Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Related factors and use of free preventive health services among adults with intellectual disabilities in Taiwan

  • Suh-May Yen1, 2,
  • Pei-Tseng Kung3,
  • Li-Ting Chiu1 and
  • Wen-Chen Tsai1Email author
Contributed equally
BMC Health Services Research201414:248

DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-248

Received: 25 October 2013

Accepted: 9 June 2014

Published: 12 June 2014

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to investigate the utilization of preventive health services in the adults with intellectual disabilities from the nationwide database.

Methods

The research method of this study is secondary data analysis. The data was obtained from three nationwide databases from 2006 to 2008. This study employed descriptive statistics to analyze the use and rate of preventive health services by intellectual disabled adults. Chi-square test was used to determine the relationship between the utilization of preventive health services and these variables. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to explore the factors that affect intellectual disabled adults’ use of preventive health services.

Results

Our findings indicated 16.65% of people with intellectual disabilities aged over 40 years used the preventive health services. Females were more frequent users than males (18.27% vs. 15.21%, p <0.001). The utilization rate decreased with increasing severity of intellectual disabilities. The utilization was lowest (13.83%) for those with very severe disability, whereas that was the highest (19.38%) for those with mild severity. The factors significantly influencing utilization of the services included gender, age, and marital status, urbanization of resident areas, monthly payroll, low-income household status, catastrophic illnesses status and relevant chronic diseases and severity of disability.

Conclusions

Although Taiwan’s Health Promotion Administration (HPA) has provided free preventive health services for more than 15 years, people with intellectual disabilities using preventive health care tend to be low. Demographics, economic conditions, health status, relevant chronic diseases, environmental factor, and severity of disability are the main factors influencing the use of preventive healthcare. According to the present findings, it is recommended that the government should increase the reimbursement of the medical staff performing health examinations for the persons with intellectual disabilities. It is also suggested to conduct media publicity and education to the public and the nursing facilities for the utilization of adult preventive health services.

Keywords

Intellectual disabilities Disability Preventive health service Adult health examination

Background

The global prevalence of intellectual disabilities was 10.37 per 1,000 populations [1]. In the end of 2011, there were 98,046 people with intellectual disabilities, accounting for 0.4% of the total population in Taiwan [2]. According to a survey conducted in 2006, 89.5% of people with intellectual disabilities in Taiwan lived with family members and 78.0% had no paid employment [3]. People with intellectual disabilities had a shorter life expectancy than did the general population [4, 5]. Standardized mortality ratios for adults with moderate or severe intellectual disabilities were 3 times higher than those for the general population [6].

A study in the Netherlands determined that people with intellectual disabilities had 2.5 times more health problems than did those without intellectual disabilities [7]. Numerous people with intellectual disabilities developed neurological, digestive, dermatological, and mental disorders, as well as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease [811]. People with intellectual disabilities might be unaware of physical problems and might have difficulty verbally expressing such conditions. Patients with intellectual disabilities are often rushed to hospitals for treatment when their physical conditions become severe. Therefore, people with intellectual disabilities must expend more time and effort in receiving medical care and may not be able to obtain required appropriate treatments [1214].

Previous studies have demonstrated that the intellectually disabled persons were less likely to receive preventive health services than the others [1518]. For instance, only 25% of women with learning disabilities in Exeter (a city in southwestern England) underwent cervical screening [19], and in Wales, only 31%–41% of people with learning disabilities received annual health assessments in 2006 and 2009 [20]. People with intellectual disabilities have substantial health needs, and have been reported to benefit from regular health assessments. A randomized controlled study conducted in Australia showed that people with intellectual disabilities who regularly received health assessments were newly diagnosed with diseases at a rate that was 1.6 times that of those who did not receive regular health assessments [21].

A study in the United States suggested that an increase in preventive services could avert the loss of more than 2 million life-years annually [22]. Increasing clinical preventive health services could effectively lower subsequent medical expenses [2326]. Previous studies have indicated that sex, marital status [27], educational level, age, income, health status, severity of disability, and urbanization level influence the use of preventive health services among disabled people [28].

To reduce exorbitant medical expenses and improve unequal access to health care, free preventive health services for adults have been promoted since 1995 in Taiwan. The services include medical examinations, health education, blood, and urine tests. All adults aged over 40 years are accessible to this free service. Frequency limitations of this service varied according to different age ranges, i.e., once per three years for the persons aged 40–64 years and once per year for those who aged over 65 years. The examination outcomes are reported to patients, and primary care physicians suggest necessary additional diagnoses, treatments, or follow-ups. There were 21,042 adults with intellectual disabilities met the requirements in 2008. The purpose of this study was to explore of preventive health service utilization among these people and the factors associated with their use.

