New indices for home nursing care resource disparities in rural and urban areas, based on geocoding and geographic distance barriers: a cross-sectional study

International Journal of Health Geographics

Tsan-Hon Liou¹  Wen-Chou Chi²  Tzu-Ying Chiu³  Chia-Feng Yen⁴  Shyang-Woei Lin⁵ 

[1] Graduate Institute of Injury Prevention and Control, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan;School of Occupational Therapy, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan;Institute of Medical Sciences, Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan;Department of Public Health, Buddhist Tzu-Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan;Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien, Taiwan

关键词: WHODAS 2.0;    Disparities;    Home nursing care;    Long-term care;    Geographic information system;   

Others  :  1231695
DOI  :  10.1186/s12942-015-0021-9

 received in 2015-03-29, accepted in 2015-09-23,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Aging in place is the crucial object of long-term care policy worldwide. Approximately 15.6–19.4 % of people aged 15 or above live with a disability, and 15.3 % of them have moderate or severe disabilities. The allocation of home nursing care services is therefore an important issue. Service providers in Taiwan vary substantially across regions, and between rural and urban areas. There are no appropriate indices for describing the capacity of providers that it is due to the distances from care recipients. This study therefore aimed to describe and compare distance barriers for home nursing care providers using indices of the “profit willing distance” and the “tolerance limited distance”.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted during 2012 and 2013 using geocoding and a geographic information system to identify the distance from the providers’ locations to participants’ homes in urban (Taipei City) and rural (Hualien County) areas in Taiwan. Data were collected in-person by professionals in Taiwanese hospitals using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. The indices were calculated using regression curves, and the first inflection points were determined as the points on the curves where the first and second derivatives equaled 0.

Results

There were 5627 participants from urban areas and 956 from rural areas. In urban areas, the profit willing distance was 550–600 m, and we were unable to identify them in rural areas. This demonstrates that providers may need to supply services even when there is little profit. The tolerance limited distance were 1600–1650 m in urban areas and 1950–2000 m in rural areas. In rural areas, 33.3 % of those living inside the tolerance limited distance and there was no provider within this distance, but this figure fell to just 13.9 % in urban areas. There were strong disparities between urban and rural areas in home nursing care resource allocation.

Conclusions

Our new “profit willing distance” and the “tolerance limited distance” are considered to be clearer and more equitable than other evaluation indices. They have practical application in considering resource distribution issues around the world, and in particular the rural–urban disparities for public resource.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Lin et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig.1.

Fig.2.

Fig.3.

Fig.1.

Fig.2.

