Cargando…

Barriers to women's participation in inter-conceptional care: a cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND: We describe participation rates in a special interconceptional care program that addressed all commonly known barriers to care, and identify predictors of the observed levels of participation in this preventive care service. METHODS: A secondary analysis of data from women in the interve...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hogan, Vijaya K, Amamoo, M Ahinee, Anderson, Althea D, Webb, David, Mathews, Leny, Rowley, Diane, Culhane, Jennifer F
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3317822/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22296758
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-93
_version_ 1782228629054291968
author Hogan, Vijaya K
Amamoo, M Ahinee
Anderson, Althea D
Webb, David
Mathews, Leny
Rowley, Diane
Culhane, Jennifer F
author_facet Hogan, Vijaya K
Amamoo, M Ahinee
Anderson, Althea D
Webb, David
Mathews, Leny
Rowley, Diane
Culhane, Jennifer F
author_sort Hogan, Vijaya K
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We describe participation rates in a special interconceptional care program that addressed all commonly known barriers to care, and identify predictors of the observed levels of participation in this preventive care service. METHODS: A secondary analysis of data from women in the intervention arm of an interconceptional care clinical trial in Philadelphia (n = 442). Gelberg-Andersen Behavioral Model for Vulnerable Populations to Health Services (herein called Andersen model) was used as a theoretical base. We used a multinomial logit model to analyze the factors influencing women's level of participation in this enhanced interconceptional care program. RESULTS: Although common barriers were addressed, there was variable participation in the interconceptional interventions. The Andersen model did not explain the variation in interconceptional care participation (Wald ch sq = 49, p = 0.45). Enabling factors (p = 0.058), older maternal age (p = 0.03) and smoking (p = < 0.0001) were independently associated with participation. CONCLUSIONS: Actively removing common barriers to care does not guarantee the long-term and consistent participation of vulnerable women in preventive care. There are unknown factors beyond known barriers that affect participation in interconceptional care. New paradigms are needed to identify the additional factors that serve as barriers to participation in preventive care for vulnerable women.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3317822
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33178222012-04-04 Barriers to women's participation in inter-conceptional care: a cross-sectional analysis Hogan, Vijaya K Amamoo, M Ahinee Anderson, Althea D Webb, David Mathews, Leny Rowley, Diane Culhane, Jennifer F BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: We describe participation rates in a special interconceptional care program that addressed all commonly known barriers to care, and identify predictors of the observed levels of participation in this preventive care service. METHODS: A secondary analysis of data from women in the intervention arm of an interconceptional care clinical trial in Philadelphia (n = 442). Gelberg-Andersen Behavioral Model for Vulnerable Populations to Health Services (herein called Andersen model) was used as a theoretical base. We used a multinomial logit model to analyze the factors influencing women's level of participation in this enhanced interconceptional care program. RESULTS: Although common barriers were addressed, there was variable participation in the interconceptional interventions. The Andersen model did not explain the variation in interconceptional care participation (Wald ch sq = 49, p = 0.45). Enabling factors (p = 0.058), older maternal age (p = 0.03) and smoking (p = < 0.0001) were independently associated with participation. CONCLUSIONS: Actively removing common barriers to care does not guarantee the long-term and consistent participation of vulnerable women in preventive care. There are unknown factors beyond known barriers that affect participation in interconceptional care. New paradigms are needed to identify the additional factors that serve as barriers to participation in preventive care for vulnerable women. BioMed Central 2012-02-01 /pmc/articles/PMC3317822/ /pubmed/22296758 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-93 Text en Copyright ©2011 Hogan et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hogan, Vijaya K
Amamoo, M Ahinee
Anderson, Althea D
Webb, David
Mathews, Leny
Rowley, Diane
Culhane, Jennifer F
Barriers to women's participation in inter-conceptional care: a cross-sectional analysis
title Barriers to women's participation in inter-conceptional care: a cross-sectional analysis
title_full Barriers to women's participation in inter-conceptional care: a cross-sectional analysis
title_fullStr Barriers to women's participation in inter-conceptional care: a cross-sectional analysis
title_full_unstemmed Barriers to women's participation in inter-conceptional care: a cross-sectional analysis
title_short Barriers to women's participation in inter-conceptional care: a cross-sectional analysis
title_sort barriers to women's participation in inter-conceptional care: a cross-sectional analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3317822/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22296758
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-93
work_keys_str_mv AT hoganvijayak barrierstowomensparticipationininterconceptionalcareacrosssectionalanalysis
AT amamoomahinee barrierstowomensparticipationininterconceptionalcareacrosssectionalanalysis
AT andersonalthead barrierstowomensparticipationininterconceptionalcareacrosssectionalanalysis
AT webbdavid barrierstowomensparticipationininterconceptionalcareacrosssectionalanalysis
AT mathewsleny barrierstowomensparticipationininterconceptionalcareacrosssectionalanalysis
AT rowleydiane barrierstowomensparticipationininterconceptionalcareacrosssectionalanalysis
AT culhanejenniferf barrierstowomensparticipationininterconceptionalcareacrosssectionalanalysis