UCLA Mobile Clinic Project

Hastings, Joseph; Zulman, Donna M.; Wali, Soma

doi:10.1353/hpu.2007.0097

Cited by 19 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, structural impediments exist, and a large gap between support needs and supply has already been highlighted in homeless individuals with psychiatric issues, especially in the HCV-infected population [ 17 ]. Despite outreach interventions, for example mobile units for specific populations [ 18 , 19 ], HCV testing remains a challenge for PWID, especially for younger injectors who are less likely to be aware of HCV testing and treatment options [ 20 ]. This educational intervention could serve as an entry point for prevention and information strategies for HCV screening and care in this marginalized at-risk population.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increased Uptake of HCV Testing through a Community-Based Educational Intervention in Difficult-to-Reach People Who Inject Drugs: Results from the ANRS-AERLI Study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsThe community-based AERLI intervention provided training and education to people who inject drugs (PWID) about HIV and HCV transmission risk reduction, with a focus on drug injecting practices, other injection-related complications, and access to HIV and HCV testing and care. We hypothesized that in such a population where HCV prevalence is very high and where few know their HCV serostatus, AERLI would lead to increased HCV testing.MethodsThe national multisite intervention study ANRS-AERLI consisted in assessing the impact of an injection-centered face-to-face educational session offered in volunteer harm reduction (HR) centers (“with intervention”) compared with standard HR centers (“without intervention”). The study included 271 PWID interviewed on three occasions: enrolment, 6 and 12 months. Participants in the intervention group received at least one face-to-face educational session during the first 6 months.MeasurementsThe primary outcome of this analysis was reporting to have been tested for HCV during the previous 6 months. Statistical analyses used a two-step Heckman approach to account for bias arising from the non-randomized clustering design. This approach identified factors associated with HCV testing during the previous 6 months.FindingsOf the 271 participants, 127 and 144 were enrolled in the control and intervention groups, respectively. Of the latter, 113 received at least one educational session. For the present analysis, we selected 114 and 88 participants eligible for HCV testing in the control and intervention groups, respectively. In the intervention group, 44% of participants reported having being tested for HCV during the previous 6 months at enrolment and 85% at 6 months or 12 months. In the control group, these percentages were 51% at enrolment and 78% at 12 months. Multivariable analyses showed that participants who received at least one educational session during follow-up were more likely to report HCV testing, compared with those who did not receive any intervention (95%[CI] = 4.13[1.03;16.60]).ConclusionThe educational intervention AERLI had already shown efficiency in reducing HCV at-risk practices and associated cutaneous complications and also seems to have a positive impact in increasing HCV testing in PWID.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increased Uptake of HCV Testing through a Community-Based Educational Intervention in Difficult-to-Reach People Who Inject Drugs: Results from the ANRS-AERLI Study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…38 Many student-run clinics around the country are established as valuable providers of patient care. 32,35,[44][45][46][47][48][49][50] In fact, patients report equal trust and quality of care conducted by medical students, in comparison to physicians, in free clinics. 41, 51,52 Furthermore, the benefit is not one-sided.…”

Section: Student-run Free Clinics Continuedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Student-Run Free Clinics

Rumalla

Reddy

Petralia

2019

kjm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…systems-based practice, and access to care (Davenport 2000;Clark et al 2003;Beck 2005;Hastings et al 2007;Meah et al 2009;Simmons et al 2009;Sheu et al 2011). It also discusses models for student-run health care delivery (Der et al 2001;Bennard et al 2004;Beck 2005;Moskowitz et al 2006;Niescierenko et al 2006;Simpson & Long 2007;Rosenbaum et al 2008;Batra et al 2009;Dvoracek et al 2010;Strowd et al 2011), the ethics of SRCs (Buchanan & Witlen 2006), and patient demographics, satisfaction, and outcome data (Cadzow et al 2007;Ryskina et al 2009;Ellett et al 2010;Liberman et al 2011;Zucker et al 2011).…”

Section: Practice Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%