Jordan Hannah, Roderick Paul, Martin David, Barnett Sarah
Health Care Research Unit, CCS Division, School of Medicine, University of Southampton, UK.
Int J Health Geogr. 2004 Sep 29;3(1):21. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-3-21.
This paper explores the geographical accessibility of health services in urban and rural areas of the South West of England, comparing two measures of geographical access and characterising the areas most remote from hospitals.Straight-line distance and drive-time to the nearest general practice (GP) and acute hospital (DGH) were calculated for postcodes and aggregated to 1991 Census wards. The correlation between the two measures was used to identify wards where straight-line distance was not an accurate predictor of drive-time. Wards over 25 km from a DGH were classified as 'remote', and characterised in terms of rurality, deprivation, age structure and health status of the population. RESULTS: The access measures were highly correlated (r2>0.93). The greatest differences were found in coastal and rural wards of the far South West. Median straight-line distance to GPs was 1 km (IQR = 0.6-2 km) and to DGHs, 12 km (IQR = 5-19 km). Deprivation and rates of premature limiting long term illness were raised in areas most distant from hospitals, but there was no evidence of higher premature mortality rates. Half of the wards remote from a DGH were not classed as rural by the Office for National Statistics. Almost a quarter of households in the wards furthest from hospitals had no car, and the proportion of households with access to two or more cars fell in the most remote areas. CONCLUSION: Drive-time is a more accurate measure of access for peripheral and rural areas. Geographical access to health services, especially GPs, is good, but remoteness affects both rural and urban areas: studies concentrating purely on rural areas may underestimate geographical barriers to accessing health care. A sizeable minority of households still had no car in 1991, and few had more than one car, particularly in areas very close to and very distant from hospitals. Better measures of geographical access, which integrate public and private transport availability with distance and travel time, are required if an accurate reflection of the experience those without their own transport is to be obtained.
本文探讨了英格兰西南部城乡地区医疗服务的地理可及性,比较了两种地理可及性衡量指标,并对距离医院最远的地区进行了特征描述。计算了邮政编码区域到最近的全科医生诊所(GP)和急症医院(DGH)的直线距离和驾车时间,并汇总到1991年人口普查区。利用这两种衡量指标之间的相关性来识别直线距离不能准确预测驾车时间的区域。距离DGH超过25公里的区域被归类为“偏远地区”,并根据农村性、贫困程度、年龄结构和人口健康状况进行特征描述。结果:可及性衡量指标高度相关(r2>0.93)。最大的差异出现在最西南部的沿海和农村区域。到GP的直线距离中位数为1公里(四分位距=0.6-2公里),到DGH的直线距离中位数为12公里(四分位距=5-19公里)。距离医院最远的地区贫困程度和长期疾病过早受限率较高,但没有证据表明过早死亡率更高。国家统计局未将一半距离DGH偏远的区域归类为农村地区。距离医院最远的区域中,近四分之一的家庭没有汽车,在最偏远地区,拥有两辆或更多汽车的家庭比例下降。结论:驾车时间是衡量周边和农村地区可及性的更准确指标。医疗服务的地理可及性,尤其是到GP的可及性良好,但偏远地区对农村和城市地区都有影响:仅专注于农村地区的研究可能会低估获得医疗保健的地理障碍。1991年,相当一部分少数家庭仍然没有汽车,很少有家庭拥有一辆以上汽车,特别是在距离医院非常近和非常远的地区。如果要准确反映没有自有交通工具者的就医体验,就需要更好地衡量地理可及性,将公共和私人交通的可用性与距离和出行时间结合起来。