Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Public Health Rep ; 134(4): 371-378, 2019.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31112071

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Studies of sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics have been limited by the lack of a national list for representative sampling. We sought to establish the number, type, and distribution of STD clinics and describe selected community characteristics associated with them. METHODS: We conducted a 2-phased, multilevel, online search from September 2014 through March 2015 and from May through October 2017 to identify STD clinics in all 50 US states and the District of Columbia. We obtained data on clinic name, address, contact information, and 340B funding status (which requires manufacturers to provide outpatient drugs at reduced prices). We classified clinics by type. We also obtained secondary county-level data to compare rates of chlamydia and HIV, teen births, uninsurance and unemployment, and high school graduation; ratios of primary care physician to population; health care costs; median household income; and percentage of population living in rural areas vs nonrural areas. We used t tests to examine mean differences in characteristics between counties with and without STD clinics. RESULTS: We found 4079 STD clinics and classified them into 10 types; 2530 (62.0%) clinics were affiliated with a local health department. Of 3129 counties, 1098 (35.1%) did not have an STD clinic. Twelve states had an STD clinic in every county, and 34 states had ≥1 clinic per 100 000 population. Most STD clinics were located in areas of high chlamydia morbidity and where other surrogate needs were greatest; rural areas were underserved by STD clinics. CONCLUSIONS: This list may aid in more comprehensive national studies of clinic services, STD clinic adaptation to external policy changes (eg, in public financing or patient access policy), and long-term clinic survival, with special attention to clinic coverage in rural areas.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care Facilities/organization & administration , Ambulatory Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , Geography , Preventive Health Services/organization & administration , Sexually Transmitted Diseases/epidemiology , Sexually Transmitted Diseases/therapy , Adult , District of Columbia , Female , Humans , Male , Preventive Health Services/statistics & numerical data , United States
2.
Cancer Prev Res (Phila) ; 8(7): 636-41, 2015 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25943743

ABSTRACT

Reducing cervical cancer disparities in the United States requires intentional focus on structural barriers such as systems and policy that impact access to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, cervical cancer screening, and treatment. Such changes are difficult and often politicized. State comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans are vehicles that, if designed well, can help build collective focus on structural changes. Study objectives were to identify the prioritization of cervical cancer in state CCC plans, the conceptualization of HPV within these plans, and the focus of plans on structural changes to reduce cervical cancer disparities. Data were gathered by systematic content analysis of CCC plans from 50 states and the District of Columbia from February-June 2014 for evidence of cervical cancer prioritization, conceptualization of HPV, and focus on structural barriers to cervical cancer vaccination, screening or treatment. Findings indicate that prioritization of cervical cancer within state CCC plans may not be a strong indicator of state efforts to reduce screening and treatment disparities. While a majority of plans reflected scientific evidence that HPV causes cervical and other cancers, they did not focus on structural elements impacting access to evidence-based interventions. Opportunities exist to improve state CCC plans by increasing their focus on structural interventions that impact cervical cancer prevention, detection, and treatment, particularly for the 41% of plans ending in 2015 and the 31% ending between 2016 and 2020. Future studies should focus on the use of policy tools in state CCC plans and their application to cervical cancer prevention and treatment.


Subject(s)
Public Health/methods , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Papillomavirus Infections/complications , Papillomavirus Infections/prevention & control , United States , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/virology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...