and communication. From a behavioural perspective, the following three areas are key as the pandemic progresses: (i) attaining and maintaining high levels of vaccination including booster doses across all groups in society, including socially vulnerable populations, (ii) informing sustainable pandemic policies and ensuring adherence to basic prevention measures to protect the most vulnerable population, and (iii) facilitating population preparedness and willingness to support and adhere to the reimposition of restrictions locally or regionally whenever outbreaks may occur. Based on mixed-methods research, expert consultations, and engagement with communities, behavioural data and interventions can thus be important to prevent and effectively respond to local or regional outbreaks, and to minimise socioeconomic and health disparities. In this Perspective, we briefly outline these topics from a European viewpoint, while recognising the importance of considering the specific context in individual countries.

[Vaccination willingness and educational level]. / Vaccinatiebereidheid en opleidingsniveau.

Vaccination is an important part of the fight against COVID-19 virus. A predictor of the proportion of people who will actually take a vaccination is the willingness to vaccinate among the population. Literature shows that vaccination willingness among people with lower socioeconomic status is lower than among other groups. In this contribution we describe to what extent this is also the case in the Netherlands and show how risk perception, trust in the effects and safety of the vaccine, and health literacy may be related to this. Finally, we highlight a number of intervention strategies that can make a positive contribution to vaccination willingness among lower educated groups.

Why does healthcare utilisation differ between socioeconomic groups in OECD countries with universal healthcare coverage? A protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Even in advanced economies with universal healthcare coverage (UHC), a social gradient in healthcare utilisation has been reported. Many individual, community and healthcare system factors have been considered that may be associated with the variation in healthcare utilisation between socioeconomic groups. Nevertheless, relatively little is known about the complex interaction and relative contribution of these factors to socioeconomic differences in healthcare utilisation. In order to improve understanding of why utilisation patterns differ by socioeconomic status (SES), the proposed systematic review will explore the main mechanisms that have been examined in quantitative research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The systematic review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines and will be conducted in Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Econlit and PsycInfo. Articles examining factors associated with the differences in primary and specialised healthcare utilisation between socioeconomic groups in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries with UHC will be included. Further restrictions concern specifications of outcome measures, factors of interest, study design, population, language and type of publication. Data will be numerically summarised, narratively synthesised and thematically discussed. The factors will be categorised according to existing frameworks for barriers to healthcare access. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No primary data will be collected. No ethics approval is required. We intend to publish a scientific article in an international peer-reviewed journal.

Socioeconomic differences in healthcare expenditure and utilization in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, socioeconomic differences in health and use of healthcare resources have been reported, even in countries providing universal healthcare coverage. However, it is unclear how large these socioeconomic differences are for different types of care and to what extent health status plays a role. Therefore, our aim was to examine to what extent healthcare expenditure and utilization differ according to educational level and income, and whether these differences can be explained by health inequalities. METHODS: Data from 18,936 participants aged 25-79 years of the Dutch Health Interview Survey were linked at the individual level to nationwide claims data that included healthcare expenditure covered in 2017. For healthcare utilization, participants reported use of different types of healthcare in the past 12 months. The association of education/income with healthcare expenditure/utilization was studied separately for different types of healthcare such as GP and hospital care. Subsequently, analyses were adjusted for general health, physical limitations, and mental health. RESULTS: For most types of healthcare, participants with lower educational and income levels had higher healthcare expenditure and used more healthcare compared to participants with the highest educational and income levels. Total healthcare expenditure was approximately between 50 and 150 % higher (depending on age group) among people in the lowest educational and income levels. These differences generally disappeared or decreased after including health covariates in the analyses. After adjustment for health, socioeconomic differences in total healthcare expenditure were reduced by 74-91 %. CONCLUSIONS: In this study among Dutch adults, lower socioeconomic status was associated with increased healthcare expenditure and utilization. These socioeconomic differences largely disappeared after taking into account health status, which implies that, within the universal Dutch healthcare system, resources are being spent where they are most needed. Improving health among lower socioeconomic groups may contribute to decreasing health inequalities and healthcare spending.

Health expenditure of employees versus self-employed individuals; a 5 year study.

It is unclear to what extent self-employed choose to become self-employed. This study aimed to compare the health care expenditures-as a proxy for health-of self-employed individuals in the year before they started their business, to that of employees. Differences by sex, age, and industry were studied. In total, 5,741,457 individuals aged 25-65 years who were listed in the tax data between 2010 and 2015 with data on their health insurance claims were included. Self-employed and employees were stratified according to sex, age, household position, personal income, region, and industry for each of the years covered. Weighted linear regression was used to compare health care expenditures in the preceding (year x-1) between self-employed and employees (in year x). Compared with employees, expenditures for hospital care, pharmaceutical care and mental health care were lower among self-employed in the year before they started their business. Differences were most pronounced for men, individuals ≥40 years and those working in the industry and energy sector, construction, financial institutions, and government and care. We conclude that healthy individuals are overrepresented among the self-employed, which is more pronounced in certain subgroups. Further qualitative research is needed to investigate the reasons why these subgroups are more likely to choose to become self-employed.