Methods

Data source and participants

According to the Disabled Welfare Law (1980), local governments in Taiwan provide support such as social welfare, special education, and health care to people with intellectual disabilities. Intelligence quotient (IQ) scores are diagnosed based on an official test administered by a psychologist and certified by the government; the scores are then confirmed by a doctor accredited by the government. If the IQ score of a person is below 70 (more than 2 standard deviations below the mean), the person is identified as having intellectual disabilities. Local governments certify disabled residents and report cases to the central government, and the Ministry of the Interior maintains a registry of certified cases. Intellectual disabilities are categorized according to four levels of severity, namely very severe (IQ: 5 standard deviations below the mean), severe (IQ: 4–5 standard deviations below the mean), moderate (IQ: 3–4 standard deviations below the mean), and mild (IQ: 2–3 standard deviations below the mean).

The study population was 21,042 people in Taiwan with intellectual disabilities, aged over 40 years, and registered with the Ministry of the Interior as of 2008 (Department of Statistics, 2008). Among them, 17.46%, 32.20%, 30.34%, and 20.00% were diagnosed with mild, moderate, severe, and very severe levels of intellectual disabilities, respectively.

The Health Promotion Administration (HPA) has provided free preventive health services for adults in Taiwan since 1995 and maintains a dataset of records of adults who have used such services. Since 1995, Taiwan has implemented the National Health Insurance (NHI) program; 99.68% of the residents are enrolled in the NHI program. The NHI program is a universal, comprehensive health insurance program with a considerably low copayment. The NHI Administration holds all medical claims data and publishes the National Health Insurance Research Dataset for academic research annually. In this study, three data sources were used: the 2006–2008 preventive health service dataset obtained from the HPA, medical claims data from the NHI Research Database provided by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and information on disabled people from the 2008 Registry of Disabled People obtained from the Ministry of the Interior. The Statistics Center of the Department of Health, Taiwan, helped match the three datasets with personal identification numbers and provided a dataset that included that necessary information for this study. All personal identification information was deleted and personal privacy was protected. The institutional review board of China Medical University and Hospital approved this study (IRB No. CMU-REC-101-012).

Description of variables

Variables in this study included demographics (e.g., gender, age, marital status, educational level, and aborigine status, economic conditions (e.g., premium-based monthly payroll, low-income household status), health status (with or without a catastrophic illness/injury), chronic diseases (including mental disorders, musculoskeletal system and connective tissue diseases, neurological disorders, cancers, blood and blood-forming organs diseases, circulatory system diseases, respiratory diseases, endocrine and metabolic diseases, digestive diseases, genitourinary system diseases, skin and subcutaneous tissue disease, diseases of eyes and auxiliary organs, ear and mastoid diseases, infectious diseases, and congenital malformations); environmental factors (i.e., urbanization of resident areas), severity of disability (i.e., very severe, severe, moderate, and mild), and utilization of adult preventive health services. Urbanization was categorized into eight levels. The first level was the area with the highest level of urbanization, whereas the eighth level was the region with the lowest level of urbanization. A low-income household was defined as a household in which the average monthly income per person was below the lowest living index, i.e., 60% of the living expenditure per person in the previous year in the local area of the household [29].

Statistical analysis

A statistics software package (SAS 9.2) was used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics was used to describe the percentages of demographic characteristics, economic status, health status, environmental factors, levels of intellectual disability, and the utilization of preventive health services for adults. Chi-square test was used to determine the relationship between the utilization of preventive health services and these variables. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was applied to explore the factors associated with the use of adult preventive health services among the persons with intellectual disabilities. The full model approach was applied in logistic regression analysis. In this study, a p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Basic characteristics of the participants

Among the 21,042 participants, males were the majority (52.97%, n =11,145) (Table 1). Those aged 45–49 years were predominant (26.66%, n =5,609). Most of the participants had a educational level of elementary school or lower (72.84%, n =15,327). Those with premium-based monthly payroll less than NT $15,840 (New Taiwan Dollars, NT$) (U.S. $1 = NT $30) accounted for the majority (51.69%, n =10,877). Regarding the relevant chronic diseases, intellectual disability with comorbid mental illness (26.44%) and circulatory system disease (23.93%) were ranked in the first and second places, respectively. Those with moderate level of severity of intellectual disabilities were predominant, accounting for 32.20% (n =6,775).
Table 1

Use of adult preventive health services among the intellectual disability: basic characteristics and bivariate analysis

   

Used

Did not use

χ2

Variables

N = 21042

%

n1 = 3503

%

n2 = 17539

%

p-value

Overall rate of use

   

