↓ Skip to main content

A qualitative analysis of interprofessional healthcare team members’ perceptions of patient barriers to healthcare engagement

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
240 Mendeley
Title
A qualitative analysis of interprofessional healthcare team members’ perceptions of patient barriers to healthcare engagement
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1751-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rhea E. Powell, Amanda Doty, Robin J. Casten, Barry W. Rovner, Kristin L. Rising

Abstract

Healthcare systems increasingly engage interprofessional healthcare team members such as case managers, social workers, and community health workers to work directly with patients and improve population health. This study elicited perspectives of interprofessional healthcare team members regarding patient barriers to health and suggestions to address these barriers. This is a qualitative study employing focus groups and semi-structured interviews with 39 interprofessional healthcare team members in Philadelphia to elicit perceptions of patients' needs and experiences with the health system, and suggestions for positioning health care systems to better serve patients. Themes were identified using a content analysis approach. Three focus groups and 21 interviews were conducted with 26 hospital-based and 13 ambulatory-based participants. Three domains emerged to characterize barriers to care: social determinants, health system factors, and patient trust in the health system. Social determinants included insurance and financial shortcomings, mental health and substance abuse issues, housing and transportation-related limitations, and unpredictability associated with living in poverty. Suggestions for addressing these barriers included increased financial assistance from the health system, and building a workforce to address these determinants directly. Health care system factors included poor care coordination, inadequate communication of hospital discharge instructions, and difficulty navigating complex systems. Suggestions for addressing these barriers included enhanced communication between care sites, patient-centered scheduling, and improved patient education especially in discharge planning. Finally, factors related to patient trust of the health system emerged. Participants reported that patients are often intimidated by the health system, mistrusting of physicians, and fearful of receiving a serious diagnosis or prognosis. A suggestion for mitigating these issues was increased visibility of the health system within communities to foster trust and help providers gain a better understanding of unique community needs. This work explored interprofessional healthcare team members' perceptions of patient barriers to healthcare engagement. Participants identified barriers related to social determinants of health, complex system organization, and patient mistrust of the health system. Participants offered concrete suggestions to address these barriers, with suggestions supporting current healthcare reform efforts that aim at addressing social determinants and improving health system coordination and adding new insight into how systems might work to improve patient and community trust.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 239 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 10%
Researcher 23 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 8%
Student > Bachelor 20 8%
Other 39 16%
Unknown 70 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 15%
Social Sciences 24 10%
Psychology 19 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 4%
Other 24 10%
Unknown 82 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,272,830
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,083
of 7,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,646
of 320,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#133
of 196 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,655 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,232 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 196 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.