Autonomous and informed decision-making: The case of colorectal cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: It is increasingly considered important that people make an autonomous and informed decision concerning colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, the realisation of autonomy within the concept of informed decision-making might be interpreted too narrowly. Additionally, relatively little is known about what the eligible population believes to be a 'good' screening decision. Therefore, we aimed to explore how the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making relate to how the eligible CRC screening population makes their decision and when they believe to have made a 'good' screening decision. METHODS: We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with the eligible CRC screening population (eighteen CRC screening participants and nine non-participants). The general topics discussed concerned how people made their CRC screening decision, how they experienced making this decision and when they considered they had made a 'good' decision. RESULTS: Most interviewees viewed a 'good' CRC screening decision as one based on both reasoning and feeling/intuition, and that is made freely. However, many CRC screening non-participants experienced a certain social pressure to participate. All CRC screening non-participants viewed making an informed decision as essential. This appeared to be the case to a lesser extent for CRC screening participants. For most, experiences and values were involved in their decision-making. CONCLUSION: Our sample of the eligible CRC screening population viewed aspects related to the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making as important for making a 'good' CRC screening decision. However, in particular the existence of a social norm may be affecting a true autonomous decision-making process. Additionally, the present concept of informed decision-making with its strong emphasis on making a fully informed and well-considered decision does not appear to be entirely reflective of the process in practice. More efforts could be made to attune to the diverse values and factors that are involved in deciding about CRC screening participation.

Decision-making styles in the context of colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Our study examined the use of decision-making styles, as identified by Scott and Bruce (1995) (i.e. differentiating between a rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant and spontaneous decision-making style), within the context of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation. In the field of cancer screening, informed decision-making is considered important, which follows the Rational Decision model. Subsequently, gaining more insight into decision-making styles being used in real life, could improve support to people when making their screening decision. In addition, we examined whether the decision-making style that people used was associated with their experienced decisional conflict. METHODS: An online survey was carried out among a sample of first-time CRC screening invitees (1282 respondents, response rate 49%). We assessed people's decision-making styles, CRC screening participation, education level, self-reported health literacy, and decisional conflict, and examined the possible associations between them. RESULTS: In our study, people who had to decide about CRC screening scored high on using both a rational and intuitive decision-making style. Respondents scoring higher on using a spontaneous or dependent decision-making style were more likely to have participated in CRC screening, while respondents scoring higher on using an avoidant decision-making style were more likely not to have participated in CRC screening. However, differences were small. Generally, people in our study experienced low decisional conflict. CONCLUSION: Our eligible CRC screening population scored high on using both a rational and intuitive decision-making style. To optimise support to people, public education materials could be appealing more to the intuitive processes at hand. That being said, the current education materials aimed at informed/rational decision-making do not necessarily seem to create a problem, as people generally experienced low decisional conflict. Possible concerns regarding the use of a spontaneous, dependent or avoidant decision-making style could be that these styles might be contributing to less informed decisions. However, it is relevant to consider that the found differences are small and that any possible concern applies to a relatively small group of people.

Educational differences in acute infectious diseases in the Netherlands: results from a nationwide health survey.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear to what extent socioeconomic inequalities exist in common infectious diseases in high-income countries. We aimed to explore educational differences in five common acute infectious diseases in adults in the Netherlands. METHODS: As part of a year-round repeated cross-sectional health survey, adults aged 25 and older were asked if they had experienced acute upper or lower respiratory tract infections, acute otitis media, urinary tract infections or gastro-enteritis in the two previous months. If so, participants were asked whether they had consulted their general practitioner and if they had been unable to perform their normal daily activities. These outcomes were analyzed per highest attained level of education. RESULTS: Data of 18 629 survey respondents were used in the analyses. People with a low educational level had lower odds of upper respiratory tract infections (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.95), but higher odds of lower respiratory tract infections (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.16-2.11). After adjustment for several covariates, the differences in upper respiratory tract infections remained statistically significant (aOR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77-0.91). The educational differences in lower respiratory tract infections were mitigated by adjusting for chronic diseases and health behaviours. For all infectious diseases, the likelihood of general practitioner consultation was highest for the lower educated group. Inability to work or perform normal daily activities due to an infectious disease was similar across all levels of education. CONCLUSION: This study shows that educational differences in incidence and care seeking behaviours exist for common acute infectious diseases in the Netherlands.

What benefits and harms are important for a decision about cervical screening? A study of the perspective of different subgroups of women.

Background: In cervical screening programs, women typically receive information leaflets to support their decision about participation. However, these leaflets are often based on what experts consider important benefits and harms of screening and not what women themselves consider important to know. Objective: To identify which benefits and harms women consider important for making a decision about cervical screening. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting and participants: Women from the Dutch target group of cervical screening (N=248; 30-60 years), recruited through an online access panel. Main variables studied: Perceived importance of different benefits and harms of cervical screening, assessed through two rating items ("How important is the information about [this harm/benefit] for your decision?" and "For me it is a [benefit/harm] that participating in the screening program leads to [the benefit/harm]"), and one ranking item ("Rank the information according to their importance for your own choice"). Results: Women overall considered the benefits of cervical screening more important than the harms or disadvantages. The most important harm according to women was the chance of false positive results (M=4.88; SD=1.75). Differences between those with lower and higher numeracy/health literacy were found regarding several aspects, e.g. for the chance of false positive results, the chance of false negative results, the chance of overtreatment. Discussion and conclusion: The results suggest that leaflets could include more explicit information about false positive results.