16.65

   

Gender

      

< .001

 Female

9897

47.03

1808

18.27

8089

81.73

 

 Male

11145

52.97

1695

15.21

9450

84.79

 

Age

      

< .001

 40-44 years

3753

17.84

628

16.73

3125

83.27

 

 45-49 years

5609

26.66

921

16.42

4688

83.58

 

 50-54 years

4420

21.01

774

17.51

3646

82.49

 

 55-59 years

3089

14.68

609

19.72

2480

80.28

 

 60-64 years

1817

8.64

367

20.20

1450

79.80

 

 65-69 years

1028

4.89

94

9.14

934

90.86

 

 ≥ 70 years

1326

6.30

110

8.30

1216

91.70

 

Educational level

      

0.535

 Elementary school and under

15327

72.84

2566

16.74

12761

83.26

 

 Junior high school

2645

12.57

454

17.16

2191

82.84

 

 Senior (vocational) high school

550

2.61

80

14.55

470

85.45

 

 Junior college and university or above

99

0.47

16

16.16

83

83.84

 

 Unclear

2421

11.51

387

15.99

2034

84.01

 

Marital status

      

< .001

 Married

6386

30.35

1239

19.40

5147

80.60

 

 Unmarried

8463

40.22

1346

15.90

7117

84.10

 

 Divorced or widowed

677

3.22

139

20.53

538

79.47

 

 Unclear

5516

26.21

779

14.12

4737

85.88

 

Level of urbanizationa

      

< .001

 Level one

1802

8.56

201

11.15

1601

88.85

 

 Level two

3394

16.13

553

16.29

2841

83.71

 

 Level three

2865

13.62

468

16.34

2397

83.66

 

 Level four

1809

8.60

295

16.31

1514

83.69

 

 Level five

3483

16.55

562

16.14

2921

83.86

 

 Level six

3006

14.29

589

19.59

2417

80.41

 

 Level seven

3173

15.08

569

17.93

2604

82.07

 

 Level eight

1510

7.18

266

17.62

1244

82.38

 

Premium-based monthly payroll

      

< .001

Dependents

5303

25.20

720

13.58

4583

86.42

 

 < 15,840

10877

51.69

1898

17.45

8979

82.55

 

 16,500-22,800

4143

19.69

770

18.59

3373

81.41

 

 24,000-28,800

358

1.70

57

15.92

301

84.08

 

 30,300-36,300

210

1.00

31

14.76

179

85.24

 

 > 38,200

151

0.72

27

17.88

124

82.12

 

Low-income household

      

< .001

 Yes

3713

17.65

799

21.52

2914

78.48

 

 No

17329

82.35

2704

15.60

14625

84.40

 

Aborigine

      

0.001

 Yes

267

1.27

66

24.72

201

75.28

 

 No

20775

98.73

3437

16.54

17338

83.46

 

Catastrophic illness/injury

      

< .001

 Yes

2538

12.06

602

23.72

1936

76.28

 

 No

18504

87.94

2901

15.68

15603

84.32

 

Relevant chronic diseases

       

 Cancer

      

0.344

 Yes

266

1.26

50

18.80

216

81.20

 

 No

20776

98.74

3453

16.62

17323

83.38

 

Endocrine and metabolic disease

     

< .001

 Yes

4319

20.53

1324

30.66

2995

69.34

 

 No

16723

79.47

2179

13.03

14544

86.97

 

Mental illness

      

< .001

 Yes

5564

26.44

1416

25.45

4148

74.55

 

 No

15478

73.56

2087

13.48

13391

86.52

 

Disease of the nervous system

      

< .001

 Yes

2636

12.53

686

26.02

1950

73.98

 

 No

18406

87.47

2817

15.30

15589

84.70

 

Disease of the circulatory system

     

< .001

 Yes

5035

23.93

1435

28.50

3600

71.50

 

 No

16007

76.07

2068

12.92

13939

87.08

 

Disease of the respiratory system

     

< .001

 Yes

3047

14.48

886

29.08

2161

70.92

 

 No

17995

85.52

2617

14.54

15378

85.46

 

Disease of the digestive system

      

< .001

 Yes

4861

23.10

1398

28.76

3463

71.24

 

 No

16181

76.90

2105

13.01

14076

86.99

 

Disease of the urinary system

      

< .001

 Yes

459

2.18

136

29.63

323

70.37

 

 No

20583

97.82

3367

16.36

17216

83.64

 

Disease of the skeletal and muscular system and connective tissue

   

< .001

 Yes

3830

18.20

1078

28.15

2752

71.85

 

