| Summary: | 碩士 === 中國醫藥大學 === 醫務管理學系碩士班 === 100 === Background: According to previous studies had pointed out the correlations among religion, mental health and medical utilization, the status of religion may affect medical utilization and health status. Therefore, the study aimed to explore the differences in health status and medical utilization between religious professionals and the general public.
Methods: The study was based on National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD),the claim data of 2000 and 2005 Longitudinal Health Insurance Database within 1997-2009. Total 874 religious professionals were selected during 1999-2005. In addition, there were 4,370 general public selected via propensity score matching (PSM) with the ratio 1:5. Therefore, there were total 5,244 participants in the study. In the study, we used Logistic regression analysis, multiple regression analysis and Two-part model to explore the differences in health status and medical utilization between religious professionals and the general public.
Results: The study results showed that the health status of religious professionals was better than the general public. After controlling other factors, the religious professionals had lower risk on cerebrovascular disease (OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.41-0.85) and hypertension (OR = 0.56,95% CI = 0.35-0.90) than the general public. Besides, religious professionals also had lower risk on chronic bronchitis, nervous system disease, chronic hepatitis, digestive disorders, arthritis, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, and osteoporosis disease (P <0.05). In medical utilization, the annual outpatient visits of religious professionals were 1.13 times less than the general public (P <0.05), but the probability of emergency department visits was non-significant.
Regarding to the two-part models of acute hospitalization utilization of the religious professionals, the risk of hospitalization and the length of stay (LOS) were both lower than the general public (P <0.05). Moreover, regarding to the model of chronic hospitalization utilization, there were non-significant on the risk of hospitalization and the LOS between the religious professionals and the general public.
Conclusion: The study discovered that the health status and medical utilization were difference between the religious professionals and the general public. The health status and medical utilization of the religious professionals were both better than the general public. The status of religion and the lifestyle may be the one of major factor of health status.
|
|---|