Single transitions and persistence of unemployment are associated with poor health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Although job loss has been associated with decline in health, the effect of long term unemployment is less clear and under-researched. Furthermore, the impact of an economic recession on this relationship is unclear. We investigated the associations of single transitions and persistence of unemployment with health. We subsequently examined whether these associations are affected by the latest recession, which began in 2008. METHODS: In total, 57,911 participants from the Dutch Health Interview Survey who belonged to the labour force between 2004 and 2014 were included. Based on longitudinal tax registration data, single employment transitions between time point 1 (t1) and time point 2 (t2) and persistent unemployment (i.e. number of years individuals were unemployed) between t1 and time point 5 (t5) were defined. General and mental health, smoking and obesity were assessed at respectively time point 3 (t3) and time point 6 (t6). Logistic regression models were performed and interactions with recession indicators (year, annual gross domestic product estimates and regional unemployment rates) were tested. RESULTS: Compared with individuals who stayed employed at t1 and t2, the likelihood of poor mental health at the subsequent year was significantly higher in those who became unemployed at t2. Persistent unemployment was associated with poor mental health, especially for those who were persistently unemployed for 5 years. Similar patterns, although less pronounced for smoking, were found for general health and obesity. Indicators of the economic recession did not modify these associations. CONCLUSIONS: Single transitions into unemployment and persistent unemployment are associated with poor mental and general health, obesity, and to a lesser extend smoking. Our study suggests that re-employment might be an important strategy to improve health of unemployed individuals. The relatively extensive Dutch social security system may explain that the economic recession did not modify these associations.

Do people with a different goal-orientation or specific focus make different decisions about colorectal cancer-screening participation?

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have shown that having promotion-oriented goals (e.g. wanting to become healthy) or prevention-oriented goals (e.g. wanting to avoid getting ill) can affect people's health-related decisions and behaviour by emphasising aspects and information that seem relevant in light of what they want to achieve. However, this issue has not yet been researched regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. With our study, we aimed to examine the relationship between people's goal-orientation or focus on advantages or disadvantages and their CRC screening participation, as this could provide insights for supporting people in making this complex decision. METHODS: An online survey was carried out among a sample of first-time CRC screening invitees (1282 respondents, response rate 49%). We assessed people's goal-orientation (i.e. promotion-orientation and prevention-orientation), focus on the advantages or disadvantages of CRC screening, screening participation and main considerations (e.g. cancer is a serious illness) concerning their screening decision. RESULTS: Generally, CRC screening participants scored higher on both promotion-orientation and prevention-orientation than non-participants. Both CRC screening participation and non-participation were not associated with a dominant goal-orientation. CRC screening participants did show a dominant focus on the advantages of CRC screening. Mediation analysis showed support for our premise that the relationship between people's goal-orientation or focus on advantages or disadvantages and their screening participation could be (partially) mediated by people's main considerations concerning CRC screening. CONCLUSION: CRC screening participants and non-participants differed in their goal-orientation and focus on advantages or disadvantages. CRC screening participation appears to be associated with a focus on the advantages of CRC screening, which could impede the making of an informed decision. CRC screening non-participation appears not to be associated with any clear goal-orientation or focus, or we have not yet managed to capture this, which could be either beneficial or problematic for making an informed decision.

Why are the public so positive about colorectal cancer screening?

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely recommended. Earlier research showed that the general public are positive about CRC screening, as too the eligible CRC screening population. Among the eligible CRC screening population this positive perception has been shown to be associated with their perceptions of cancer, preventive health screening and their own health. It is unclear whether these concepts are also associated with the positive perception of the general public. Knowing this can provide insight into the context in which public perception concerning CRC screening is established. The aim of our study was to examine which main perceptions are associated with the public perception concerning CRC screening. METHODS: An online survey was carried out in a Dutch population sample (adults 18+) among 1679 respondents (response rate was 56%). We assessed the public's perceptions concerning cancer, preventive health screening, own health, and the government, and examined their possible association with public opinion concerning CRC screening. RESULTS: The public's positive attitude towards CRC screening is associated with the public's positive attitude towards preventive health screening in general, their perceived seriousness of cancer, their belief of health being important, and their trust in the government regarding national screening programmes. CONCLUSION: Trust in the government and perceptions regarding the seriousness of cancer, preventive health screening and the importance of one's health seem to be important factors influencing how the public view CRC screening. The public are likely to process information about CRC screening in such a way that it confirms their existing beliefs of cancer being serious and preventive screening being positive. This makes it likely that they will notice information about the possible benefits of CRC screening more than information about its possible downsides, which would also contribute to the positive perception of CRC screening.