 No

17212

81.80

2425

14.09

14787

85.91

 

Disease of the eyes and auxiliary organs

     

< .001

 Yes

640

3.04

161

25.16

479

74.84

 

 No

20402

96.96

3342

16.38

17060

83.62

 

Infectious diseases

      

< .001

 Yes

839

3.99

210

25.03

629

74.97

 

 No

20203

96.01

3293

16.30

16910

83.70

 

Congenital malformation

      

< .001

 Yes

277

1.32

71

25.63

206

74.37

 

 No

20765

98.68

3432

16.53

17333

83.47

 

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders

     

< .001

 Yes

1861

8.84

551

29.61

1310

70.39

 

 No

19181

91.16

2952

15.39

16229

84.61

 

Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs

    

< .001

 Yes

761

3.62

227

29.83

534

70.17

 

 No

20281

96.38

3276

16.15

17005

83.85

 

Diseases of the ear and mastoid process

     

< .001

 Yes

735

3.49

232

31.56

503

68.44

 

 No

20307

96.51

3271

16.11

17036

83.89

 

Severity of intellectual disability

     

< .001

 Mild

3673

17.46

712

19.38

2961

80.62

 

 Moderate

6775

32.20

1194

17.62

5581

82.38

 

 Severe

6385

30.34

1015

15.90

5370

84.10

 

 Very severe

4209

20.00

582

13.83

3627

86.17

 

aLevel one: the most urbanized areas.

The utilization of adult preventive health services among the participants

As presented in Table 1, 16.65% (n =3,503) of participants aged over 40 years used the adult preventive health services. Of them, more females (18.27%) used the services than males (15.21%, p < 0.001). Those aged 60–64 years had the highest utilization (20.20%, p < 0.001). According to the levels of urbanization, those living in the areas of 6th level of urbanization had the highest utilization (19.59%) whereas those living in urbanization of first level (most urban) had the lowest utilization (11.15%) (p < 0.001). The participants with any catastrophic illness/injury used more preventive health services than those without (23.72% vs. 15.68%, p < 0.001). Among those with relevant comorbid diseases, those having the highest utilization rate were those with diseases of the ear and mastoid process (31.56%), followed by those with endocrine and metabolic disease (30.66%), and those with cancers had the lowest utilization rate (18.80%) compared to the others. The persons with more severe level of intellectual disability were the lower frequent users of services (p < 0.001), indicating that the lowest users were those with very severe level (13.83%) and those with highest utilization rate were the subgroup of mild level of disabilities (19.38%).

Factors influencing the utilization of adult preventive health services among participants

The results of analyzing variables associated with the utilization of adult preventive health services are shown in Table 2. The factors significantly influencing the utilization included gender, age, marital status, urbanization of resident area, premium-based monthly payroll, low-income household status, catastrophic illness/injury status, relevant chronic diseases, and severity of intellectual disabilities. After controlling for other variables, males were 0.87 times less likely to use adult preventive health services than females (OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80-0.95). When those aged 40–44 years were used as a reference group, the groups aged 65–69 years or ≥ 70 years had significantly lower probabilities to use the services (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.28-0.44; OR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.26-0.42). Furthermore, the probability of using the services increased with decreasing urbanization of resident areas. Those living in areas with the 6th level of urbanization were 2.47 times more likely to use the services than those living in the area of first level (most urban) (OR = 2.47, 95% CI = 2.06-2.97).
Table 2

Factors influencing the intellectual disability to use adult preventive health services: logistic regression analysis

 

Unadjusted

Adjusted

Variable name

OR

95% CI

p-value

OR

95% CI

p-value

Gender

        

 Female

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Male

0.80

0.75

0.86

< .001*

0.87

0.80

0.95

0.001*

Age

        

 40-44 years

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 45-49 years

0.98

0.88

1.09

0.689

0.92

0.82

1.03

0.140

 50-54years

1.06

0.94

1.19

0.353

0.94

0.83

1.06

0.290

 55-59 years

1.22

1.08

1.38

0.001*

1.00

0.88

1.15

0.950

 60-64 years

1.26

1.09

1.45

0.002*

1.03

0.89

1.21

0.677

 65-69 years

0.50

0.40

0.63

< .001*

0.33

0.26

0.42

< .001*

 ≥ 70 years

0.45

0.36

0.56

< .001*

0.35

0.28

0.44

< .001*

Educational level

        

 Elementary school and under

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Junior high school

1.03

0.92

1.15

0.591

1.03

0.91

1.16

0.676

 Senior (vocational) high school

0.85

0.67

1.08

0.175

0.78

0.60

1.01

0.057

 Junior college and university or above

0.96

0.56

1.64

0.878

1.11

0.63

1.96

0.714

 Unclear

0.95

0.84

1.06

0.353

0.98

0.87

1.12

0.790

Marital status

        

