Socioeconomic inequalities in health-related functioning among people with type 2 Diabetes: longitudinal analyses in the Maastricht Study

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a common chronic disease that disproportionally affects disadvantaged groups. People with a low socioeconomic position (SEP) have increased risk of T2DM and people with a low SEP and T2DM have higher HbA1c-levels compared to people with T2DM and high SEP. The aim of this study is to analyze longitudinal socioeconomic differences in health-related functioning in people with T2DM.

METHODS

Longitudinal data from 1,537 participants of The Maastricht Study with T2DM were used (32.6% female, mean (SD) age 62.9 (7.7) years). SEP was determined by baseline measures of education, occupation and income. Health-related functioning (physical, mental and social) was measured with the Short-Form Health Survey and the Impact on Participation and Autonomy survey (all scored from 0 to 100). Associations of SEP and health-related functioning were studied annually over a 10-year period (median (IQR) 7.0 (5.0) years, baseline 2010-2018) using linear mixed methods adjusting for demographics, HbA1c-levels and lifestyle factors.

RESULTS

Participants with a low SEP had significantly worse health-related functioning compared to those with a high SEP. For example, participants with low income had lower scores for physical (-4.49[CI -5.77;-3.21]), mental (-2.61[-3.78,-1.44]) and social functioning (-9.76[-12.30;-7.23]) compared to participants with high income on a scale from 0 to 100. In addition, participants with a low education significantly declined more over time in mental (score for interaction education with time - 0.23[-0.37;-0.09]) and social functioning (-0.44[-0.77;-0.11]) compared to participants with high education. Participants with low and intermediate incomes significantly declined more over time in physical functioning (-0.17 [-0.34, -0.01 and - 0.18 [-0.36, 0.00]) compared to participants with high income.

CONCLUSIONS

Among people with T2DM, those with a lower SEP had worse health-related functioning in general than people with a higher SEP. Additionally, people with T2DM and low education developed poorer mental and social functioning over time compared to people with T2DM and high education. People with T2DM and low or intermediate income declined more in physical functioning over time than those with high incomes. In addition to HbA1c-levels and lifestyle patterns, more attention is needed for socioeconomic differences in health-related functioning for people living with T2DM.

Socioeconomic Position and Type 2 Diabetes: The Mediating Role of Psychosocial Work Environment- the Maastricht Study

Objective: We examined the association between low socioeconomic position (SEP) and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM), and the mediating role of psychosocial work environment by using counterfactual mediation analysis. Methods: Data from 8,090 participants of The Maastricht Study were analysed. SEP indicators (education, income, occupation), self-reported psychosocial work stressors, (pre)diabetes by oral glucose tolerance test were measured at baseline. Incident T2DM was self-reported per annum up to 9 years. Cox regression and causal mediation analyses were performed. Results: 2.8% (N = 172) of the participants without T2DM at baseline reported incident T2DM. People with lower SEP more often had prevalent T2DM (e.g., education OR = 2.49, 95% CI: 2.16-2.87) and incident T2DM (e.g., education HR = 2.21, 95% CI: 1.53-3.20) than higher SEP. Low job control was associated with prevalent T2DM (OR = 1.44 95% CI: 1.25-1.67). Job control partially explained the association between income and prevalent T2DM (7.23%). Job demand suppressed the associations of education and occupation with prevalent T2DM. The mediation models with incident T2DM and social support were not significant. Conclusion: Socioeconomic inequalities in T2DM were present, but only a small part of it was explained by the psychosocial work environment.

Two sides of the same coin? Absolute income and perceived income inadequacy as social determinants of health

BACKGROUND

Absolute income is commonly used in studies of health inequalities, however it does not reflect spending patterns, debts, or expectations. These aspects are reflected in measures concerning perceived income inadequacy. While health inequities by absolute income or perceived income inadequacy are well established, few studies have explored the interplay of absolute income and perceived income inadequacy in relation to health.

METHODS

Multiple data sources were linked into a nationally representative dataset (n = 445,748) of Dutch adults (18 +). The association between absolute income, perceived income inadequacy and health (self-reported health, chronic disease and psychological distress) was tested using logistic and Poisson regressions, controlling for various potential confounders (demographics, education) and mastery. Interactions were tested to check the association between perceived income inadequacy and health for different absolute income groups.

RESULTS

Perceived income inadequacy was reported at every absolute income group (with 42% of individuals in the lowest income group and 5% of individuals in the highest income group). Both absolute income and perceived income inadequacy were independently associated with health. The adjusted relative risk (RR) for lowest absolute income group is 1.11 (1.08-1.1.14) and 1.28 (1.24-1.32) for chronic disease and self-reported health respectively, and the Odds Ratio (OR) for psychological distress is 1.28 (1.16-1.42). For perceived income inadequacy the RR's were 1.41 (1.37-1.46) and 1.49 (1.44-1.54) and the OR for psychological distress is 3.14 (2.81-3.51). Mastery appeared to be an important mediator for the relationship between perceived income inadequacy, poor self-rated health and psychological distress.

CONCLUSIONS

Absolute income and perceived income inadequacy reflect conceptually different aspects of income and are independently associated with health outcomes. Perceived income inadequacy may be accounted for in health inequality studies, alongside measures of absolute income. In policy-making, targeting perceived income inadequacy might have potential to reduce health inequalities.

