Innerhalb von Deutschland gibt es erhebliche Unterschiede in der kardiovaskulären Mortalität mit einer erhöhten Mortalität in den ostdeutschen im Vergleich zu den westdeutschen Bundesländern. Das Risiko, an einer koronaren Herzkrankheit oder einem Schlaganfall zu sterben, ist in Ostdeutschland etwa 50% höher als in Westdeutschland. Damit hat sich das Risikoverhältnis seit der Wiedervereinigung insgesamt wenig verändert, obwohl sowohl in Ost- als auch in Westdeutschland die kardiovaskuläre Mortalität abgenommen hat. Mögliche Ursachen für die regionale Variation sind Unterschiede bei kardiovaskulären Risikofaktoren, soziodemographischen Faktoren, Lebensstilfaktoren, Umwelteinflüssen und in der medizinischen Versorgung. In ganz Deutschland wird ein hoher Prozentsatz von Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen nicht entsprechend den aktuellen Leitlinien europäischer Fachgesellschaften behandelt. Eine inadäquate Einstellung von Risikofaktoren kann neben einer erhöhten Morbidität auch über den Verlust an Produktivität zu hohen indirekten Kosten für die Gesellschaft führen, ebenso wie zu einer Einschränkung der Lebensqualität für die Patienten. Neben einer adäquaten Prävention ist auch das „richtige“ Verhalten bei Auftreten von kardiovaskulären Symptomen wesentlich (Notrufnummer „112“), da sich ein hoher Prozentsatz der Todesfälle bereits vor Erreichen des Krankenhauses ereignet. Insgesamt zeigt sich eine deutliche Diskrepanz zwischen den Ergebnissen der klinischen Forschung und der Versorgungssituation im Alltag. Um längerfristig die Versorgung der Patienten zu verbessern, sind gezielte Interventionen erforderlich, um die Einhaltung der Leitlinien durch die Ärzte zu fördern und die Compliance der Patienten mit Lebensstilmaßnahmen und medikamentöser Therapie zu verbessern. Längerfristige Ziele sind die Verringerung der Kluft in der kardiovaskulären Mortalität zwischen Ost- und Westdeutschland und eine weitere Reduktion der Mortalität durch eine verbesserte Prävention. / Within Germany, there is a considerable regional variation in cardiovascular mortality with an increased mortality in the East compared to the West. The relative risk of cardiovascular death due to coronary heart disease or stroke is about 50% higher in East compared to West Germany. Despite an overall decrease in cardiovascular mortality in both East and West Germany, the risk ratio has remained largely constant since reunification. Possible explanations for the regional variation include differences in cardiovascular risk factors, socio-demographic factors, lifestyle, environmental conditions, and medical care. In addition, a high percentage of patients with cardiovascular diseases in Germany are not treated according to current international guidelines. Apart from an increased morbidity, inadequate treatment of risk factors may lead to a high amount of indirect costs due to productivity loss. Also, health-related quality of life is reduced in patients with cardiovascular diseases. As a high percentage of cardiovascular deaths occur prior to the arrival at the hospital, it is also important to educate people at risk about an appropriate help seeking behaviour in the case of an acute event (e. g. emergency number “112”). To conclude, research results are not sufficiently translated into routine medical care. Interventions are, therefore, needed to improve both compliance of physicians with current guidelines and compliance of patients with lifestyle measures and medication. In the long term, the gap in cardiovascular mortality between East and West Germany should be narrowed and preventive measures should be improved to further reduce cardiovascular mortality in Germany

Because of evidence of regional variation in health and healthcare use, this thesis used health equity and access to care theory to examine regional differences in access to primary care, using survey- as well as secondary data in four empirical studies. First, a systematic literature review was used to categorize forms and reasons for regional healthcare shortages and access barriers, with a particular focus on rural areas. After information extraction from the selected studies and a thematic content analysis, the forms and causes identified in the literature were grouped and discussed. Following the literature-based review of these thematic foundations, a study was then designed to evaluate patient-reported access to primary care in exemplary German regions and assess empirical differences in rural vs. urban populations. This allowed the importance to patients of different access dimensions to be evaluated. For a subgroup of study participants with multidisciplinary care needs, care coordination failures and the supportive role of the general practitioner as a primary point of access was investigated. Finally, regional factors that are associated with variations in need, health, and utilisation beyond individual health determinants were identified, and placed on different regional framework conditions. These health-related factors were summarised in a regional deprivation measure and small-scale regions in Germany were differentiated by their regional deprivation by the main dimensions (material, social, ecological). Finally, their association to regional health outcomes were cross-sectionally estimated. To reduce unwarranted access variation, while also taking the patient perspective (by region) into account, the thesis concludes with a chapter on implications. Here, concepts for regional and multidimensional access monitoring, as well as further regulatory measures in capacity and distribution planning of primary care, are discussed.:Content Tables ........................................................................................................................... V Figures ....................................................................................................................... VI Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... VII 1. Background and research objectives .................................................................. 9 1.1. Health equity and access to health care ........................................................ 10 1.2. Regional variation as a contradiction to the equity principle ....................... 16 1.3. Reducing unwarranted regional variation in health care .............................. 20 1.4. Research objectives and thesis structure ...................................................... 24 References ............................................................................................................... 28 Legal sources .......................................................................................................... 33 2. Rural health care shortages and access barriers ............................................. 34 3. Regional access and satisfaction with primary care........................................ 35 Appendix 3 .............................................................................................................. 36 4. Access to primary care and outpatient care coordination .............................. 48 4.1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 49 4.2. Background ................................................................................................... 51 4.2.1. The patient perspective of care coordination ......................................... 51 4.2.2. Coordinating mechanisms ..................................................................... 52 4.3. Methods ........................................................................................................ 55 4.3.1. Data collection and sample .................................................................... 55 4.3.2. Measures ................................................................................................ 55 4.3.3. Data analysis .......................................................................................... 58 4.4. Results .......................................................................................................... 59 4.5. Discussion and limitations ............................................................................ 62 4.6. Implications .................................................................................................. 65 References ............................................................................................................... 69 Appendix 4 .............................................................................................................. 73 5. Area deprivation and its impact on health ....................................................... 76 6. Summary of implications ................................................................................... 77 6.1. Establishing a framework to assess primary care access and performance .. 77 6.2. Strengthening patient involvement in health care structure planning .......... 81 6.3. Strengthening access to GPs as outpatient care coordinators ....................... 84 6.4. Including regional deprivation factors in health care structure planning ..... 86 References ............................................................................................................... 90