08.02.2014 Views

people living in finglas and their health - School of Medicine - Trinity ...

people living in finglas and their health - School of Medicine - Trinity ...

people living in finglas and their health - School of Medicine - Trinity ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

RESULTS - PART 1<br />

RESULTS - PART 1<br />

The primary carer reported that, <strong>of</strong> those who were wait<strong>in</strong>g for <strong>health</strong> care 35% awaited an outpatient<br />

consultation <strong>and</strong> 29% awaited surgery (Figure 3.13). Almost seven out <strong>of</strong> every ten were wait<strong>in</strong>g for more than<br />

three months. Over two thirds <strong>of</strong> the primary carers thought that the wait<strong>in</strong>g time was unacceptable (Table 3.32).<br />

A similar proportion <strong>of</strong> household members who were wait<strong>in</strong>g for <strong>health</strong> care were <strong>liv<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> less deprived areas<br />

<strong>and</strong> more deprived areas (26/443, 5.9% versus 37/519, 7.1%, p=0.4).<br />

Figure 3.13 Type <strong>of</strong> treatment awaited by household members as reported by primary carers (n=63)<br />

PERCENTAGE<br />

40<br />

35<br />

30<br />

25<br />

20<br />

15<br />

10<br />

5<br />

0<br />

34.9<br />

Consultation<br />

28.6<br />

Surgery<br />

TYPE OF TREATMENT AWAITED<br />

19.1<br />

Dentist<br />

Factors associated with those wait<strong>in</strong>g for <strong>health</strong> care<br />

9.5 7.9<br />

Speech/<br />

physio/OT<br />

Medical<br />

Bi-variate analysis us<strong>in</strong>g six groups <strong>of</strong> variables (demographic characteristics, socio-economic characteristics,<br />

chronic illness, disability, <strong>health</strong> related behaviours, <strong>and</strong> <strong>health</strong> services utilised) <strong>in</strong>dicated that several factors<br />

were significantly associated with reported wait<strong>in</strong>g for <strong>health</strong> care at the time <strong>of</strong> the survey.<br />

Logistic regression models were constructed to clarify the <strong>in</strong>dependent associations between the significant<br />

variables <strong>and</strong> the likelihood <strong>of</strong> reported wait<strong>in</strong>g for <strong>health</strong> care at the time <strong>of</strong> the survey (Table 3.33). The<br />

relationships presented are those that rema<strong>in</strong>ed statistically significant or were deemed cl<strong>in</strong>ically important after<br />

tak<strong>in</strong>g account <strong>of</strong> confound<strong>in</strong>g. The associations are expressed as odds ratios adjusted for confound<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

Table 3.33 Logistic regression model to identify determ<strong>in</strong>ants <strong>of</strong> those wait<strong>in</strong>g for <strong>health</strong> care <strong>in</strong> the F<strong>in</strong>glas<br />

population (63/963)<br />

Total Await<strong>in</strong>g Proportion % Adjusted p-value<br />

<strong>health</strong> care<br />

Odds ratio<br />

(95% CI)<br />

Used a hospital service <strong>in</strong> the 12 months prior to the survey<br />

No 635 26 4.1 1<br />

Yes 319 37 11.6 2.4 (1.4 to 4.2) 0.002<br />

Miss<strong>in</strong>g 9<br />

Whole model χ2=271, p

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!