11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Geography, private costs and uptake of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in a remote rural area

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 3 , 1 ,
      BMC Public Health
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The relationship between geographical location, private costs, health provider costs and uptake of health screening is unclear. This paper examines these relationships in a screening programme for abdominal aortic aneurysm in the Highlands and Western Isles of Scotland, a rural and remote area of over 10,000 square miles.

          Methods

          Men aged 65–74 (n = 9323) were invited to attend screening at 51 locations in 50 settlements. Effects of geography, deprivation and age on uptake were examined. Among 8,355 attendees, 8,292 completed a questionnaire detailing mode of travel and costs incurred, time travelled, whether accompanied, whether dependants were cared for, and what they would have been doing if not attending screening, thus allowing private costs to be calculated. Health provider (NHS) costs were also determined. Data were analysed by deprivation categories, using the Scottish Indices of Deprivation (2003), and by settlement type ranging from urban to very remote rural.

          Results

          Uptake of screening was high in all settlement types (mean 89.6%, range 87.4 – 92.6%). Non-attendees were more deprived in terms of income, employment, education and health but there was no significant difference between non-attendees and attendees in terms of geographical access to services. Age was similar in both groups. The highest private costs (median £7.29 per man) and NHS screening costs (£18.27 per man invited) were observed in very remote rural areas. Corresponding values for all subjects were: private cost £4.34 and NHS cost £15.72 per man invited.

          Conclusion

          Uptake of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in this remote and rural setting was high in comparison with previous studies, and this applied across all settlement types. Geographical location did not affect uptake, most likely due to the outreach approach adopted. Private and NHS costs were highest in very remote settings but still compared favourably with other published studies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) into the effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening on mortality in men: a randomised controlled trial.

          Opposing views have been published on the importance of ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms. The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study was designed to assess whether or not such screening is beneficial. A population-based sample of men (n=67800) aged 65-74 years was enrolled, and each individual randomly allocated to either receive an invitation for an abdominal ultrasound scan (invited group, n=33839) or not (control group, n=33961). Men in whom abdominal aortic aneurysms (> or =3 cm in diameter) were detected were followed-up with repeat ultrasound scans for a mean of 4.1 years. Surgery was considered on specific criteria (diameter > or =5.5 cm, expansion > or =1 cm per year, symptoms). Mortality data were obtained from the Office of National Statistics, and an intention-to-treat analysis was based on cause of death. Quality of life was assessed with four standardised scales. The primary outcome measure was mortality related to abdominal aortic aneurysm. 27147 of 33839 (80%) men in the invited group accepted the invitation to screening, and 1333 aneurysms were detected. There were 65 aneurysm-related deaths (absolute risk 0.19%) in the invited group, and 113 (0.33%) in the control group (risk reduction 42%, 95% CI 22-58; p=0.0002), with a 53% reduction (95% CI 30-64) in those who attended screening. 30-day mortality was 6% (24 of 414) after elective surgery for an aneurysm, and 37% (30 of 81) after emergency surgery. Our results provide reliable evidence of benefit from screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Should we pay the patient? Review of financial incentives to enhance patient compliance.

            To determine whether financial incentives increase patients' compliance with healthcare treatments. Systematic literature review of computer databases--Medline, Embase, PsychLit, EconLit, and the Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials. In addition, the reference list of each retrieved article was reviewed and relevant citations retrieved. Only randomised trials with quantitative data concerning the effect, of financial incentives (cash, vouchers, lottery tickets, or gifts) on compliance with medication, medical advice, or medical appointments were included in the review. Eleven papers were identified as meeting the selection criteria. Data on study populations, interventions, and outcomes were extracted and analysed using odds ratios and the number of patients needed to be treated to improve compliance by one patient. 10 of the 11 studies showed improvements in patient compliance with the use of financial incentives. Financial incentives can improve patient compliance.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Are rural residents less likely to obtain recommended preventive healthcare services?

              This study examined rural-urban differences in utilization of preventive healthcare services and assessed the impact of rural residence, demographic factors, health insurance status, and health system characteristics on the likelihood of obtaining each service. National data from the 1997 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and the 1999 Area Resource File were used to evaluate the adequacy of preventive services obtained by rural and urban women and men, using three sets of nationally accepted preventive services guidelines from the American Cancer Society, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and Healthy People 2010. Logistic regression models were developed to control for the effect of demographic factors, health insurance status, and health system characteristics. Rural residents are less likely than urban residents to obtain certain preventive health services and are further behind urban residents in meeting Healthy People 2010 objectives. Efforts to increase rural preventive services utilization need to build on federal, state, and community-based initiatives and to recognize the special challenges that rural areas present.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2458
                2006
                29 March 2006
                : 6
                : 80
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Rural Health, University of Aberdeen, Beechwood Business Park, Inverness IV2 3BL, UK
                [2 ]Department of Surgery, Raigmore Hospital, Inverness, IV2 3UJ, UK
                [3 ]Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK
                Article
                1471-2458-6-80
                10.1186/1471-2458-6-80
                1448172
                16571121
                15ec2bb9-3e15-4909-b1f4-7c238b269c9a
                Copyright © 2006 Lindsay et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 18 August 2005
                : 29 March 2006
                Categories
                Research Article

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article