 Married

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Unmarried

1.27

1.17

1.39

< .001*

1.07

0.97

1.19

0.168

 Divorced or widowed

1.37

1.12

1.66

0.002*

1.16

0.94

1.43

0.179

 Unclear

0.87

0.79

0.96

0.004*

0.79

0.71

0.88

< .001*

Level of urbanizationa

        

 Level one

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Level two

1.55

1.31

1.84

< .001*

1.79

1.49

2.15

< .001*

 Level three

1.56

1.30

1.86

< .001*

1.85

1.53

2.23

< .001*

 Level four

1.55

1.28

1.88

< .001*

1.90

1.55

2.33

< .001*

 Level five

1.53

1.29

1.82

< .001*

1.91

1.59

2.29

< .001*

 Level six

1.94

1.63

2.31

< .001*

2.47

2.06

2.97

< .001*

 Level seven

1.74

1.47

2.07

< .001*

2.19

1.82

2.64

< .001*

 Level eight

1.70

1.40

2.08

< .001*

2.08

1.68

2.57

< .001*

Premium-based monthly payroll

        

 < 15,840

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Dependent population

0.74

0.68

0.82

< .001*

0.90

0.81

1.01

0.061

 16,500-22,800

1.08

0.98

1.19

0.104

1.16

1.04

1.29

0.011*

 24,000-28,800

0.90

0.67

1.19

0.453

1.03

0.76

1.40

0.836

 30,300-36,300

0.82

0.56

1.20

0.310

0.91

0.61

1.37

0.653

 > 38,200

1.03

0.68

1.57

0.890

1.12

0.72

1.74

0.631

Low-income household

        

 No

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Yes

1.48

1.36

1.62

< .001*

1.27

1.14

1.42

< .001*

Aborigine

        

 No

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Yes

1.66

1.25

2.19

0.000*

1.29

0.95

1.75

0.103

Catastrophic illness/injury

        

 No

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Yes

1.67

1.51

1.85

< .001*

1.22

1.08

1.38

0.002*

Relevant chronic diseases

        

 Cancer

1.16

0.85

1.58

0.344

0.77

0.55

1.08

0.135

 Endocrine and metabolic disease

2.95

2.73

3.19

< .001*

1.79

1.63

1.96

< .001*

 Mental illness

2.19

2.03

2.36

< .001*

1.33

1.21

1.46

< .001*

 Disease of the nervous system

1.95

1.77

2.14

< .001*

1.11

0.99

1.24

0.067

 Disease of the circulatory system

2.69

2.49

2.90

< .001*

1.57

1.43

1.72

< .001*

 Disease of the respiratory system

2.41

2.21

2.63

< .001*

1.38

1.24

1.53

< .001*

 Disease of the digestive system

2.70

2.50

2.92

< .001*

1.49

1.36

1.63

< .001*

 Disease of the urinary system

2.15

1.76

2.64

< .001*

0.97

0.77

1.21

0.766

 Disease of the skeletal and muscular

system and connective tissue

2.39

2.20

2.59

< .001*

1.31

1.19

1.45

< .001*

 Disease of the eyes and auxiliary organs

1.72

1.43

2.06

< .001*

0.94

0.77

1.15

0.549

 Infectious diseases

1.71

1.46

2.01

< .001*

0.98

0.82

1.16

0.776

 Congenital malformation

1.74

1.33

2.29

< .001*

1.05

0.78

1.41

0.748

 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders

2.31

2.08

2.57

< .001*

1.29

1.14

1.46

< .001*

 Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs

2.21

1.88

2.59

< .001*

1.18

0.99

1.40

0.065

 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process

2.40

2.05

2.82

< .001*

1.08

0.91

1.29

0.382

Severity of intellectual disability

        

 Mild

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Moderate

0.89

0.80

0.99

0.026*

0.88

0.79

0.98

0.020*

 Severe

0.79

0.71

0.87

< .001*

0.82

0.73

0.92

0.001*

 Very severe

0.67

0.59

0.75

< .001*

0.75

0.66

0.86

< .001*

aLevel one: the most urbanized areas.

*p < 0.05.

