Otolaryngology Needs in a Free Clinic Providing Indigent Care

Hu, Amanda; Sibert, Thomas E.; Zhao, Wei; Zarro, Vincent J.

doi:10.1002/lary.25517

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 14 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite initial apprehensions, many women interviewed in rural Iowa ( n = 25 women; n = 15 staff) reported an overall positive experience with an abortion telemedicine program that allowed for more timely procedures [55]. Another study that examined health beliefs of medically indigent patients in a free otolaryngology Chinatown clinic in Philadelphia found little consistency between which specialty care services patients versus clinicians believed were needed [73]. In a study of rural dwelling adult female veterans ( n = 35; North Carolina, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, California, Washington, and Texas), many reported an unawareness of available VHA benefits [74].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Access to specialty healthcare in urban versus rural US populations: a systematic literature review

Cyr

Etchin

Guthrie

et al. 2019

BMC Health Serv Res

189

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAccess to healthcare is a poorly defined construct, with insufficient understanding of differences in facilitators and barriers between US urban versus rural specialty care. We summarize recent literature and expand upon a prior conceptual access framework, adapted here specifically to urban and rural specialty care.MethodsA systematic review was conducted of literature within the CINAHL, Medline, PubMed, PsycInfo, and ProQuest Social Sciences databases published between January 2013 and August 2018. Search terms targeted peer-reviewed academic publications pertinent to access to US urban or rural specialty healthcare. Exclusion criteria produced 67 articles. Findings were organized into an existing ten-dimension care access conceptual framework where possible, with additional topics grouped thematically into supplemental dimensions.ResultsDespite geographic and demographic differences, many access facilitators and barriers were common to both populations; only three dimensions did not contain literature addressing both urban and rural populations. The most commonly represented dimensions were availability and accommodation, appropriateness, and ability to perceive. Four new identified dimensions were: government and insurance policy, health organization and operations influence, stigma, and primary care and specialist influence.ConclusionsWhile findings generally align with a preexisting framework, they also suggest several additional themes important to urban versus rural specialty care access.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%