Patient perspectives of the impact of a rural health center closure: A cross-sectional survey

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Mallory Trombetta PharmD, Natalea Suchy PharmD, Adriane N. Irwin PharmD, MS
{"title":"Patient perspectives of the impact of a rural health center closure: A cross-sectional survey","authors":"Mallory Trombetta PharmD,&nbsp;Natalea Suchy PharmD,&nbsp;Adriane N. Irwin PharmD, MS","doi":"10.1111/jrh.70005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>To describe the impact from the closure of a rural community's only health center on chronic health conditions, access to care, and quality of care received from the patient's perspective.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This was a cross-sectional telephone survey. Adult patients established with a rural health center participated in a 19-item survey at 6 months post-closure to collect data on perceived impacts. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>There were 249 patients contacted, with 131 participants (52.6% response rate). Participants had a median age of 63 years (interquartile range, 44.5–73.0), and the majority were female (<i>n</i> = 82; 62.6%) and had been established with the health center for over 10 years (<i>n</i> = 79; 60.3%). At 6 months, the majority of participants had established care with another health center (<i>n</i> = 91; 69.5%). Most participants felt that the closure made it more difficult to access care (<i>n</i> = 106; 80.9%) but did not feel the closure reduced the quality of care they were receiving (<i>n</i> = 42; 32.1%). There was no impact perceived on the management of most health conditions, except chronic pain where worsening was the most selected option.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Patients were able to successfully transition care after closure of their local health center, and most did not perceive an impact on the quality of care received. However, participants reported reduced access to care. Future research might repeat this process, perhaps using a mixed-method approach, to intentionally capture nuances in patient behavior, experiences, and attitudes following the loss of primary care services in rural communities.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50060,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Health","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rural Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jrh.70005","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To describe the impact from the closure of a rural community's only health center on chronic health conditions, access to care, and quality of care received from the patient's perspective.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional telephone survey. Adult patients established with a rural health center participated in a 19-item survey at 6 months post-closure to collect data on perceived impacts. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics.

Findings

There were 249 patients contacted, with 131 participants (52.6% response rate). Participants had a median age of 63 years (interquartile range, 44.5–73.0), and the majority were female (n = 82; 62.6%) and had been established with the health center for over 10 years (n = 79; 60.3%). At 6 months, the majority of participants had established care with another health center (n = 91; 69.5%). Most participants felt that the closure made it more difficult to access care (n = 106; 80.9%) but did not feel the closure reduced the quality of care they were receiving (n = 42; 32.1%). There was no impact perceived on the management of most health conditions, except chronic pain where worsening was the most selected option.

Conclusions

Patients were able to successfully transition care after closure of their local health center, and most did not perceive an impact on the quality of care received. However, participants reported reduced access to care. Future research might repeat this process, perhaps using a mixed-method approach, to intentionally capture nuances in patient behavior, experiences, and attitudes following the loss of primary care services in rural communities.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Rural Health
Journal of Rural Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Rural Health, a quarterly journal published by the NRHA, offers a variety of original research relevant and important to rural health. Some examples include evaluations, case studies, and analyses related to health status and behavior, as well as to health work force, policy and access issues. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies are welcome. Highest priority is given to manuscripts that reflect scholarly quality, demonstrate methodological rigor, and emphasize practical implications. The journal also publishes articles with an international rural health perspective, commentaries, book reviews and letters.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信