Rost K, Fortney J, Zhang M, Smith J, Smith G R
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Center for Rural Mental Healthcare Research, Little Rock 72204, USA.
J Rural Health. 1999 Summer;15(3):308-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.1999.tb00752.x.
Policy-makers have long suspected that greater barriers to care result in depressed rural residents being less likely to receive high-quality treatment. This study recruited 470 depressed community residents in a 1992 telephone survey, followed 95 percent of them through one year, and abstracted additional data on their health care utilization from insurance claims, medical and pharmacy records. Bivariate and multivariate models demonstrated that during the year following the baseline, there were no significant rural-urban differences in the rate (probability of any outpatient depression treatment), type (probability of receiving general medical depression care only), or quality (completion of guideline-concordant acute-stage care) of outpatient depression treatment. Annual expenditures for outpatient depression treatment were lower for rural subjects compared with their urban counterparts. Rural subjects had 3.05 times the odds of being admitted to a hospital for physical problems and 3.06 times the odds of being admitted to a hospital for mental health problems during the year following baseline compared with urban subjects. Cost-offset analyses demonstrate that every dollar invested in depression treatment was associated with a $2.61 decrease in the cost of treating physical problems in depressed rural residents. Limited insurance coverage and limited availability of services were the most significant barriers to specialty and general medical outpatient treatment for depression in both rural and urban residents. More than 80 percent of depressed residents in both rural and urban areas visited a primary care provider during the year following baseline. The potential cost offset of depression treatment in rural populations plus the improvement in productivity observed in both rural and urban populations indicate that it may be economically possible to improve quality of care for depression without bankrupting an already strained health care budget.
政策制定者长期以来一直怀疑,更多的就医障碍会导致农村抑郁症患者不太可能获得高质量的治疗。本研究在1992年的一项电话调查中招募了470名社区抑郁症患者,对其中95%的患者进行了为期一年的跟踪,并从保险理赔、医疗和药房记录中提取了他们医疗保健利用情况的额外数据。双变量和多变量模型表明,在基线后的一年中,门诊抑郁症治疗的发生率(任何门诊抑郁症治疗的概率)、类型(仅接受一般医疗抑郁症护理的概率)或质量(完成符合指南标准的急性期护理)在城乡之间没有显著差异。农村患者门诊抑郁症治疗的年度支出低于城市患者。与城市患者相比,在基线后的一年中,农村患者因身体问题住院的几率是城市患者的3.05倍,因心理健康问题住院的几率是城市患者的3.06倍。成本抵消分析表明,每投入一美元用于抑郁症治疗,农村抑郁症患者身体问题治疗成本就会减少2.61美元。有限的保险覆盖范围和有限的服务可及性是农村和城市居民获得抑郁症专科和一般医疗门诊治疗的最主要障碍。在基线后的一年中,农村和城市地区超过80%的抑郁症患者都去看了初级保健医生。农村人口抑郁症治疗的潜在成本抵消以及农村和城市人口中观察到的生产力提高表明,在不使本已紧张的医疗保健预算破产的情况下,提高抑郁症护理质量在经济上可能是可行的。