Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 314

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Monitoring health inequalities through general practice: the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice

Open access
Westert, G.P., Schellevis, F.G., de Bakker, D.H., Groenewegen, P.P., Bensing, J.M., van der Zee, J.·2005·European Journal of Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: For the second time a plan to monitor public health and health inequalities in the Netherlands through general practice was put into action: the Second National Survey of General Practice (DNSGP-2, 2001). The first aim of this paper is to describe the general design of DNSGP-2. Secondly, to describe self assessed health inequalities in the Netherlands. Thirdly, to present differences in prevalence of chronic conditions by educational attainment using both self-assessed health and medical records of GPs. Finally, inequalities in 1987 (DNSGP-1) and 2001 will be compared. METHODS: Data were collected from 96 (1987) and 104 (2001) general practices. The data include background information on patients collected via a census, approximately 12,000 health interview surveys per time point and more than one million recorded contacts of patients with their GPs in both years. The method of statistical analysis is logistic regression. RESULTS: The analyses shows that the lower educated have significantly higher odds of feeling unhealthy and having chronic conditions in 2001. Diabetes and myocardial infarction (GP data) showed the largest difference in prevalence between educational groups (OR 2.5 and 2.4, self-reported data). The way the data is collected (self-assessment versus GP registration) hardly affects the magnitude of the educational differences in the prevalence of chronic conditions. The pattern of health inequalities across chronic conditions in 1987 and 2001 hardly differs. Diabetes doubled in prevalence and health inequalities were not significant in 1987, but compared to the other conditions were largest in 2001 (OR 1.1 versus 2.5). CONCLUSION: Health inequalities were shown to be substantial in 2001 and persistent over time. Socio-economic differences were shown to be similar using self-assessed health data and GP data. Hence, a person's educational attainment did not appear to play a part in presenting health problems to the GP.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/eurpub/cki116

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 314

Metadata

Authors
Westert, G. P., Schellevis, F. G., de Bakker, D. H., Groenewegen, P. P., Bensing, J. M., & van der Zee, J.
Venue
European Journal of Public Health
Published
2005-02-01
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
59-65
ISSN
  • 1101-1262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-360X
OpenAlex
W2134824553
Cited by
314
References
5
FWCI
51.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Monitoring health inequalities through general practice: the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurpub/cki116
The paper
Westert, G. P., Schellevis, F. G., de Bakker, D. H., Groenewegen, P. P., Bensing, J. M., & van der Zee, J. (2005). Monitoring health inequalities through general practice: the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice. European Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cki116

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.