Fig.3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]World Health Organization. World Report on Disability. Geneva; 2011.
• [2]Ministry of Health and Welfare. Statistics of Population with Disabilities. Taiwan; 2014.
• [3]Chan HS. Ten years long-term care program. Taipei; 2009.
• [4]Yen CF, Chiu TY, Liou TH, Liao HF, Li YS, Liang CC, et al.: Does the planned long-term care policy in Taiwan meet the needs of people with disabilities? Health Policy 2014, 116:95-104.
• [5]Mynatt ED, Essa I, Rogers W. Increasing the opportunities for aging in place. In: Proceedings on the 2000 conference on Universal Usability. Arlington, Virginia, USA; 2000.
• [6]Lo YT, Lin PH, Chang CT, Chiang IH: Utilization of the ten-year, long-term care program by disabled home-bound patients in Taiwan. Taiwan J Public Health 2011, 21:79-92.
• [7]Whiteneck G: Conceptual models of disability: Past, present, and future, Workshop on disability in America: a new look. The National Academies Press, Washington; 2005.
• [8]Syu BR: Spatial Structure Analysis of primary health services in Eastern Taiwan. Geogr Inform Syst 2013, 7:279.
• [9]Chiu TY, Yen CF, Chou CH, Lin JD, Hwang AW, Liao HF, et al.: Development of traditional Chinese version of World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 36—item (WHODAS 2.0) in Taiwan: validity and reliability analyses. Res Dev Disabil 2014, 35:2812-2820.
• [10]Liu CY, Hung YT, Chuang YL, Chen YJ, Weng WS, Liu JS, et al.: Incorporating development stratification of Taiwan townships into sampling design of large scale health interview survey. J Health Manage 2006, 4:1-22.
• [11]Üstün TB, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, Rehm J. Measuring health and disability: manual for WHO disability assessment schedule. WHO; 2010.
• [12]Kowal P, Biritwum R, Haldia KR, Isingo R, Kumogola Y, Mathur A, et al., WHO Study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE): summary results of a pilot in three countries. 2012. http://goo.gl/CVdkH9. Accessed 3 Jan 2015.
• [13]Shulman MA, Myles PS, Chan MT, McIlroy DR, Wallace S, Ponsford J: Measurement of disability-free survival after surgery. Anesthesiology 2015, 122:524-536.
• [14]de Pedro-Cuesta J, Garcia-Sagredo P, Alcalde-Cabero E, Alberquilla A, Damian J, Bosca G, et al.: Disability transitions after 30 months in three community-dwelling diagnostic groups in Spain. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e77482.
• [15]Social and Family Affaires Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare. Ten Years Long-term Care Plan, Taiwan; 2015. http://e-care.sfaa.gov.tw/MOI_HMP/HMPa001/begin.action. Accessed 1 Sep 2015.
• [16]Chen Y, Yin Z, Xie Q: Suggestions to ameliorate the inequity in urban/rural allocation of healthcare resources in China. Int J Equity Health 2014, 13:34. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]Lee CCS, Lu JFR: Health equality and equity in health care utilization among children in Taiwan. Taiwan J Public Health 2013, 32:449-464.
• [18]Chang YC, Wen TH, Lai MS: Using geographic information systems(GIS) to identify the association between geographic accessibility and hospital-seeking behavior by hepatocellular carcinoma patients in Taiwan. Taiwan J Public Health 2009, 28:517-529.
• [19]Fitzpatrick AL, Powe NR, Cooper LS, Ives DG, Robbins JA: Barriers to health care access among the elderly and who perceives them. Am J Public Health 2004, 94:1788-1794.
• [20]Towne SD Jr, Smith ML, Ory MG: Geographic variations in access and utilization of cancer screening services: examining disparities among American Indian and Alaska Native Elders. Int J Health Geograph 2014, 13:18. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]Shoval N, Wahl HW, Auslander G, Isaacson M, Oswald F, Edry T, et al.: Use of the global positioning system to measure the out-of-home mobility of older adults with differing cognitive functioning. Age Soc 2011, 31:849-869.
• [22]Enders A, Brandt Z: Using geographic information system technology to improve emergency management and disaster response for people with disabilities. J Disabil Policy Stud 2007, 17:223-229.
• [23]Coward RT, Netzer JK, Peek CW: Obstacles to creating high quality long-term care services for rural elders. Springer, New York; 1996.
• [24]Dumas J, Belanger A. Report on the demographic situation in Canada. Canada; 1997.
• [25]Keating N, Keefe J, Dobbs B: A good place to grow old? Rural communities and support to seniors. University of Alberta Press, Canada; 2001.
• [26]Mainous AG, Kohrs FP: A comparison of health status between rural and urban adults. J Community Health 1995, 20:423-431.
• [27]John PD, Havens B, van Ineveld CHM, Finlayson M: Rural–urban differences in health status of elderly Manitobans. Can J Rural Med 2002, 7:89-93.
• [28]Wallace RE, Wallace RB, Rural–urban contrasts in elder health status: methodologic issues and findings. New York; 1998.
• [29]Forbes DA, Janzen BL: Comparison of rural and urban users and non-users of home care in Canada. Can J Rural Med 2004, 9:227-235.
• [30]Warner TD, Monaghan-Geernaert P, Battaglia J, Brems C, Johnson ME, Roberts LW: Ethical considerations in rural health care: a pilot study of clinicians in Alaska and New Mexico. Commun Ment Health J 2005, 41:21-33.
• [31]McCarthy JF, Blow FC: Older patients with serious mental illness: sensitivity to distance barriers for outpatient care. Med Care 2004, 42:1073-1080.
• [32]Schroepfer TA, Matloub J, Creswell P, Strickland R, Anderson DM: A Community-Specific Approach to Cancer Research in Indian Country. Prog Commun Health Partnersh Res Educ Action 2009, 3:317-325.
• [33]Yen CF, Hwang AW, Liou TH, Chiu TY, Hsu HY, Chi WC, et al.: Validity and reliability of the Functioning Disability Evaluation Scale-Adult Version based on the WHODAS 2.0—36 items. J Formos Med Assoc 2014, 113:839-849.