Skip to main content

Table 3 Association between type of service used, distance travelled and deprivation and urbanisation category for those (n = 1980) bypassing their local service*

From: Influence of socio-demographic factors on distances travelled to access HIV services: enhanced surveillance of HIV patients in north west England

  Deprivation and urban category
Service use   Not urban, least deprived Urban least deprived Urban, average deprivation Urban, most deprived Total
Centre of excellence/specialist service only# % (n) 22.7 (20) 41.7 (275) 40.7 (277) 38.3 (212) 39.6 (784)
  Mean km (95%CI) 18.64 (11.54, 30.13) 8.55 (7.58, 9.64) 5.34 (4.74, 6.02) 3.58 (3.05, 4.2) 5.84 (5.4, 6.33)
Large centre only$ % (n) 18.2 (16) 17.6 (116) 13.8 (94) 15.4 (85) 15.7 (311)
  Mean km (95%CI) 14.52 (8.81, 23.94) 5.84 (4.88, 7) 4.6 (3.41, 6.21) 2.76 (2.09, 3.65) 4.64 (4.04, 5.34)
Smaller centre only@ % (n) 38.6 (34) 21.5 (142) 18.7 (127) 15.6 (86) 19.6 (389)
  Mean km (95%CI) 5.84 (3.69, 9.26) 4.55 (3.58, 5.79) 3.84 (3.08, 4.79) 3.96 (2.87, 5.45) 4.24 (3.69, 4.88)
Subsidiary service only£ % (n) 1.1 (1) 0.2 (1) 0.4 (3) 0.4 (2) 0.4 (7)
  Mean km (95%CI)      2.38 (0.69, 8.21)
More than one including excellence/specialist % (n) 8.0 (7) 13.8 (91) 18.4 (125) 21.3 (118) 17.2 (341)
  Mean km (95%CI) 30.74 (17.56, 53.81) 9.83 (7.89, 12.25) 5.79 (4.93, 6.79) 5.45 (4.55, 6.52) 6.72 (5.96, 7.58)
More than one standard service % (n) 11.4 (10) 5.2 (34) 7.9 (54) 9.0 (50) 7.5 (148)
  Mean km (95%CI) 32.97 (18.46, 58.88) 10.54 (6.66, 16.7) 6.93 (4.29, 11.2) 6.08 (3.92, 9.45) 8.13 (6.27, 10.54)
  1. *significant: Chi square = 56.9, df = 12, p < 0.0001, excluding those attending subsidiary services only
  2. #North Manchester General Infectious Disease Unit (1,500 patients), and all paediatric and haematology units
  3. $Centre with over 300 HIV positive patients
  4. @ Centre with fewer than 300 HIV positive patients
  5. £Non-prescribing centre