Socioeconomic status of patients in a Swedish national self-management program for osteoarthritis compared with the general population-a descriptive observational study.
Aged
Case-Control Studies
Cross-Sectional Studies
Educational Status
Exercise Therapy
/ economics
Female
Health Services Accessibility
/ economics
Humans
Income
Male
Middle Aged
Occupations
Osteoarthritis, Hip
/ economics
Osteoarthritis, Knee
/ economics
Patient Education as Topic
/ economics
Registries
Self-Management
/ economics
Social Class
Social Determinants of Health
Sweden
/ epidemiology
Hip
Knee
Osteoarthritis
Registries
Self-management
Socioeconomic status
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jan 2020
06 Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
26
09
2019
accepted:
19
12
2019
entrez:
8
1
2020
pubmed:
8
1
2020
medline:
18
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
First-line treatment for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) including education and supervised exercises, delivered as a self-management program, is considered one of the mainstays in OA treatment. However, the socioeconomic profile of the population that utilizes first-line treatment for hip and knee OA is unclear. The aim of this study was to describe the socioeconomic status (SES) of a population referred to a self-management program for OA, in comparison with that of the general Swedish population. This is a cross-sectional study including 72,069 patients with hip or knee OA enrolled in the National Quality Register for Better management of patients with Osteoarthritis (BOA) between 2008 and 2016, and registered before participation in a structured OA self-management program. A reference cohort (n = 216,207) was selected from the general Swedish population by one-to-three matching by year of birth, sex and residence. Residential municipality, country of birth, marital status, family type, educational level, employment, occupation, disposable income and sick leave were analyzed. The BOA population had higher educational level than the reference group, both regarding patients with hip OA (77.5% vs 70% with ≥10 years of education), and with knee OA (77% vs 72% with ≥10 years of education). Their average disposable income was higher (median [IQR] in Euro (€), for hip €17,442 [10,478] vs €15,998 [10,659], for knee €17,794 [10,574] vs €16,578 [11,221]). Of those who worked, 46% of patients with hip OA and 45% of the reference group had a blue-collar occupation. The corresponding numbers for knee OA were 51 and 44% respectively. Sick leave was higher among those with hip and knee OA (26%) than those in the reference groups (13% vs 12%). The consistently higher SES in the BOA population compared with the general population indicates that this self-management program for OA may not reach the more socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, who are often those with a higher disease burden.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
First-line treatment for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) including education and supervised exercises, delivered as a self-management program, is considered one of the mainstays in OA treatment. However, the socioeconomic profile of the population that utilizes first-line treatment for hip and knee OA is unclear. The aim of this study was to describe the socioeconomic status (SES) of a population referred to a self-management program for OA, in comparison with that of the general Swedish population.
METHODS
METHODS
This is a cross-sectional study including 72,069 patients with hip or knee OA enrolled in the National Quality Register for Better management of patients with Osteoarthritis (BOA) between 2008 and 2016, and registered before participation in a structured OA self-management program. A reference cohort (n = 216,207) was selected from the general Swedish population by one-to-three matching by year of birth, sex and residence. Residential municipality, country of birth, marital status, family type, educational level, employment, occupation, disposable income and sick leave were analyzed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The BOA population had higher educational level than the reference group, both regarding patients with hip OA (77.5% vs 70% with ≥10 years of education), and with knee OA (77% vs 72% with ≥10 years of education). Their average disposable income was higher (median [IQR] in Euro (€), for hip €17,442 [10,478] vs €15,998 [10,659], for knee €17,794 [10,574] vs €16,578 [11,221]). Of those who worked, 46% of patients with hip OA and 45% of the reference group had a blue-collar occupation. The corresponding numbers for knee OA were 51 and 44% respectively. Sick leave was higher among those with hip and knee OA (26%) than those in the reference groups (13% vs 12%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The consistently higher SES in the BOA population compared with the general population indicates that this self-management program for OA may not reach the more socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, who are often those with a higher disease burden.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31906904
doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-3016-z
pii: 10.1186/s12891-019-3016-z
pmc: PMC6945568
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
10Subventions
Organisme : AFA Försäkring
ID : 160176
Organisme : Futurum - Akademin för Hälsa och Vård, Region Jönköpings läns
ID : 559951
Organisme : Forskningsrådet i Sydöstra Sverige
ID : 744201
Références
Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Jan;74(1):164-9
pubmed: 24255546
Aging health. 2012 Aug 1;8(4):413-437
pubmed: 23243459
N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 22;373(17):1597-606
pubmed: 26488691
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015 Aug;23(8):1323-9
pubmed: 25819582
BMJ Open. 2018 Oct 3;8(10):e022812
pubmed: 30287673
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014 Nov;22(11):1826-32
pubmed: 25084132
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018 Jun 21;19(1):198
pubmed: 30037339
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Jun;472(6):1868-76
pubmed: 24549772
Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2016 Feb;12(2):92-101
pubmed: 26439406
Arthritis Rheum. 1991 May;34(5):505-14
pubmed: 2025304
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;896:3-15
pubmed: 10681884
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016 Apr;68(4):481-92
pubmed: 26316234
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2012 Oct;26(5):561-83
pubmed: 23218423
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016 Jun;23(9):938-46
pubmed: 26464295
Acta Orthop. 2019 Jun;90(3):264-269
pubmed: 30931670
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010 Apr;18(4):476-99
pubmed: 20170770
Eur J Epidemiol. 2009;24(11):659-67
pubmed: 19504049
Am J Manag Care. 2010 Mar;16 Suppl Management:S41-7
pubmed: 20297876
Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2014 Jul;10(7):437-41
pubmed: 24662640
J Rheumatol. 2008 Apr;35(4):677-84
pubmed: 18278832
Age Ageing. 2017 May 1;46(3):470-476
pubmed: 27932358
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013 Oct 17;14:297
pubmed: 24134116
Acta Orthop. 2016 Jun;87(3):245-51
pubmed: 26982799
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006 Jan;60(1):7-12
pubmed: 16361448
Scand J Soc Med. 1998 Dec;26(4):259-64
pubmed: 9868749
Arthritis Rheum. 1986 Aug;29(8):1039-49
pubmed: 3741515
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2017 Feb;69(2):226-233
pubmed: 27110664
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013 Jun;65(6):954-61
pubmed: 23225374
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Aug 6;99(16):10929-34
pubmed: 12140364
Open Rheumatol J. 2011;5:51-8
pubmed: 22046207
J Rehabil Med. 2016 Mar;48(3):245-52
pubmed: 26871564
Eur J Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;31(2):125-36
pubmed: 26769609
Ann Rheum Dis. 2013 Mar;72(3):401-5
pubmed: 22679305
Scand J Public Health. 2013 May;41(3):318-25
pubmed: 23406653
Bull World Health Organ. 2003;81(9):646-56
pubmed: 14710506
Arthritis Res Ther. 2010;12(2):R46
pubmed: 20298606
RMD Open. 2015 Jun 02;1(1):e000077
pubmed: 26535137
Musculoskeletal Care. 2015 Jun;13(2):67-75
pubmed: 25345913
Int J Surg. 2014 Dec;12(12):1495-9
pubmed: 25046131
Ann Rheum Dis. 2014 Jul;73(7):1323-30
pubmed: 24553908