Unemployment is associated with a variety of adverse health-related outcomes, yet little data on primary care services for this risk group exist. Using data from two surveys, we analyzed the frequency of GP contacts and patients’ experiences with GPs comparing unemployed with employed individuals. Data of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS1), a nationwide cross-sectional study (n = 8151), were analyzed regarding associations between employment status and the number of GP visits. The General Practice Care-1 study (GPCare-1), a cross-sectional questionnaire survey (n = 813), evaluated patients’ communication with their GP. Data were collected from June to August 2020 in 12 teaching practices affiliated with our university. The statistical analysis included individuals of working age (18–64 years old) (DEGS1 n = 5659, GPCare-1 n = 587). In both studies, working age subpopulations were analyzed (DEGS1: n = 5659 of 8151, GPCare-1: n = 587 of 813). In DEGS1, the prevalence of unemployment was 6.5% (n = 372). Unemployed individuals had more GP contacts in the last 12 months (4.50 vs. 2.86, p < 0.001). In the GPCare-1 study, unemployed individuals (6.6%, n = 39) were significantly less satisfied with GP communication: enough space in consultations (42.9% vs. 60.3%, p = 0.043), feeling comfortable to address sensitive topics (44.1% vs. 65.9%, p = 0.010), problems taken very seriously by GP (48.6% vs. 70.6%, p = 0.007). Yet, they were more willing to accept GPs’ help for psychosocial burdens (67.6% vs. 47.6%, p = 0.024). GPs should be aware that patients with unemployment wish more support to cope with their burdening situation.
ObjectivesInformal caregivers are known to have poorer mental health. Risk factors for caregiver burden include low education, female gender, cohabitation with the care recipient and lack of resources. General practitioners (GPs) have an important role in supporting caregivers. Drawing on data from two surveys, associations between caregivers’ socioeconomic status (SES), psychophysical health and GP contacts are analysed.DesignCross-sectional study. The study draws on data from two surveys (German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults, DEGS1 and General Practice Care-1, GPCare-1).SettingGermany.ParticipantsDEGS1: German general population (18+ years) n=7987. GPCare-1: general practice patients (18+ years) n=813.Primary outcomePsychophysical health, GP contacts and communication.MethodsUsing representative DEGS1 data, the prevalence of informal caregivers, caregivers’ burden, chronic stress, various health conditions and frequency of GP contacts were evaluated stratified by SES. Data from the GPCare-1 study addressed caregivers’ experiences and communication preferences with GPs.ResultsIn the DEGS1, the prevalence of caregivers was 6.5%. Compared with non-caregivers, caregivers scored significantly higher for chronic stress (15.45 vs 11.90), self-reported poor health (37.6% vs 23.7%) and GP visits last year (3.95 vs 3.11), while lifestyle and chronic diseases were similar. Compared with caregivers with medium/high SES, those with low SES had a significantly lower prevalence of high/medium caregiver burden (47.9% vs 67.7%) but poorer self-reported health (56.9% vs 33.0%), while other characteristics did not differ. In the GPCare-1 study, the prevalence of caregivers was 12.6%. The majority of them felt that their GP takes their problems seriously (63.6%) without difference by SES.ConclusionCaregivers with low SES constitute an especially high-risk group for psychological strain, requiring special GP attention to support their needs.
Background The impact of unemployment on health is well studied. However, information on associations of unemployment, migration background and general practitioner-patient communication is scarce. Methods Data from the representative German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS1) of individuals in working age (n = 5938) were analysed stratified by unemployment and migration background. Using official weighting factors, the prevalence of chronic stress, having ≥1 chronic disease, having a GP and GP visits in the last 12 months was determined. Multivariate regression models were analysed for associations between unemployment, migration background, and other socio-demographic characteristics with GP visits and chronic stress. Data from the General Practice Care-1 (GPCare-1) study (n = 813 patients) were analysed for differences in patient-physician communication between unemployed with and without migration background. Reverse proportional odds models were estimated for associations of unemployment and migration background with physician-patient communication. Results In the DEGS1, 21.5% had experienced unemployment (n = 1170). Of these, 31.6% had a migration background (n = 248). Compared to unemployed natives, unemployed with migration background had higher chronic stress (mean: 14.32 vs. 13.13, p = 0.02), while the prevalence of chronic disease was lower (21.7% vs. 30.2%, p = 0.03). They were less likely to have a GP (83.6% vs. 90%, p = 0.02), while GP visits were similar (mean: 3.7 vs. 3.3, p = 0.26). Migration background and unemployment experience were not associated with GP visits, while both factors were significantly associated with higher chronic stress (both: p < 0.01). In GPCare-1, 28.8% had ever experienced unemployment (n = 215). Of these, 60 had a migration background (28.6%). The unemployed with migration background reported less frequently that the GP gives them enough space to describe personal strains (46.5% vs. 58.2%; p = 0.03), and that their problems are taken very seriously by their GP (50.8% vs. 73.8%; p = 0.04). In multivariate analyses, migration background showed a lower probability of having enough space to describe personal strains and feeling that problems were taken very seriously. Conclusion Unemployment experience and migration background were associated with higher chronic stress. Only migration background was associated with less satisfaction regarding physician-patient communication.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.