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.

The relative effects of self-reported noise and odour annoyance on psychological distress: Different effects across sociodemographic groups?

In earlier research, both higher levels of noise and odour annoyance have been associated with decreased mental health. Presumably, these perceptions can trigger feelings of threat and stress reactions and in turn evoke psychological distress. There are two important lacunas in the research on this topic: most studies only consider either noise or odour annoyance and not their relative effect on psychological distress and there is scarce evidence about whether different sociodemographic groups experience more psychological distress due to noise and odour annoyance. Starting from the diversity in the available coping resources and in their daily life patterns, we distinguish gender, age and educational level as relevant sociodemographic variables. Using data from the Health Monitor (n = 25236) in Noord-Brabant, we found using Ordinary Least Squares Regression that individuals that reported higher levels of noise and odour annoyance reported higher levels of psychological distress. Furthermore, the effect of noise annoyance was relatively stronger compared to that of odour annoyance. Regarding the interaction effects, we found that younger adults' psychological distress was more strongly affected by noise annoyance compared to older adults, but not by odour annoyance. The psychological distress of individuals with no or primary education was more strongly affected by both noise and odour annoyance compared those with tertiary education, but not when compared to those who completed lower or higher secondary education. Contrary to our expectations, we did not find different effects between men and women. Though the evidence for the interactions was mixed, classic health inequalities along age and education lines are reinforced when considering the relationship between noise and odour annoyance and psychological distress.