Addressing Access Barriers in Rural America: A Mixed-Methods Study of Wisconsin's Family Resource Centers

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Joshua P. Mersky, Colleen E. Janczewski, Jack Pollard, Allison Amphlett, ChienTi Plummer Lee, Anna K. Walther, Xiyao Liu
{"title":"Addressing Access Barriers in Rural America: A Mixed-Methods Study of Wisconsin's Family Resource Centers","authors":"Joshua P. Mersky,&nbsp;Colleen E. Janczewski,&nbsp;Jack Pollard,&nbsp;Allison Amphlett,&nbsp;ChienTi Plummer Lee,&nbsp;Anna K. Walther,&nbsp;Xiyao Liu","doi":"10.1111/jrh.70201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Family Resource Centers (FRCs) are place-based programs with great potential to address rural access barriers and improve health outcomes, yet empirical evidence on these programs is lacking. Using multiple data sources from a longitudinal investigation in Wisconsin, this mixed-methods study analyzed whether and how FRCs address rural access barriers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A convergent parallel mixed-methods design was used to gather, analyze, and interpret quantitative and qualitative data. Data from the Child Opportunity Index were used to compare opportunities in rural and nonrural areas statewide and among 646 rural and nonrural families who received support from one of 18 FRCs. Qualitative data gathered from interviews with nine FRC participants and 11 FRC staff were synthesized to describe rural access barriers and facilitators. To compare the types of support received by rural and nonrural families, baseline survey data collected from 646 FRC participants were analyzed using chi-square tests. To test whether FRC participation increased referral connections, follow-up survey data collected from 319 FRC recipients and a matched sample of 458 adults were analyzed via logistic regression.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>Disparities between rural and nonrural ZIP codes were evident statewide and in FRC catchment areas. Qualitative analyses identified rural resource gaps, transportation barriers, and FRC facilitators of family engagement. Baseline survey responses indicated that rural families were more likely to receive resource referrals; nonrural families were more likely to participate in parenting programming and parent−child activities. Longitudinal analyses linked FRC participation to higher rates of resource connections.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>FRCs address social determinants that disproportionately affect rural communities. Implications for public health intervention and policy are discussed.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50060,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Health","volume":"42 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-08","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.70201","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

Family Resource Centers (FRCs) are place-based programs with great potential to address rural access barriers and improve health outcomes, yet empirical evidence on these programs is lacking. Using multiple data sources from a longitudinal investigation in Wisconsin, this mixed-methods study analyzed whether and how FRCs address rural access barriers.

Methods

A convergent parallel mixed-methods design was used to gather, analyze, and interpret quantitative and qualitative data. Data from the Child Opportunity Index were used to compare opportunities in rural and nonrural areas statewide and among 646 rural and nonrural families who received support from one of 18 FRCs. Qualitative data gathered from interviews with nine FRC participants and 11 FRC staff were synthesized to describe rural access barriers and facilitators. To compare the types of support received by rural and nonrural families, baseline survey data collected from 646 FRC participants were analyzed using chi-square tests. To test whether FRC participation increased referral connections, follow-up survey data collected from 319 FRC recipients and a matched sample of 458 adults were analyzed via logistic regression.

Findings

Disparities between rural and nonrural ZIP codes were evident statewide and in FRC catchment areas. Qualitative analyses identified rural resource gaps, transportation barriers, and FRC facilitators of family engagement. Baseline survey responses indicated that rural families were more likely to receive resource referrals; nonrural families were more likely to participate in parenting programming and parent−child activities. Longitudinal analyses linked FRC participation to higher rates of resource connections.

Conclusions

FRCs address social determinants that disproportionately affect rural communities. Implications for public health intervention and policy are discussed.

解决美国农村的准入障碍:威斯康星州家庭资源中心的混合方法研究。
目的:家庭资源中心(FRCs)是基于地方的项目,在解决农村准入障碍和改善健康结果方面具有巨大潜力,但缺乏关于这些项目的经验证据。使用来自威斯康星州纵向调查的多个数据源,这项混合方法研究分析了FRCs是否以及如何解决农村接入障碍。方法:采用收敛并行混合方法设计,收集、分析和解释定量和定性数据。来自儿童机会指数的数据被用来比较全州农村和非农村地区以及646个农村和非农村家庭的机会,这些家庭得到了18个财务汇报中心之一的支持。从对9名财务汇报委员会参与者和11名财务汇报委员会工作人员的访谈中收集的定性数据进行了综合,以描述农村获取障碍和促进因素。为了比较农村和非农村家庭获得的支持类型,从646名FRC参与者收集的基线调查数据使用卡方检验进行分析。为了检验FRC参与是否增加了转诊联系,通过逻辑回归分析了从319名FRC接受者和458名成年人中收集的随访调查数据。发现:农村和非农村邮政编码之间的差异在全州和FRC集水区都很明显。定性分析确定了农村资源差距、运输障碍和家庭参与财务汇报的促进因素。基线调查答复表明,农村家庭更有可能获得资源转诊;非农村家庭更有可能参与育儿规划和亲子活动。纵向分析将财务汇报参与与更高的资源接入率联系起来。结论:FRCs解决了不成比例地影响农村社区的社会决定因素。讨论了对公共卫生干预和政策的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书