Using those with less than NT$ 15,840 of premium-based monthly payroll as a reference group, the group with NT$ 16,500-22,800 was more likely to use the adult preventive health services (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.04-1.29). Those with low-income household status were more likely to use services than those without low-income household status (OR =1.27, 95% CI = 1.14-1.42). Those with catastrophic illness/injury were 1.22 times (95% CI =1.08-1.38) more likely to use the services than those without. In addition, those having endocrine and metabolic diseases (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.63-1.96) or circulatory system diseases (OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.43-1.72) were more likely to use the services than those who had not. The probability of using the services decreased with increasing severity of intellectual disabilities. Those with very severe intellectual disability were 0.75 times less likely to use the services than those with mild level of severity (95% CI = 0.66-0.86).

Discussion

In 2004, the overall rate of use of adult preventive health services among those aged 40 to 64 years was 42%, while the rate of use among those aged 65 years or older was 38% [27]. However, only 16.65% of people with intellectual disabilities aged over 40 years used the preventive health services in the years 2006–2008, which was much lower than that of the general population. Another study indicated that, in Taiwan, among the disabled people using adult preventive health services, people suffering from chronic epilepsy had the highest use rate (23.33%), whereas disabled people with major organ malfunction had the lowest use rate (10.21%) [27].

The results of this study indicated that the utilization of adult preventive health services were not significantly associated with aborigine status and educational level. The finding of females with higher probability to use the services than males was consistent with previous studies reporting the utilization of relevant preventive health services [3032]. Those aged ≥ 65 years were less likely to use the services than the others, which might be associated with many elderly persons with intellectual disabilities living in psychiatric hospitals, nursing facilities, and nursing homes [33].

People with an “unclear” marital status exhibited the lowest use rate. Most people with this status may have been unmarried, and unmarried people exhibited the lowest use rate compared with other marital status groups. The probability of using preventive health services increased with decreasing urbanization of resident areas. Generally, people living in urban areas have more convenient transportations and can get faster access to medical resources than those living in rural areas. However, the Bureau of National Health Insurance (NHI) initiated an Integrated Delivery System program in 1999 that covered all 48 mountainous and island districts. Under the program, NHI-contracted hospitals are responsible for providing medical care, including outpatient care, emergency services, and specialty services. Health care, which consists of outpatient care, preventive care, disease screening, and health education, is provided from mobile vehicles. The mobile care services were provided in mountain areas and offshore islands to narrow the health care disparities. For those with intellectual disabilities living in rural areas, it was common that they and their families went together to receive preventive health services when the mobile care services were provided. As the result, a higher probability of using the services was observed for the persons with intellectual disabilities living in rural areas than those in urban areas. The probability of using preventive health services was found lower for the participants living in the most urbanized areas in this study. It was more likely due to better medical resources and higher accessibility in urban areas. They could obtain necessary medical treatments once they were ill. The high accessibility resulted in less attention being paid to use preventive health services by the participants living in urbanized areas.

Our results indicated that those with a low-income household status were more likely to use the services than the others, which was inconsistent with previous studies reporting that higher incomes were associated with more frequent use of preventive health services [3436]. This finding may be resulted from the improvement in eliminating health inequalities between rich and poor populations, as a consequence of implementation of the NHI in Taiwan since 1995.

Aboriginal persons with intellectual disabilities had similar probability of using the services compared to non-aborigines. The results reflected the outcomes of efforts to improve health for vulnerable populations, and to eliminate gaps of health care for the minority in Taiwan. The probability of using the services was higher in those with any catastrophic illness/injury than those without. It was possible that their families were more concerned with changes in their health status for those participants with a catastrophic disease. Therefore, they paid more attentions and used more preventive health services. In consistent with previous studies [37], we also found that those with very severe level of intellectual disability used less preventive health services. The cognitive and language skills for the persons with very severe intellectual disabilities are lower compared with those with moderate and mild levels of severity. They need assistance and company of other people, which lead to more difficulties in using preventive health services.

This study was limited by the sources of data, which did not include information pertaining to personal health beliefs or health behaviors. The lack of objective information on household income in our dataset is regarded as a limitation of this study.

Although health policy has established strategies for eliminating health inequalities that affect people with intellectual disabilities in Taiwan, preventive health services must be markedly improved for people with intellectual disabilities. According to the findings, conducting publicity through the media and educating the public on using adult preventive health services are suggested. In addition, health care organizations should aggressively encourage and arrange free preventive health services for people with intellectual disabilities when they visit physicians, particularly for groups that were determined not to use such services.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that the significant factors influencing the utilization of adult preventive health services for the persons with intellectual disabilities included gender, age, and urbanization of resident areas, premium-based payroll, low-income household status, marital status, catastrophic illness/injury status, relevant chronic diseases, and severity of intellectual disabilities. Non-significant factors were aboriginal status and educational level. Those with lower use of preventive health services were characterized by male gender, aged ≥ 65 years, high school education, unmarried, living in urban areas, with skin and blood-forming organs diseases, and with very severe intellectual disabilities.

