Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2010 Aug 11:341:c4092.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.c4092.

Equity in access to total joint replacement of the hip and knee in England: cross sectional study

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Equity in access to total joint replacement of the hip and knee in England: cross sectional study

Andy Judge et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To explore geographical and sociodemographic factors associated with variation in equity in access to total hip and knee replacement surgery.

Design: Combining small area estimates of need and provision to explore equity in access to care.

Setting: English census wards.

Subjects: Patients throughout England who needed total hip or knee replacement and numbers who received surgery.

Main outcome measures: Predicted rates of need (derived from the Somerset and Avon Survey of Health and English Longitudinal Study of Ageing) and provision (derived from the hospital episode statistics database). Equity rate ratios comparing rates of provision relative to need by sociodemographic, hospital, and distance variables.

Results: For both operations there was an "n" shaped curve by age. Compared with people aged 50-59, those aged 60-84 got more provision relative to need, while those aged >or=85 received less total hip replacement (adjusted rate ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.72) and less total knee replacement (0.87, 0.82 to 0.93). Compared with women, men received more provision relative to need for total hip replacement (1.08, 1.05 to 1.10) and total knee replacement (1.31, 1.28 to 1.34). Compared with the least deprived, residents in the most deprived areas got less provision relative to need for total hip replacement (0.31, 0.30 to 0.33) and total knee replacement (0.33, 0.31 to 0.34). For total knee replacement, those in urban areas got higher provision relative to need, but for total hip replacement it was highest in villages/isolated areas. For total knee replacement, patients living in non-white areas received more provision relative to need (1.04, 1.00 to 1.07) than those in predominantly white areas, but for total hip replacement there was no effect. Adjustment for hospital characteristics did not attenuate the effects.

Conclusions: There is evidence of inequity in access to total hip and total knee replacement surgery by age, sex, deprivation, rurality, and ethnicity. Adjustment for hospital and distance did not attenuate these effects. Policy makers should examine factors at the level of patients or primary care to understand the determinants of inequitable provision.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: all authors had financial support from the Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any companies that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

None
Fig 1 Map of equity in access to total hip replacement across 354 districts in England
None
Fig 2 Map of equity in access to total knee replacement across 354 districts in England

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Department of Health. On the state of the public health: annual report of the Chief Medical Officer 2005. DH, 2006.
    1. British Medical Association. Healthcare funding review. BMA, 2002.
    1. Department of Health. Building on the best: choice, responsiveness and equity in the NHS. DH, 2003. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Department of Health. Tackling health inequalities: status report on the Programme for Action—2006 update on headline indicators. DH 2006.
    1. Department of Health. Health equity audit. A self-assessment tool. DH, 2004.

Publication types