Factors affecting access to primary health care services for persons with disabilities in rural areas: a “best-fit” framework synthesis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Access to primary health care (PHC) is a fundamental human right and central in the performance of health care systems, however persons with disabilities (PWDs) generally experience greater barriers in accessing PHC than the general population. These problems are further exacerbated for those with disabilities in rural areas. Understanding PHC access for PWDs is particularly important as such knowledge can inform policies, clinical practice and future research in rural settings. METHODS: We conducted a synthesis of published literature to explore the factors affecting access to PHC for PWDs in rural areas globally. Using an adapted keyword search string we searched five databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, Global Health, Medline and Web of Science), key journals and the reference lists of included articles. We imported the articles into NVivo and conducted deductive (framework) analysis by charting the data into a rural PHC access framework. We subsequently conducted inductive (thematic) analysis. RESULTS: = 26) of the studies were conducted in low-and middle-income countries. We found that PWDs were unable to access PHC due to obstacles including the interplay of four major factors; availability, acceptability, geography and affordability. In particular, limited availability of health care facilities and services and perceived low quality of care meant that those in need of health care services frequently had to travel for care. The barrier of geographic distance was worsened by transportation problems. We also observed that where health services were available most people could not afford the cost. CONCLUSION: Our synthesis noted that modifying the access framework to incorporate relationships among the barriers might help better conceptualize PHC access challenges and opportunities in rural settings. We also made recommendations for policy development, practice consideration and future research that could lead to more equitable access to health care. Importantly, there is the need for health policies that aim address rural health problems to consider all the dimensions and their interactions. In terms of practice, the review also highlights the need to provide in-service training to health care providers on how to enhance their communication skills with PWDs. Future research should focus on exploring access in geographical contexts with different health care systems, the perspectives of health care providers and how PWDs respond to access problems in rural settings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,026 | 0,061 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,020 | 0,017 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».