Abstract
The Behavioral Model of Health Services Use by Ronald M. Andersen and colleagues is the most widely adopted theoretical framework for analyzing and predicting health care utilization. Among other things, it is employed in the German Federal Health Reporting since 2001. It differentiates need factors, predisposing factors and enabling factors both on the contextual level and the individual level as determinants of individual health services use. From the viewpoint of social epidemiology, one of the key strengths of the Behavioral Model is its capability to systematize and empiricize equity and inequity in the access to health services by specifying need vs. predisposing and enabling factors. This strength could be even promoted by including direct effects on utilization of psychological factors (besides social factors) as contributing to inequity. Another strength of the Behavioral Model since its fifth version is that it conceptualizes need factors, predisposing factors and enabling factors both on the contextual level and the individual level in a structurally equivalent manner. Thus, not only are theoretically consistent multilevel models possible on the predictor side, but general theories of action and behavior from sociology and psychology are more easily applied on the behavior of professionals working in health policy and services. On the side of health-related behaviors (as mediating factors) and the outcomes of the model (including, since its sixth version, quality of life), the question is why these are represented as individual entities only, thus excluding relevant prevalences and incidences only from the scope of the model. Here, the Behavioral Model could be further developed by integrating assumptions of the Basic Behavioral Epidemology Model by Thomas von Lengerke and colleagues which – following the micro-micro-model of sociological explanation – allows the description and explanation of collective outcomes. Finally, regarding the empirical and statistical application of the Behavioral Model, improvements are possible by use of the methodological differentiation between mediation and moderation. For instance, it should be clarified whether only enabling factors, which according to classical social ecology tend to moderate associations between other variables (in the present case need factors and utilization), may be conceptualized and modelled as effect modifiers, or predisposing factors as well. In the context of data analyses oriented by the Behavioral Model, this would have direct implications for specifying hierarchical models and relevant interaction terms.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The inclusion of only one supraindividual level in Fig. 2.2 is intended to increase clarity; of course, models with more than two levels are more realistic (e.g., “patients” in “wards” in “hospitals”).
- 2.
Lazarsfeld and Menzel [59] developed a formal classification for individual properties as well: Absolute properties, which can be determined without recourse to characteristics of supraindividual units or to characteristics of relationships with other individuals. Relational properties, which are determined on the basis of information about relationships to other individuals. Comparative properties, which derive from a comparison of the value of an individual for an absolute or relational property with the distribution of this property in the considered collective. Contextual properties, which describe individuals by a (global, analytical or structural) property of the collective (and that are therefore invariable for all members of the collective). The somatic, psychological, and social characteristics meant in the BBEM in its present form are primarily absolute properties, which means that the model is still too simplistic in this area. Since the primary goal in this context is to specify a model that can also depict rates of behavior, we accepted this lack of clarity here for space reasons.
- 3.
The macro–micro model of sociological explanation typically does not contain paths 2a–c. They were included in the BBEM because they represent central health science research interests, such as moderating effects of the mean regional income on the relationship between inhabitants’ individual income and their behavior (arrow 2a [64]), direct environmental effects on behavior without explicit mediation by psychological processes (arrow 2b [64]), and moderating policy effects on citizen participation in health policy decision making (arrow 2c [66]).
- 4.
An individual’s likelihood of becoming obese is also known to increase with the incidence of obesity in the individual‘s own social network [70] (the same is true of smoking [71] and happiness [72]). Hence, the individual somatic property “obese” is apparently influenced by the supraindividual analytical property “rate of obesity within network.” However, this only applies to close social relations (friends, siblings, and partners). The relationship between the two former properties is therefore presumably moderated by the supraindividual structural property “social cohesion.” However, it has not yet been determined to what extent these relationships in turn influence obesity-associated behaviors, such as utilization of care.
- 5.
This interaction could, in turn, be moderated by social variables, such as socioeconomic status. Rückert et al. [74], for instance, investigated the practice fee in the German health care system and found that in the chronically ill, the likelihood to avoid or delay a physician visit to avoid the practice fee was 2.45 times higher in the lowest income group than in the highest.
References
Siegrist J. Medizinische Soziologie. In German. München: Urban & Fischer; 2005.
