Advertisement

Osteoporosis International

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 489–498 | Cite as

The interactions between municipal socioeconomic status and age on hip fracture risk

  • C. M. OliveiraEmail author
  • T. Economou
  • T. Bailey
  • D. Mendonça
  • M. F. Pina
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

Age modifies the effect of area-level socioeconomic status (SES) in the risk of fragility hip fractures (HF). For older individuals, the risk of HF increases as SES increases. For younger individuals, risk of HF increases as SES decreases. Our study may help decision-makers to better direct the implementation of political decisions.

Introduction

The effect of socioeconomic status (SES) on hip fracture (HF) incidence remains unclear. The objective of this study is to evaluate the association between HF incidence and municipality-level SES as well as interactions between age and SES.

Methods

From the Portuguese Hospital Discharge Database, we selected hospitalizations (2000–2010) of patients aged 50+, with HF diagnosis (codes 820.x, ICD9-CM), caused by traumas of low/moderate energy, excluding bone cancer cases and readmissions for aftercare. Municipalities were classified according to SES (deprived to affluent) using 2001 Census data. A spatial Bayesian hierarchical regression model (controlling for data heterogeneity and spatial autocorrelation), using the Poisson distribution, was used to quantify the relative risk (RR) of HF, 95 % credible interval (95%CrI), and analyze the interaction between age and SES after adjusting for rural conditions.

Results

There were 96,905 HF, 77.3 % of which were on women who, on average, were older than men (mean age 81.2 ± 8.5 vs 78.2 ± 10.1 years) at admission (p < 0.001). In women, there was a lower risk associated with better SES: RR = 0.83 (95%CrI 0.65–1.00) for affluent versus deprived. There was an inverse association between SES and HF incidence rate in the youngest and a direct association in the oldest, for both sexes, but significant only between deprived and affluent in older ages (≥75 years).

Conclusions

Interaction between SES and age may be due to inequalities in lifestyles, access to health systems, and preventive actions. These results may help decision-makers to better understand the epidemiology of hip fractures and to better direct the available funding.

Keyword

Hip fractures Interaction Osteoporosis Socioeconomic status Spatial epidemiology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by FEDER funds through the Programa Operacional Factores de Competitividade (COMPETE) and by Portuguese funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) within the framework of the project PTDC/SAU-EPI/113424/2009 grant. We also acknowledge the Central Administration of Health Services (ACSS) for the data from the National Hospital Discharge Register.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Funding