Notes

Abbreviations

CI: 

Confidence interval

HPA: 

Health Promotion Administration

IQ: 

Intelligence quotient

NHI: 

National Health Insurance

NT$: 

New Taiwan Dollar

OR: 

Odds Ratio

SAS: 

Statistics Analysis System.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the grant (CMU99-S-47) from China Medical University and the grant (No.9805006A) from the Health Promotion Administration. The preventive health care files were obtained from the Health Promotion Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare in Taiwan. We are also grateful for use of the National Health Insurance Research Database provided by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taiwan. The interpretations and conclusions contained herein do not represent those of the Health Promotion Administration in Taiwan. We would like to thank two reviewers and the editor for their valued comments.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Health Services Administration, China Medical University
(2)
Department of Chinese Medicine, Nantou Hospital
(3)
Department of Healthcare Administration, Asia University

References

  1. Maulik PK, Mascarenhas MN, Mathers CD, Dua T, Saxena S: Prevalence of intellectual disability: a meta-analysis of population-based studies. Res Dev Disabil. 2011, 32 (2): 419-436. 10.1016/j.ridd.2010.12.018.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. The Disabled Population by Classification and Grade. http://www.mohw.gov.tw/cht/DOS/Statistic.aspx?f_list_no=312&fod_list_no=4182.
  3. Wang YT: Are adults with intellectual disabilities socially excluded? An exploratory study in Taiwan. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2013, 57 (10): 893-902. 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01574.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Durvasula S, Beange H, Baker W: Mortality of people with intellectual disability in northern Sydney. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2002, 27 (4): 255-264. 10.1080/1366825021000029311.Google Scholar
  5. Patja K, Iivanainen M, Vesala H, Oksanen H, Ruoppila I: Life expectancy of people with intellectual disability: a 35-year follow-up study. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2000, 44 (Pt 5): 591-599.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Tyrer F, McGrother C: Cause-specific mortality and death certificate reporting in adults with moderate to profound intellectual disability. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2009, 53 (11): 898-904. 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01201.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. van Schrojenstein Lantman-De HM, Metsemakers JF, Haveman MJ, Crebolder HF: Health problems in people with intellectual disability in general practice: a comparative study. Fam Pract. 2000, 17 (5): 405-407. 10.1093/fampra/17.5.405.Google Scholar
  8. Kwok H, Cheung PWH: Co-morbidity of psychiatric disorder and medical illness in people with intellectual disabilities. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2007, 20 (5): 443-449. 10.1097/YCO.0b013e3282ab9941.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Lin JD, Yen CF, Loh CH, Hsu SW, Huang HC, Tang CC, Li CW, Wu JL: A cross-sectional study of the characteristics and determinants of emergency care utilization among people with intellectual disabilities in Taiwan. Res Dev Disabil. 2006, 27 (6): 657-667. 10.1016/j.ridd.2005.09.001.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Rimmer JH, Yamaki K, Lowry BMD, Wang E, Vogel LC: Obesity and obesity-related secondary conditions in adolescents with intellectual/developmental disabilities. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2010, 54 (9): 787-794. 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01305.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Sohler N, Lubetkin E, Levy J, Soghomonian C, Rimmerman A: Factors associated with obesity and coronary heart disease in people with intellectual disabilities. Soc Work Health Care. 2009, 48 (1): 76-89. 10.1080/00981380802451160.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Diab ME, Johnston MV: Relationships between level of disability and receipt of preventive health services. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004, 85 (5): 749-757. 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.06.028.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lin JD, Yen CF, Wu JL: Importance and satisfaction of preventive health strategies in institutions for people with intellectual disabilities: a perspective of institutional directors. Res Dev Disabil. 2005, 26 (3): 267-280. 10.1016/j.ridd.2004.11.001.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Weng RH, Kung PT, Tsai WC, Chiang HH, Chiu LT: The use of fluoride varnish and its determining factors among children with disability in Taiwan. Res Dev Disabil. 2011, 32 (2): 583-592. 10.1016/j.ridd.2010.12.016.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Iezzoni LI, McCarthy EP, Davis RB, Harris-David L, O'Day B: Use of screening and preventive services among women with disabilities. Am J Med Qual. 2001, 16 (4): 135-144. 10.1177/106286060101600405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Phillips KA, Mayer ML, Aday LA: Barriers to care among racial/ethnic groups under managed care. Health Aff. 2000, 19 (4): 65-75. 10.1377/hlthaff.19.4.65.Google Scholar