Robert Koch Institute, editor. Daten und Fakten: Ergebnisse der Studie »Gesundheit in Deutschland aktuell 2010«. In German. Berlin: Robert Koch Institute; 2012.
Diehr P, Yanez D, Ash A, Hornbrook M, Lin DY. Methods for analyzing health care utilization and costs. Ann Rev Public Health. 1999; 20: 125–144.
Bradley EH, McGraw SA, Curry L, Buckser A, King KL, Kasl SV, Andersen RM. Expanding the Andersen model: the role of psychosocial factors in long-term care use. Health Serv Res. 2002;37:1221–42.
Andersen HH, Bormann C, Elkeles T. [Index numbers of the utilization of outpatient treatment. Methodical aspects of the value of data from surveys.] In German. Soz Praventivmed. 1993;38:26–33.
Ricketts TC, Goldsmith LJ. Access in health services research: the battle of the frameworks. Nurs Outlook. 2005;53:274–80.
Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav. 1995;36:1–10.
Andersen RM, Davidson PL, Baumeister SE. Improving access to care in America. In: Kominski EF, editor. Changing the U.S. health care system: key issues in health services, policy, and management. 4th edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2013. p. 33–69.
Andersen RM.: Families’ use of health services: a behavioral model of predisposing, enabling, and need components [Dissertation]. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/dissertations/AAI6902884 (1968). Accessed 5 June, 2013.
Andersen RM, Newman JF. Societal and individual determinants of medical care utilization in the United States. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1973;51:95–124.
Aday LA, Andersen RM. A framework for the study of access to medical care. Health Serv Res. 1974;9:208–20.
Aday LA, Andersen RM, Fleming GV. Health care in the U.S.: equiable for whom? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1980.
Andersen RM. National health surveys and the behavioral model of health services use. Med Care. 2008;46:647–53.
Andersen RM, Davidson PL. Improving access to care in America: individual and contextual indicators. In: Andersen RM, Rice TH, Kominski GF, editors. Changing the U.S. health care system: key issues in health services, policy, and management. 3rd edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2007. p. 3–31.
Hulka BS, Wheat JR. Patterns of utilization. The patient perspective. Med Care. 1985;23:438–59.
von Lengerke T. Sozialpsychologische Grundlagen der Medizinischen Psychologie. In German. In Brähler E, Strauß B, editors. Medizinische Psychologie [Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, Band D/VIII/1]. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2012. p. 285–316.
Babitsch B, Braun T, Borde T, David, M. Doctor’s perception of doctor-patient relationships in emergency departments: What roles do gender and ethnicity play? BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:82.
Thode N, Bergmann E, Kamtsiuris P, Kurth B-M. Einflussfaktoren auf die Inanspruchnahme des deutschen Gesundheitswesens und mögliche Steuerungsmechanismen. In German. Berlin: Robert Koch Institute; 2004 http://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Gesundheitsmonitoring/Themen/Versorgung/projektbericht.html, Accessed 5 June, 2013.
Thode N, Bergmann E, Kamtsiuris P, Kurth B-M. Einflussfaktoren auf die ambulante Inanspruchnahme in Deutschland. Bundesgesundheitsbl Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2005;48:296–306,
de Boer AGEM, Wijker W, de Haes HCJM. Predictors of health care utilization in the chronically ill: a review of the literature. Health Policy. 1997;42:101–15,
Henton FE, Hays BJ, Walker SN, Atwood JR. Determinants of Medicare home health care service use among Medicare recipients. Nursing Res. 2002;51:355–62,
McCusker J, Karp I, Cardin S, Durand P, Morin J. Determineants of emergency department visits by older adults: a systematic review. Acad Emerg Med. 2003;10:1362–70,
Padgett DK, Brodsky B. Psychosocial factors influencing non-urgent use of the emergency room: a review of the literature and recommendations for research and improved service delivery. Soc Sci Med. 1992;35:1180–97,
Cook C, Stickley L, Ramey K, Knotts VJ. Variables associated with occupational and physical therapy stroke rehabilitation utilization and outcomes. J Allied Health. 2005;34:3–10,
Finlayson M, DalMonte J. Predicting the use of occupational therapy services among people with multiple sclerosis in Atlantic Canada. Can J Occup Ther. 2002;69:239–48,
Kadushin G. Home health care utilization: a review of the research for social work. Health Soc Work. 2004;29:219–44,
Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science. 1977;196:129–36,
Borrell-Carrió F, Suchman AL, Epstein RM. The biopsychosocial model 25 years later: principles, practice, and scientific inquiry. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2:576–82,
Epstein RM, Borrell-Carrio F. The biopsychosocial model: Exploring six impossible things. Fam Syst Health. 2005;23:426–31,
McDaniel SH, Campbell T, Hepworth J, Lorenz A. Family-oriented primary care. 2nd edition. New York: Springer; 2005.
