Dataset Information

"Health Is on the Back Burner:" Multilevel Barriers and Facilitators to Primary Care Among People Who Inject Drugs.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The estimated 2.2 million people who inject drugs (PWID) in the USA experience significant gaps in preventive healthcare and a high burden of infectious, psychiatric, and other chronic diseases. Many PWID rely on emergency medical services, which are costly and not designed to deliver preventive services, manage chronic conditions, or address social needs.

Objective

The objective of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators to primary care utilization from the perspectives of PWID in New England, a region highly affected by the overdose crisis.

Design

Participants completed semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring substance use and healthcare utilization patterns.

Participants

We recruited 78 PWID through community-based organizations (e.g., syringe service programs) in 16 urban and non-urban communities throughout Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Approach

Thematic analysis identified barriers and facilitators to primary care utilization at the individual, interpersonal, and systemic levels.

Key results

Among 78 PWID, 48 described recent primary care experiences; 33 had positive experiences and 15 described negative experiences involving discrimination or mistrust. Individual-level barriers to primary care utilization included perceived lack of need and competing priorities (e.g., avoiding opioid withdrawal, securing shelter beds). Interpersonal-level barriers included stigma and perceived low quality of care for PWID. Systemic-level barriers included difficulty navigating healthcare systems, inadequate transportation, long wait times, and frequent provider turnover. Participants with positive primary care experiences explained how appointment reminders, flexible hours, addiction medicine-trained providers, case management services, and transportation support facilitated primary care utilization and satisfaction.

Conclusions

Findings regarding the multilevel barriers and facilitators to accessing primary care among PWID identify potential targets for programmatic interventions to improve primary care utilization in this population. Based on these findings, we make recommendations for improving the engagement of PWID in primary care as a means to advance individual and public health outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Motavalli D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7858998 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Little is known regarding barriers to hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment among people who inject drugs (PWID) in low-resource settings, particularly in the era of direct-acting antiviral therapies. METHODS:Between March, 2015-August, 2016, a cross-sectional survey was administered to community-based PWID in Chennai, India to examine the HCV care continuum and associated barriers. Adjusted prevalence ratios (APR) were estimated by multivariable Poisson regression with robust variance. RESULTS:All participants were male (n?=?541); 152 participants had HCV mono-infection and 61 participants had HIV/HCV co-infection. Only one HCV mono-infected and one HIV/HCV co-infected participant was linked to HCV care. Overall, there was moderate knowledge of HCV disease but poor knowledge of HCV treatment. Higher total knowledge scores were negatively associated with HIV/HCV co-infection (vs. HCV mono-infection), though this was not statistically significant in adjusted analysis (APR?=?0.71 [95%CI?=?0.47-1.06]). Participants ?45 years (APR?=?0.73 [95%CI?=?0.58-0.92]) and participants with HIV/HCV co-infection (APR?=?0.64 [95%CI?=?0.47-0.87]) were less willing to take weekly interferon injections for 12 weeks. Willingness to undergo HCV treatment improved with decreasing duration of therapy, higher perceived efficacy, and use of pills vs. interferon, though willingness to use interferon improved with decreasing duration of therapy. Most participants preferred daily visits to a clinic for HCV treatment versus receiving a month's supply. Participants ?45 years (vs. <45?years; APR?=?0.70 [95%CI?=?0.56-0.88]) and participants with HIV/HCV co-infection (APR?=?0.75 [95%CI?=?0.57-0.98]) were less likely to intend on seeking HCV care. Common reasons for not having already seen a provider for HCV treatment differed by HIV status, and included low perceived need for treatment (HCV-mono-infected), competing money/health priorities and costs/fears about treatment (HIV/HCV-co-infected). CONCLUSION:Residual gaps in HCV knowledge and continuing negative perceptions related to interferon-based therapy highlight the need to scale-up educational initiatives. Readiness for HCV treatment was particularly low among HIV/HCV co-infected and older PWID, emphasizing the importance of tailored treatment strategies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Managing polypharmacy is a challenge for healthcare systems globally. It is also a health inequality concern as it can expose some of the most vulnerable in society to unnecessary medications and adverse drug-related events. Care for most patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy occurs in primary care. Safe deprescribing interventions can reduce exposure to inappropriate polypharmacy. However, these are not fully accepted or routinely implemented. AIM:To identify barriers and facilitators to safe deprescribing interventions for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING:A systematic review of studies published from 2000, examining safe deprescribing interventions for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. METHOD:A search of electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), Cochrane, and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) from inception to 26 Feb 2019, using an agreed search strategy. This was supplemented by handsearching of relevant journals, and screening of reference lists and citations of included studies. RESULTS:In total, 40 studies from 14 countries were identified. Cultural and organisational barriers included: a culture of diagnosing and prescribing; evidence-based guidance focused on single diseases; a lack of evidence-based guidance for the care of older people with multimorbidities; and a lack of shared communication, decision-making systems, tools, and resources. Interpersonal and individual-level barriers included: professional etiquette; fragmented care; prescribers' and patients' uncertainties; and gaps in tailored support. Facilitators included: prudent prescribing; greater availability and acceptability of non-pharmacological alternatives; resources; improved communication, collaboration, knowledge, and understanding; patient-centred care; and shared decision-making. CONCLUSION:A whole systems, patient-centred approach to safe deprescribing interventions is required, involving key decision-makers, healthcare professionals, patients, and carers.

Project description:BackgroundDespite recent incentives through Medicare (Australia's universal health insurance scheme) to increase retinal screening rates in primary care, comprehensive diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening has not been reached in Australia. The current study aimed to identify key factors affecting the delivery of diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening in Australian general practices.MethodsA descriptive qualitative study involving in-depth interviews was carried out from November 2019 to March 2020. Using purposive snowballing sampling, 15 general practitioners (GPs) were recruited from urban and rural general practices in New South Wales and Western Australia. A semi-structured interview guide was used to collect data from participants. All interviews were conducted over the phone by one facilitator, and each interview lasted up to 45 min. The Socio-Ecological Model was used to inform the content of the interview topic guides and subsequent data analysis. Recorded data were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was conducted to identify and classify recurrent themes.ResultsOf 15 GPs interviewed, 13 were male doctors, and the mean age was 54.7 ± 15.5 years. Seven participants were practising in urban areas, while eight were practising in regional or remote areas. All participants had access to a direct ophthalmoscope, but none owned retinal cameras. None of the participants reported performing DR screening. Only three participants were aware of the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) items 12,325 and 12,326 that allow GPs to bill for retinal screening. Seven themes, a combination of facilitators and barriers, emerged from interviews with the GPs. Despite the strong belief in their role in managing chronic diseases, barriers such as costs of retinal cameras, time constraints, lack of skills to make DR diagnosis, and unawareness of Medicare incentives for non-mydriatic retinal photography made it difficult to conduct DR screening in general practice. However, several enabling strategies to deliver DR screening within primary care include increasing GPs' access to continuing professional development, subsidising the cost of retinal cameras, and the need for a champion ace to take the responsibility of retinal photography.ConclusionThis study identified essential areas at the system level that require addressing to promote the broader implementation of DR screening, in particular, a nationwide awareness campaign to maximise the use of MBS items, improve GPs' competency, and subsidise costs of the retinal cameras for small and rural general practices.