  17. Ramirez A, Farmer GC, Grant D, Papachristou T: Disability and preventive cancer screening: results from the 2001 California Health Interview Survey. Am J Public Health. 2005, 95 (11): 2057-2064. 10.2105/AJPH.2005.066118.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Shabas D, Weinreb H: Preventive healthcare in women with multiple sclerosis. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2000, 9 (4): 389-395. 10.1089/15246090050020709.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Pearson V, Davis C, Ruoff C, Dyer J: Only one quarter of women with learning disability in Exeter have cervical screening. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed). 1998, 316 (7149): 1979.Google Scholar
  20. Perry J, Kerr M, Felce D, Bartley S, Tomlinson J: Monitoring the public health impact of health checks for adults with a learning disability in Wales: Final report of the Public Health Wales/WCLD project group. 2010, Cardiff: Public Health Wales & Welsh Centre for Learning DisabilitiesGoogle Scholar
  21. Lennox N, Bain C, Rey-Conde T, Purdie D, Bush R, Pandeya N: Effects of a comprehensive health assessment programme for Australian adults with intellectual disability: a cluster randomized trial. Int J Epidemiol. 2007, 36 (1): 139-146. 10.1093/ije/dyl254.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Maciosek MV, Coffield AB, Flottemesch TJ, Edwards NM, Solberg LI: Greater use of preventive services in U.S. health care could save lives at little or no cost. Health Aff. 2010, 29 (9): 1656-1660. 10.1377/hlthaff.2008.0701.Google Scholar
  23. Gandjour A: Aging diseases–do they prevent preventive health care from saving costs?. Health Econ. 2009, 18 (3): 355-362. 10.1002/hec.1370.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Macnab AJ, Rozmus J, Benton D, Gagnon FA: 3-year results of a collaborative school-based oral health program in a remote First Nations community. Rural Remote Health. 2008, 8 (2): 882.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Malach M, Baumol WJ: Opportunities for the cost reduction of medical care. J Community Health. 2009, 34 (4): 255-261. 10.1007/s10900-009-9155-7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Rodriguez Vazquez C, Garcillan R, Rioboo R, Bratos E: Prevalence of dental caries in an adult population with mental disabilities in Spain. Spec Care Dentist. 2002, 22 (2): 65-69. 10.1111/j.1754-4505.2002.tb01164.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kung PT, Tsai WC, Li YH: Determining factors for utilization of preventive health services among adults with disabilities in Taiwan. Res Dev Disabil. 2012, 33 (1): 205-213. 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.09.006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Huang KH, Tsai WC, Kung PT: The use of Pap smear and its influencing factors among women with disabilities in Taiwan. Res Dev Disabil. 2012, 33 (2): 307-314. 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.09.016.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Public Assistance Act. http://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=D0050078.
  30. Bertakis KD, Azari R, Helms LJ, Callahan EJ, Robbins JA: Gender differences in the utilization of health care services. J Fam Pract. 2000, 49 (2): 147-152.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Green CA, Pope CR: Gender, psychosocial factors and the use of medical services: a longitudinal analysis. Soc Sci Med. 1999, 48 (10): 1363-1372. 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00440-7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Owens GM: Gender differences in health care expenditures, resource utilization, and quality of care. J Manag Care Pharm. 2008, 14 (3 Suppl): 2-6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Haveman M, Perry J, Salvador-Carulla L, Walsh PN, Kerr M, Van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk H, Van Hove G, Berger DM, Azema B, Buono S, Cara AC, Germanavicius A, Linehan C, Ma¨a¨tta¨ T, Tossebro J, Weber G: Ageing and health status in adults with intellectual disabilities: results of the European POMONA II study. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2011, 36 (1): 49-60. 10.3109/13668250.2010.549464.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Hewitt M, Devesa SS, Breen N: Cervical cancer screening among U.S. women: analyses of the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Prev Med. 2004, 39 (2): 270-278. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.03.035.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Katz SJ, Hofer TP: Socioeconomic disparities in preventive care persist despite universal coverage: breast and cervical cancer screening in Ontario and the United States. JAMA. 1994, 272 (7): 530-534. 10.1001/jama.1994.03520070050037.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Rodriguez MA, Ward LM, Perez-Stable EJ: Breast and cervical cancer screening: impact of health insurance status, ethnicity, and nativity of Latinas. Ann Fam Med. 2005, 3 (3): 235-241. 10.1370/afm.291.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Kung PT, Tsai WC, Chiou SJ: The assessment of the likelihood of mammography usage with relevant factors among women with disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 2012, 33 (1): 136-143. 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.08.032.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/14/248/prepub

Copyright

© Yen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.