McLaren N. A critical review of the biopsychosocial model. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1998;32:86–92.
McLaren N. The myth of the biopsychosocial model. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2006;40:277–8.
Kendler KS. A psychiatric dialogue on the mind-body problem. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158:989–1000.
McLaren N. Interactive dualism as a partial solution to the mind-brain problem for psychiatry. Med Hypotheses. 2006;66:1165–73.
Advisory Council for the Concerted Action in Health Care. Appropriateness and Efficiency (Report 2000/2001, Summary). http://www.svr-gesundheit.de/index.php?id=18. Accessed 5 June, 2013.
Rose G. Sick individuals and sick populations. Int J Epidemiol. 1985;14(1):32–8.
World Health Organization. Obesity and overweight [Fact sheet N°311]. Geneva: WHO; 2013. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/ factsheets/fs311/en/index.html. Accessed 5 June, 2013.
Allison DB, Downey M, Atkinson RL, Billington CJ, Bray GA, Eckel RH, Finkelstein EA, Jensen MD, Tremblay A. Obesity as a disease: a white paper on evidence and arguments commissioned by the Council of the Obesity Society. Obesity. 2008;16:1161–77.
Bray GA. Obesity is a chronic, relapsing neurochemical disease. Int J Obes. 2004;28:34–8.
Council of the Obesity Society. Obesity as a disease: the Obesity Society Council resolution. Obesity. 2008;16:1151.
Dausch J. Determining when obesity is a disease. J Am Diet Assoc. 2001;101:293.
Kossmann B, Aidelsburger P, Wasem J. Adipositas – eine Krankheit? In German. Essen: Universität Duisburg-Essen; 2006. http://www.magenband-hilfe.de/attachment. php?attachmentid =120. Accessed 5 June, 2013.
McLaren L, Gauvin L: Neighbourhood level versus individual level correlates of women’s body dissatisfaction: Toward a multilevel understanding of the role of affluence. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002, 56:193–199.
McLaren L, Gauvin L: Does the ‘average size’ of women in the neighbourhood influence a woman’s likelihood of body dissatisfaction? Health Place. 2003, 9:327–335.
von Lengerke T, Mielck A;KORA-Studiengruppe. Unzufriedenheit mit dem eigenen Körpergewicht nach Einkommensarmut: eine Mehrebenenanalyse in der Region Augsburg. In German. In Berth H et al., editors. Psychologie und Medizin – Traumpaar oder Vernunftehe? Lengerich: Pabst; p. 69–80.
Bergmann E, Kalcklösch M, Tiemann F. Inanspruchnahme des Gesundheitswesens – Erste Ergebnisse des telefonischen Gesundheitssurveys 2003. Bundesgesundheitsbl Gesundheitsforsch Gesundheitsschutz. 2005;12:1365–73.
Kamtsiuris P, Bergmann E, Rattay P, Schlaud M. Inanspruchnahme medizinischer Leistungen. Ergebnisse des Kinder- und Jugendsurveys (KiGGS). Bundesgesundheitsbl Gesundheitsforsch Gesundheitsschutz. 2007;50: 836–50.
Babitsch B, Gohl D, von Lengerke T. Re-revisiting Andersen’s Behavioral Model of Health Services Use: a systematic review of studies from 1998–2011. GMS Psychosoc Med. 2012;9:Doc11.
von Lengerke T, Mielck A; KORA Study Group. Body weight dissatisfaction by socioeconomic status among obese, preobese and normal weight women and men: results of the cross-sectional KORA Augsburg S4 population survey. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:342.