The funder Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia—FCT has no role in this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Morrison A, Fan T, Sen SS, Weisenfluh L (2013) Epidemiology of falls and osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review. Clin Econ Outcomes Res: CEOR 5:9–18, Epub 2013/01/10Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention (2001) Diagnosis, and Therapy, March 7–29, 2000: highlights of the conference. South Med J 94(6):569–73, Epub 2001/07/07Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ivergård M, Svedbom A, Hernlund E, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J et al (2013) Epidemiology and economic burden of osteoporosis in Portugal. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8:137(1–2):167Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bischoff HA, Stahelin HB, Dick W, Akos R, Knecht M, Salis C et al (2003) Effects of vitamin D and calcium supplementation on falls: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Miner Res 18(2):343–51, Epub 2003/02/06PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kanis JA, Pitt FA (1992) Epidemiology of osteoporosis. Bone 13(Suppl 1):S7–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pina MF, Alves SM, Barbosa M, Barros H (2008) Hip fractures cluster in space: an epidemiological analysis in Portugal. Osteoporos Int 19:1797–804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    West J, Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland CA, Price GM, Groom LM, Kendrick D et al (2004) Do rates of hospital admission for falls and hip fracture in elderly people vary by socio-economic status? Public Health 118(8):576–81, Epub 2004/11/09PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kanis JA, Borgstrom F, Compston J, Dreinhofer K, Nolte E, Jonsson L et al (2013) SCOPE: a scorecard for osteoporosis in Europe. Arch Osteoporos 8(1–2):144, Epub 2013/09/14PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benetos IS, Babis GC, Zoubos AB, Benetou V, Soucacos PN (2007) Factors affecting the risk of hip fractures. Injury 38(7):735–44, Epub 2007/02/20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Korpelainen R, Korpelainen J, Heikkinen J, Vaananen K, Keinanen-Kiukaanniemi S (2006) Lifelong risk factors f or osteoporosis and fractures in elderly women with low body mass index—a population-based study. Bone 39(2):385–91, Epub 2006/03/15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farahmand BY, Persson PG, Michaelsson K, Baron JA, Parker MG, Ljunghall S et al (2000) Socioeconomic status, marital status and hip fracture risk: a population-based case–control study. Osteoporos Int 11(9):803–8, Epub 2001/01/10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Icks A, Haastert B, Wildner M, Becker C, Rapp K, Dragano N et al (2009) Hip fractures and area level socioeconomic conditions: a population-based study. BMC Public Health 9:114, Epub 2009/04/29PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suen LK (1998) Occupation and risk of hip fracture. J Public Health Med 20(4):428–33, Epub 1999/01/29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones S, Johansen A, Brennan J, Butler J, Lyons RA (2004) The effect of socioeconomic deprivation on fracture incidence in the United Kingdom. Osteoporos Int 15(7):520–4, Epub 2004/04/02PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peel NM, McClure RJ, Hendrikz JK (2007) Psychosocial factors associated with fall-related hip fractures. Age Ageing 36(2):145–51, Epub 2007/01/30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brennan SL, Pasco JA, Urquhart DM, Oldenburg B, Hanna F, Wluka AE (2009) The association between socioeconomic status and osteoporotic fracture in population-based adults: a systematic review. Osteoporos Int 20(9):1487–97, Epub 2008/12/25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vestergaard P, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L (2006) Socioeconomic aspects of fractures within universal public healthcare: a nationwide case–control study from Denmark. Scand J Public Health 34(4):371–7, Epub 2006/07/25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reimers A, Laflamme L (2007) Hip fractures among the elderly: personal and contextual social factors that matter. J Trauma 62(2):365–9, Epub 2007/02/14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    INE Instituto Nacional de Estatística (2012). www.ine.pt. Accessed 13 Feb 2013
  20. 20.
    OECD (2011) Divided we stand: why inequality keeps rising. An overview of growing income inequalities in OECD countries: main findings. http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm. Accessed 15 Apr 2013
  21. 21.
    Barros PP, Machado SR, Simoes J (2011) A Portugal. Health system review. Health Syst Transit 13(4):1–156, Epub 2012/01/10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ACSS (2011) Auditoria da codificação clínica [Clinical codification Audits]. http://portalcodgdh.min-saude.pt/index.php/Auditoria_da_codificação_cl%C3%ADnica. Accessed 12 June 2013
  23. 23.
    Moreira J. (2008) Fracturas Osteoporóticas do Colo do Fémur em Portugal e seus Determinantes Socioeconómicos. Porto: Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do PortoGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chevalley T, Herrmann FR, Delmi M, Stern R, Hoffmeyer P, Rapin CH et al (2002) Evaluation of the age-adjusted incidence of hip fractures between urban and rural areas: the difference is not related to the prevalence of institutions for the elderly. Osteoporos Int: J Established Result Cooperation Between Eur Foundation Osteoporos National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA 13(2):113–8, Epub 2002/03/22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Banerjee S, Carlin BP, Gelfand AE. (2004) Hierarchical modeling and analysis for spatial data. In: Hall/CRC Ca, editorGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    R Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, Lunn D. WinBUGS User Manual (Version 1.4). 2003 January 2003. Report No.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaastad TS, Meyer HE, Falch JA (1998) Incidence of hip fracture in Oslo, Norway: differences within the city. Bone 22(2):175–8, Epub 1998/02/26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guilley E, Herrmann F, Rapin CH, Hoffmeyer P, Rizzoli R, Chevalley T (2011) Socioeconomic and living conditions are determinants of hip fracture incidence and age occurrence among community-dwelling elderly. Osteoporos Int 22(2):647–53, Epub 2010/05/19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wilson RT, Chase GA, Chrischilles EA, Wallace RB (2006) Hip fracture risk among community-dwelling elderly people in the United States: a prospective study of physical, cognitive, and socioeconomic indicators. Am J Public Health 96(7):1210–8, Epub 2006/06/01PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Del Rio Barquero L, Romera Baures M, Pavia Segura J, Setoain Quinquer J, Serra Majem L, Garces Ruiz P et al (1992) Bone mineral density in two different socio-economic population groups. Bone Miner 18(2):159–68, Epub 1992/08/01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Varenna M, Binelli L, Zucchi F, Ghiringhelli D, Gallazzi M, Sinigaglia L (1999) Prevalence of osteoporosis by educational level in a cohort of postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 9(3):236–41, Epub 1999/08/18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rapiti E, Fioretta G, Schaffar R, Neyroud-Caspar I, Verkooijen HM, Schmidlin F et al (2009) Impact of socioeconomic status on prostate cancer diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Cancer 115(23):5556–65, Epub 2009/09/30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Neuner JM, Zhang X, Sparapani R, Laud PW, Nattinger AB (2007) Racial and socioeconomic disparities in bone density testing before and after hip fracture. J Gen Intern Med 22(9):1239–45, Epub 2007/06/28PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brennan SL, Henry MJ, Wluka AE, Nicholson GC, Kotowicz MA, Williams JW et al (2009) BMD in population-based adult women is associated with socioeconomic status. J Bone Miner Res 24(5):809–15, Epub 2008/12/31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Alves SM, Economou T, Oliveira C, Ribeiro AI, Neves N, Gomez-Barrena E, et al. (2012) Osteoporotic hip fractures: Bisphosphonates sales and observed turning point in trend. A population-based retrospective study. Bone. Epub 2013/01/01Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. M. Oliveira
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • T. Economou
    • 4
  • T. Bailey
    • 4
  • D. Mendonça
    • 2
    • 5
  • M. F. Pina
    • 3
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.INEB, Instituto de Engenharia BiomédicaPortoPortugal
  2. 2.ISPUP, Instituto de Saúde Pública da Universidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  3. 3.Departamento de Epidemiologia Clínica, Medicina Preditiva e Saúde PúblicaFaculdade de Medicina da Universidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  4. 4.College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical SciencesUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
  5. 5.ICBAS, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar da Universidade do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations