Socioeconomic status and risk of osteoporotic fractures and the use of DXA scans: data from the Danish population-based ROSE study.
Absorptiometry, Photon
/ statistics & numerical data
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Comorbidity
Denmark
/ epidemiology
Educational Status
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Health Services Accessibility
/ statistics & numerical data
Healthcare Disparities
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Incidence
Income
/ statistics & numerical data
Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal
/ complications
Osteoporotic Fractures
/ epidemiology
Risk Factors
Social Class
DXA scan
Osteoporotic fractures
Socioeconomic inequality in health
Socioeconomic status
Women
Journal
Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA
ISSN: 1433-2965
Titre abrégé: Osteoporos Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9100105
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
29
05
2018
accepted:
07
11
2018
pubmed:
23
11
2018
medline:
4
9
2019
entrez:
23
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is a need of studies exploring the link between socioeconomic status and DXA scans and osteoporotic fracture, which was the aim of the present study. No differences in socioeconomic status and risk of osteoporotic fractures were found. However, women with further/higher education and higher income are more often DXA-scanned. Lower socioeconomic status is known to be associated with a range of chronic conditions and with access to health care services. The link between socioeconomic status and the use of DXA scans and osteoporotic fracture, however, needs to be explored more closely. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the relationship between socioeconomic status and both DXA scan utilization and major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) using a population-based cohort of Danish women and national registers. The study included 17,155 women (65-81 years) sampled from the Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation study (ROSE). Information on socioeconomic background, DXA scans, and MOFs was retrieved from national registers. Competing-risk regression analyses were performed. Mean follow-up was 4.8 years. A total of 4245 women had a DXA scan (24.7%) and 1719 (10.0%) had an incident MOF during follow-up. Analyses showed that women with basic education had a lower probability of undergoing DXA scans than women with further or higher education (greater than upper secondary education and vocational training education) (subhazard ratio (SHR) = 0.82; 95% CI 0.75-0.89, adjusted for age and comorbidity). Moreover, women with disposable income in the low and medium tertiles had a lower probability of undergoing DXA scans than women in the high-income tertile (SHR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.84-0.97 and SHR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.82-0.95, respectively, adjusted for age and comorbidity). No association between socioeconomic background and probability of DXA was found in adjusted analyses. The study found no differences in risk of osteoporotic fractures depending on socioeconomic status. However, women with further or higher education as well as higher income are more often DXA-scanned.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30465216
doi: 10.1007/s00198-018-4768-2
pii: 10.1007/s00198-018-4768-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
343-353Subventions
Organisme : INTERREG
ID : 4A JNR 08/4177
Organisme : Region of Sothern Denmark
ID : JNR 08/8133
Organisme : Odense Universitetshospital
ID : JNR 11/5761
Références
Osteoporos Int. 2009 Mar;20(3):393-8
pubmed: 18773136
Osteoporos Int. 2015 Apr;26(4):1351-9
pubmed: 25572043
Arch Osteoporos. 2012;7:37-48
pubmed: 23225280
Perspect Biol Med. 2003 Summer;46(3 Suppl):S9-23
pubmed: 14563071
Ugeskr Laeger. 1995 Jun 26;157(26):3741-5
pubmed: 7631448
Osteoporos Int. 2009 May;20(5):811-7
pubmed: 19002369
Osteoporos Int. 2017 Apr;28(4):1233-1243
pubmed: 27909785
Health Aff (Millwood). 2002 Mar-Apr;21(2):60-76
pubmed: 11900187
Lancet. 1996 Dec 7;348(9041):1535-41
pubmed: 8950879
Osteoporos Int. 2017 Dec;28(12):3389-3399
pubmed: 28875257
JAMA. 2000 May 17;283(19):2579-84
pubmed: 10815125
Osteoporos Int. 2014 Apr;25(4):1379-88
pubmed: 24504101
J Bone Miner Res. 2018 May;33(5):845-851
pubmed: 29470854
Calcif Tissue Int. 2015 Feb;96(2):167-79
pubmed: 25578146
Bone. 2015 Apr;73:127-31
pubmed: 25542156
Bone. 2009 Jun;44(6):1049-54
pubmed: 19254788
Osteoporos Int. 2009 Sep;20(9):1487-97
pubmed: 19107382
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006 Jan;60(1):7-12
pubmed: 16361448
BMJ. 1996 May 18;312(7041):1254-9
pubmed: 8634613
N Engl J Med. 2008 Jun 5;358(23):2468-81
pubmed: 18525043
Osteoporos Int. 2013 Feb;24(2):433-42
pubmed: 22349965
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
Arch Osteoporos. 2018 Mar 6;13(1):21
pubmed: 29511831
Arch Osteoporos. 2015;10:16
pubmed: 26067929
J Clin Densitom. 2012 Apr-Jun;15(2):165-75
pubmed: 22321656
Osteoporos Int. 2011 May;22(5):1401-9
pubmed: 20683710
Health Promot Perspect. 2016 Oct 01;6(4):190-195
pubmed: 27766236
Scand J Public Health. 2003;31(2):126-36
pubmed: 12745763
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Jun;93(6):801-5
pubmed: 21586780
Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2017 Dec;27(12):1143-1151
pubmed: 29170060
Injury. 2015 Feb;46(2):366-70
pubmed: 25442710
J Bone Miner Res. 2015 May;30(5):934-44
pubmed: 25545380
J Aging Health. 2014 Feb;26(1):106-27
pubmed: 24584263
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Mar;128:316-26
pubmed: 25577953
J Bone Miner Res. 2012 Jul;27(7):1480-6
pubmed: 22431426
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013 Jan 05;14:10
pubmed: 23289751
Am J Epidemiol. 2002 Jul 1;156(1):1-10
pubmed: 12076883