Beatty Kate E, Smith Michael G, Khoury Amal J, Zheng Shimin, Ventura Liane M, Okwori Glory
Center for Applied Research and Evaluation in Women's Health, Department of Health Services Management & Policy, College of Public Health, East Tennessee State University, P.O. Box 70264, Johnson City, TN 37614, United States.
Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, College of Public Health, East Tennessee State University, 149 Lamb Hall, P.O. Box 70259, Johnson City, TN 37614, United States.
Prev Med Rep. 2021 Mar 7;22:101343. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101343. eCollection 2021 Jun.
This study operationalized the five dimensions of health care access in the context of contraceptive service provision and used this framework to examine access to contraceptive care at health department (HD) (Title X funded) and federally qualified health center (FQHC) (primarily non-Title X funded) clinics in South Carolina and Alabama. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2017/18 that assessed clinic-level characteristics, policies, and practices related to contraceptive provision. Provision of different contraceptive methods was examined between clinic types. Survey items were mapped to the dimensions of access and internal consistency for each scale was tested with Cronbach's alpha. Scores of access were developed and differences by clinic type were evaluated with an independent -test. The overall response rate was 68.3% and the sample included 235 clinics. HDs (96.9%) were significantly more likely to provide IUDs and/or Impants on-site than FQHCs (37.4%) ( < 0.0001). Scales with the highest consistency were Availability: Clinical Policy (24 items) (alpha = 0.892) and Acceptability (43 items) (alpha = 0.834). HDs had higher access scores than FQHCs for the Availability: Clinical Policy scale (0.58, 95% CL 0.55, 0.61) vs (0.29, 95% CL 0.25, 0.33) and Affordability: Administrative Policy scale (0.86, 95% CL 0.83, 0.90) vs (0.47, 95% CL 0.41, 0.53). FQHCs had higher access scores than HDs for Affordability: Insurance Policy (0.78, 95% CL 0.72, 0.84) vs (0.56, 95% CL 0.53, 0.59). These findings highlight strengths and gaps in contraceptive care access. Future studies must examine the impact of each dimension of access on clinic-level contraceptive utilization.
本研究在提供避孕服务的背景下对医疗保健可及性的五个维度进行了操作化,并使用该框架来考察南卡罗来纳州和阿拉巴马州卫生部门(HD)(由第十项计划资助)及联邦合格医疗中心(FQHC)(主要非第十项计划资助)诊所的避孕护理可及性。2017/18年进行了一项横断面调查,评估了与避孕服务提供相关的诊所层面的特征、政策和实践。研究了不同诊所类型之间不同避孕方法的提供情况。将调查项目映射到可及性维度,并使用克朗巴哈系数对每个量表的内部一致性进行了测试。制定了可及性得分,并使用独立t检验评估诊所类型之间的差异。总体回复率为68.3%,样本包括235家诊所。与FQHC(37.4%)相比,HD(96.9%)在现场提供宫内节育器和/或植入物的可能性显著更高(P<0.0001)。一致性最高的量表是可及性:临床政策(24项)(系数=0.892)和可接受性(43项)(系数=0.834)。在可及性:临床政策量表方面,HD的得分高于FQHC(0.58,95%置信区间0.55,0.61)对比(0.29,95%置信区间0.25,0.33);在可及性:行政政策量表方面,HD的得分高于FQHC(0.86,95%置信区间0.83,0.90)对比(0.47,95%置信区间0.41,0.53)。在可及性:保险政策方面,FQHC的得分高于HD(0.78,95%置信区间0.72,0.84)对比(0.56,95%置信区间0.53,0.59)。这些发现突出了避孕护理可及性方面的优势和差距。未来的研究必须考察可及性各维度对诊所层面避孕措施使用的影响。