Prescription and non-prescription medicine use in Denmark: association with socio-economic position
- 439 Downloads
To analyse the association among different types of medicine use and different measures of socio-economic position (SEP) in one and the same general population.
Data from The Danish Health and Morbidity Survey 2000 were analysed. The survey was conducted by face-to-face interviews with a representative sample of the adult Danish population (n=16,690). The associations between prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) medicine use and education, occupation and income were assessed by logistic regression analyses. All analyses were adjusted for age, gender and two measures of health status.
This cross-sectional analysis of medicine use in a large representative sample of the Danish population found greater use of prescription medicines among disability pensioners and “others” than in salaried employees. Disability pensioners and self-employed individuals used less OTC medicine than salaried employees. Individuals with low income used more prescription medicines but not more OTC medicines, than those with high income. No major differences were found in prescription medicine use with respect to education, but men within the two middle educational groups tended to use prescription medicine less frequently than both lower and higher educated men. A similar trend was not found for women. OTC medicine use was not associated with education for either gender.
The prevalence of prescription medicine use increases with declining SEP, after adjusting for health status. Such an association does not exist for OTC medicine use. The results show that the least affluent have access to prescription medicine. The difference between prescription and OTC medicine use may be explained by a compensation mechanism.
KeywordsSocio-economic position Prescription medicine Over-the-counter medicine
The authors would like to thank Ola Ekholm, National Institute of Public Health, for statistical support during the analyses. Data collection was funded by a grant from The Danish Ministry of Health and a Ph.D. fellowship from The Danish University of Pharmaceutical Sciences.
- 1.Lynch J, Kaplan G (2000) Socioeconomic position. In: Berkman LF, Kawachi I (eds) Social Epidemiology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 13–35Google Scholar
- 5.Eggen AE (1994) Pattern of drug use in a general population—prevalence and predicting factors: The Tromsø Study. Int J Epidemiol 23:1262–1272Google Scholar
- 6.Wisborg GB, Claesson CB, Lundberg O, Thorslund M (1996) Drug usage and self-reported health among a cross-sectional population aged over 75 years. Clin Drug Invest 12:156–169Google Scholar
- 7.Muratet C, for the Service Médical Interentreprises de la Région de Toulouse, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Montastruc JL (1995) Study on the regular use of drugs in workers over 50 years of age. Clin Drug Invest 9:1–7Google Scholar
- 13.Johnson RE, Pope CR (1983) Health status and social factors in nonprescribed drug use. Med Care XXI: 225–233Google Scholar
- 14.Vallgårda S, Krasnik A, Vrangbaek K (2001) Health care systems in transition—Denmark 2001. European Observatory on Health Care Systems, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
- 15.The Danish Medicines Agency. (2003) Title: Udgiftsgraenser [Limits of expenditure] Available at:http://www.laegemiddelstyrelsen.dk/tilskud/overblik/sidste_nyt/tilskud010103.asp. Cited 14 July 2003
- 16.Kjøller M, Rasmussen NK (2002) Danish Health and Morbidity Survey 2000......& trends since 1987 (in Danish). Statens Institut for Folkesundhed, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
- 17.UNESCO (1997) International Standard Classification of Education ISCED 1997. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)Google Scholar
- 19.Ashton H, Golding JF (1989) Tranquillisers: prevalence, predictors and possible consequences. Data from a large United Kingdom survey. Br J Addiction 84:541–546Google Scholar
- 28.Wilkinson GR (1999) Putting the picture together: prosperity, redistribution, health, and welfare. In: Marmot M, Wilkinson GR (eds) Social determinants of health. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 256–274Google Scholar