{"title":"The relationship between low social/emotional support and health care affordability among rural and urban residents","authors":"Ingrid Jacobson MPH, Katie Rydberg MPH, Alexis Swendener PhD, Hannah MacDougall PhD, MSW, Carrie Henning-Smith PhD, MPH, MSW","doi":"10.1111/jrh.70034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Social/emotional support can help to buffer the health and financial impacts of health care costs. However, little research examines differences in social/emotional support as it relates to health care affordability, and even less examines these issues by rurality despite rural/urban differences in health and health care access. This study addresses these gaps by examining differences in social/emotional support and health care affordability issues among rural and urban adults.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Using weighted data from the 2020 and 2021 National Health Interview Survey (<i>n</i> = 44,987), we examined differences in three health care affordability issues: worry about medical bills, problems paying medical bills, and inability to pay medical bills. We conducted bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses comparing these issues by rurality, social/emotional support, and other sociodemographic and health characteristics, generating adjusted odds ratios and predicted probabilities of these issues.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>Rural residents were more likely to report problems paying and inability to pay medical bills (13.0% vs. 10.2%, <i>p</i> < 0.001; 8.2% vs 6.2%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Sociodemographic and health covariates were differentially associated with adjusted odds of health care affordability issues, while low social/emotional support was associated with higher adjusted odds and adjusted predicted probabilities of all three health care affordability issues in both rural and urban areas.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Low social/emotional support is associated with higher odds and predicted probabilities of all health care affordability issues regardless of rurality. Future policy aimed at reducing medical debt in rural areas should consider the beneficial impacts of social/emotional support.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50060,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Health","volume":"41 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jrh.70034","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rural Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jrh.70034","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
Social/emotional support can help to buffer the health and financial impacts of health care costs. However, little research examines differences in social/emotional support as it relates to health care affordability, and even less examines these issues by rurality despite rural/urban differences in health and health care access. This study addresses these gaps by examining differences in social/emotional support and health care affordability issues among rural and urban adults.
Methods
Using weighted data from the 2020 and 2021 National Health Interview Survey (n = 44,987), we examined differences in three health care affordability issues: worry about medical bills, problems paying medical bills, and inability to pay medical bills. We conducted bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses comparing these issues by rurality, social/emotional support, and other sociodemographic and health characteristics, generating adjusted odds ratios and predicted probabilities of these issues.
Findings
Rural residents were more likely to report problems paying and inability to pay medical bills (13.0% vs. 10.2%, p < 0.001; 8.2% vs 6.2%, p < 0.001). Sociodemographic and health covariates were differentially associated with adjusted odds of health care affordability issues, while low social/emotional support was associated with higher adjusted odds and adjusted predicted probabilities of all three health care affordability issues in both rural and urban areas.
Conclusions
Low social/emotional support is associated with higher odds and predicted probabilities of all health care affordability issues regardless of rurality. Future policy aimed at reducing medical debt in rural areas should consider the beneficial impacts of social/emotional support.
社会/情感支持有助于缓冲医疗保健费用对健康和财务的影响。然而,很少有研究审查与医疗保健负担能力有关的社会/情感支持方面的差异,尽管农村/城市在健康和医疗保健获取方面存在差异,但按农村情况审查这些问题的研究就更少了。本研究通过考察农村和城市成年人在社会/情感支持和医疗保健负担能力问题上的差异来解决这些差距。方法利用2020年和2021年全国健康访谈调查(n = 44,987)的加权数据,研究了三个医疗负担能力问题的差异:担心医疗费用、支付医疗费用的问题和无力支付医疗费用。我们进行了双变量和多变量逻辑回归分析,通过农村性、社会/情感支持以及其他社会人口统计学和健康特征来比较这些问题,得出调整后的优势比并预测这些问题的概率。调查结果:农村居民更有可能报告支付问题和无力支付医疗费用(13.0%比10.2%,p <;0.001;8.2% vs 6.2%, p <;0.001)。社会人口统计学和健康协变量与医疗保健可负担性问题的调整几率存在差异,而低社会/情感支持与农村和城市地区所有三个医疗保健可负担性问题的调整几率和调整预测概率较高相关。结论低社会/情感支持与所有医疗负担能力问题的高几率和预测概率相关,与农村无关。未来旨在减少农村地区医疗债务的政策应考虑到社会/情感支持的有益影响。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Rural Health, a quarterly journal published by the NRHA, offers a variety of original research relevant and important to rural health. Some examples include evaluations, case studies, and analyses related to health status and behavior, as well as to health work force, policy and access issues. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies are welcome. Highest priority is given to manuscripts that reflect scholarly quality, demonstrate methodological rigor, and emphasize practical implications. The journal also publishes articles with an international rural health perspective, commentaries, book reviews and letters.