Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2016
Differences in Family Planning Services by Rural-urban Geography: Survey of Title X-Supported Clinics In Great Plains and Midwestern States.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Martins Summer L, Starr Katherine A, Hellerstedt Wendy L, Gilliam Melissa L
Аннотация
CONTEXT: Understanding the nature of rural-urban variation in U.S. family planning services would help address disparities in unmet contraceptive need.
METHODS: In 2012, some 558 Title X-supported clinics in 16 Great Plains and Midwestern states were surveyed. Rural-urban commuting area (RUCA) codes were used to categorize clinic locations as urban, large rural city, small rural town or isolated small rural town. Bivariate analyses examined key domains of service provision by RUCA category and clinic type.
RESULTS: The proportion of clinics offering walk-in appointments was lower in isolated small rural towns (47%) than in the other RUCA categories (67-73%). Results were similar for sites that do not specialize in family planning or reproductive health, but no variation was seen among specialty clinics. Overall, availability of evening or weekend appointments varied in a linear fashion, falling from 73% in urban areas to 29% in isolated small rural towns. On-site provision of most hormonal methods was most common in urban areas and least common in isolated small rural towns, while provision of nonhormonal methods was similar across RUCA categories. Sixty percent of clinics provided IUDs or implants. For clinics that did not, the only barriers that varied geographically were low IUD demand and lack of trained IUD providers; these barriers were most common in isolated rural towns (42% and 70%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: While important characteristics, such as clinics' specialization (or lack thereof), are linked to the provision of family planning services, geographic disparities exist.
METHODS: In 2012, some 558 Title X-supported clinics in 16 Great Plains and Midwestern states were surveyed. Rural-urban commuting area (RUCA) codes were used to categorize clinic locations as urban, large rural city, small rural town or isolated small rural town. Bivariate analyses examined key domains of service provision by RUCA category and clinic type.
RESULTS: The proportion of clinics offering walk-in appointments was lower in isolated small rural towns (47%) than in the other RUCA categories (67-73%). Results were similar for sites that do not specialize in family planning or reproductive health, but no variation was seen among specialty clinics. Overall, availability of evening or weekend appointments varied in a linear fashion, falling from 73% in urban areas to 29% in isolated small rural towns. On-site provision of most hormonal methods was most common in urban areas and least common in isolated small rural towns, while provision of nonhormonal methods was similar across RUCA categories. Sixty percent of clinics provided IUDs or implants. For clinics that did not, the only barriers that varied geographically were low IUD demand and lack of trained IUD providers; these barriers were most common in isolated rural towns (42% and 70%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: While important characteristics, such as clinics' specialization (or lack thereof), are linked to the provision of family planning services, geographic disparities exist.