Inequality in Responsiveness

• Published in: Health services research and managerial epidemiology 2018-07, Vol.5
• Main Authors: Alavi Manijeh, ouzan, Ameneh Setareh, Moradi-Lakeh Maziar, Ardakani Mohammad Reza Khodaie, Shati Mohsen, Noroozi Mehdi, Sajjadi Homeira
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Inequality; Neighborhoods; Per capita; Rehabilitation; Sociodemographics
• ISSN: 2333-3928
• DOI: 10.1177/2333392818789026

Objective: Responsiveness refers to meeting the legitimate expectations of people who interact with the health system. This study aimed to assess the presence of any inequality in responsiveness based on the different sociodemographic groups. Methods: This cross-sectional study was carried out in Tehran. A total of 610 people with a physical disability from 10 comprehensive physical rehabilitation centers (5 public and 5 private) were included in the study through quota sampling. Data were gathered using the World Health Organization Standard Responsiveness Questionnaire and a sociodemographic checklist. Relative inequality indices were used for the analytical statistics. Results: Study respondents between 18 and 59 years and those equal to or older than 60 years formed 78.1% (475/610) and 21.9% (133/610) of the total study sample, respectively. The study sample consisted of 298 (48.7%) women and 312 (51.3%) men, and their mean age was 46.4 and 45.6 years, respectively. No significant inequality was found in responsiveness of total centers based on the socioeconomic status of the study participants. However, in the private comprehensive physical rehabilitation centers, significant inequality was found in responsiveness based on residential area per capita, with more reporting of poor responsiveness by people with physical disability in the lower residential area per capita quintiles (Wagstaff index [WI] = −0.262; P = .01). Inequality in responsiveness was also found in the public centers based on education level, with poorer experience in people with higher level of education quintiles (WI = 0.163; P = .02). Conclusion: In the private sector, economic issues are the main reason for the poorer experiences. Furthermore, residential area per capita showed to be a more sensitive index among economic indices to measure inequality. In public sector, education level was the key social factor. More attention and interventions need to be implemented by mid-level policymakers and rehabilitation service providers to meet the needs of people with physical disability.