Geyer S, Hemström Ö. Peter R, Vågerö D. Education, income, and occupational class cannot be use interchangeably in social epidemiology. Empircal evidence against a common practice. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:804–810
Geyer S. [Single indicator or index? Comparison of measures of social differentiation]. In German. Gesundheitswesen. 2008;70:281–8.
Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51:1173–82.
Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY; Guilford; 2013.
Stokols D. Establishing and maintaining healthy environments: Toward a social ecology of health promotion. Am Psycholog. 1992;47:6–22.
Schwartz S, Diez-Roux AV. Causes of incidence and causes of cases – a Durkheimian perspective on Rose. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30:435–9.
von Lengerke T, Abu-Omar K. Verhaltensepidemiologie: Einblicke in ein neues Wissensgebiet. In German. In: von Lengerke T, editor. Public Health-Psychologie: Individuum und Bevölkerung zwischen Verhältnissen und Verhalten. Weinheim: Juventa; 2007. p. 32–44.
Coleman JS. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press; 1990.
Esser H. Soziologie: Allgemeine Grundlagen. In German. Frankfurt: Campus; 1999.
Lazarsfeld PF, Menzel H. On the relation between individual and collective properties. In Etzioni A, Lehman EW, editors. A sociological reader on complex organizations. 3rd edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston: 1980. p. 508–21.
Lubinski D, Humphreys LG. Seeing the forest from the trees: When predicting the behavior or status of groups, correlate means. Psycholog Public Policy Law, 1996;2:363–76.
Greve J, Schnabel A, Schützeichel R. Das Mikro-Makro-Modell der soziologischen Erklärung – zur Einleitung. In German. In: Greve J, Schnabel A, Schützeichel R, editors. Das Mikro-Makro-Modell der soziologischen Erklärung. Zur Ontologie, Methodologie und Metatheorie eines Forschungsprogramms. Wiesbaden: VS; 2008. pp. 7–17
Puls W. [Mass unemployment, stress and risky alcohol consumption An attempt at a sociological explanation based on the model of effort-reward imbalance]. In German. J Public Health. 2004;12:259–70.
Diez-Roux AV. Bringing context back into epidemiology: variables and fallacies in multilevel analysis. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:216–22.
Twigg L, Moon G, Jones K. Predicting small-area health-related behaviour: a comparison of smoking and drinking indicators. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50:1109–20.
Sallis JF, Hovell MF, Hofstetter CR, Elder JP, Hackley M, Caspersen CJ, Powell KE. Distance between homes and exercise facilities related to frequency of exercise among San Diego residents. Public Health Rep. 1990;105:179–85.
Council of Europe. The development of structures for citizen and patient participation in the decision-making process affecting health care. Straßburg: Council of Europe; 2001.
Cockerham WC. Medical sociology. 12th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson; 2012.
Rütten A, Lüschen G, von Lengerke T et al. Determinants of health policy impact: comparative results of a European policymaker study. Soz Praventivmed. 2003;48: 379–91.
Rabin BA, Boehmer TK, Brownson RC. Cross-national comparison of environmental and policy correlates of obesity in Europe. Eur J Public Health. 2007;17:53–61.
Christakis NA, Fowler JH. The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:370–9.
Christakis NA, Fowler JH. The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2249–58.
Fowler JH, Christakis NA. Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study. BMJ. 2008;337:a2338.
Kersell MW, Milsum JH. A systems model of health behavior change. Behav Sci. 1985;30:119–26
Rückert IM, Böcken J, Mielck A: Are German patients burdened by the practice charge for physician visits (’Praxisgebuehr’)? A cross sectional analysis of socio-economic and health related factors. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:232.
Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th edition. New York: Free Press; 2003.
von Lengerke T, Vinck J, Rütten A, Reitmeir P, Abel T, Kannas L, Lüschen G, Rodríguez Diaz JA, van der Zee J. Health policy perception and health behaviours: a multilevel analysis and implications for public health psychology. J Health Psychol. 2004;9:157–7.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
von Lengerke, T., Gohl, D., Babitsch, B. (2014). Re-revisiting the Behavioral Model of Health Care Utilization by Andersen: A Review on Theoretical Advances and Perspectives. In: Janssen, C., Swart, E., von Lengerke, T. (eds) Health Care Utilization in Germany. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9191-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9191-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-9190-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-9191-0
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)