Regional differences in healthcare costs further explained: The contribution of health, lifestyle, loneliness and mastery

Healthcare costs in the Netherlands are rising and vary considerably among regions. Explaining regional differences in healthcare costs can help policymakers in targeting appropriate interventions in order to restrain costs. Factors usually taken into account when analyzing regional differences in healthcare costs are demographic structure and socioeconomic status (SES). However, health, lifestyle, loneliness and mastery have also been linked to healthcare costs. Therefore, this study analyzes the contribution of health, lifestyle factors (BMI, alcohol consumption, smoking and physical activity), loneliness, and mastery to regional differences in healthcare costs. Analyses are performed in a linked dataset (n = 334,721) from the Dutch Public Health Services, Statistics Netherlands, the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (year 2016), and the healthcare claims database Vektis (year 2017) with Poisson and zero-inflated binomial regressions. Regional differences in general practitioner consult costs remain significant even after taking into account health, lifestyle, loneliness, and mastery. Regional differences in costs for mental, pharmaceutical, and specialized care are less pronounced and can be explained to a large extent. For total healthcare costs, regional differences are mostly explained through the factors included in this study. Hence, addressing lifestyle factors, loneliness and mastery can help policymakers in restraining healthcare costs. In this study, the region of Zuid-Limburg represents the reference region. Use compare regions for health and healthcare costs (Regiovergelijker gezondheid en zorgkosten) in order to select all other Dutch regions as reference region.

Does Loneliness Have a Cost? A Population-Wide Study of the Association Between Loneliness and Healthcare Expenditure

Objectives: Loneliness has been associated with unhealthy behavior, poorer health, and increased morbidity. However, the costs of loneliness are poorly understood.

Methods: Multiple sources were combined into a dataset containing a nationally representative sample (n = 341,376) of Dutch adults (18+). The association between loneliness and total, general practitioner (GP), specialized, pharmaceutical, and mental healthcare expenditure was tested using Poisson and Zero-inflated negative binomial models, controlling for numerous potential confounders (i.e., demographic, socioeconomic, lifestyle-related factors, self-perceived health, and psychological distress), for four age groups.

Results: Controlling for demographic, socioeconomic, and lifestyle-related factors, loneliness was indirectly (via poorer health) associated with higher expenditure in all categories. In fully adjusted models, it showed a direct association with higher expenditure for GP and mental healthcare (0.5 and 11.1%, respectively). The association with mental healthcare expenditure was stronger in younger than in older adults (for ages 19–40, the contribution of loneliness represented 61.8% of the overall association).

Conclusion: Loneliness contributes to health expenditure both directly and indirectly, particularly in younger age groups. This implies a strong financial imperative to address this issue.

Costs of loneliness: the association between loneliness and healthcare expenditure

Background

Loneliness is a growing issue. It has been associated with a range of unhealthy behaviors, poorer health, and increased morbidity. However, the healthcare costs of loneliness are poorly understood as limited existing research on loneliness focused on older age populations, few expenditure categories, and controlled for just a few potential confounders. Our study aims to fill this evidence gap.

Methods

Multiple sources were combined into a dataset containing a nationally representative sample (n = 341,376) of Dutch adults (>18 y.o.). The association between loneliness and total, general practitioner (GP), specialized, pharmaceutical, and mental healthcare expenditure was tested using Poisson and Zero-inflated negative binomial models, controlling for numerous potential confounders (i.e. demographic, socioeconomic, lifestyle-related factors, self-perceived health, and psychological distress), for multiple age groups. Excess expenditure attributed to loneliness was extrapolated to the entire population.

Results

Controlling for demographic, socioeconomic, and lifestyle-related factors, loneliness was indirectly (via poorer health) associated with higher expenditure in all categories. In fully adjusted models, it showed a direct association with higher expenditure for GP and mental healthcare (0.5% and 11.1%, respectively). The association with mental healthcare expenditure was stronger in younger than in older adults (for ages 19-40, the contribution of loneliness represented 61.8% of the overall association).

Conclusions

Loneliness contributes to health expenditure both directly and indirectly, particularly in younger age groups. This implies a strong financial imperative to address this issue.

Key messages

Loneliness is associated with increased healthcare expenditure independent of demographic and socioeconomic factors. Excess healthcare expenditure related to loneliness are particularly apparent in mental healthcare and in younger age groups.

EULAR/eumusc.net standards of care for rheumatoid arthritis: cross-sectional analyses of importance, level of implementation and care gaps experienced by patients and rheumatologists across 35 European countries

Objective

As part of European League against Rheumatism (EULAR)/European Musculoskeletal Conditions Surveillance and Information Network, 20 user-focused standards of care (SoCs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) addressing 16 domains of care were developed. This study aimed to explore gaps in implementation of these SoCs across Europe.

Methods

Two cross-sectional surveys on the importance, level of and barriers (patients only) to implementation of each SoC (0–10, 10 highest) were designed to be conducted among patients and rheumatologists in 50 European countries. Care gaps were calculated as the difference between the actual and maximum possible score for implementation (ie, 10) multiplied by the care importance score, resulting in care gaps (0–100, maximal gap). Factors associated with the problematic care gaps (ie, gap≥30 and importance≥6 and implementation<6) and strong barriers (≥6) were further analysed in multilevel logistic regression models.

Results

Overall, 26 and 31 countries provided data from 1873 patients and 1131 rheumatologists, respectively. 19 out of 20 SoCs were problematic from the perspectives of more than 20% of patients, while this was true for only 10 SoCs for rheumatologists. Rheumatologists in countries with lower gross domestic product and non-European Union countries were more likely to report problematic gaps in 15 of 20 SoCs, while virtually no differences were observed among patients. Lack of relevance of some SoCs (71%) and limited time of professionals (66%) were the most frequent implementation barriers identified by patients.

Conclusions

Many problematic gaps were reported across several essential aspects of RA care. More efforts need to be devoted to implementation of EULAR SoCs.