↓ Skip to main content

A Survey of Patients and Providers at Free Clinics Across the United States

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Community Health, June 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
A Survey of Patients and Providers at Free Clinics Across the United States
Published in
Journal of Community Health, June 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10900-010-9286-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alida Maria Gertz, Scott Frank, Carol E. Blixen

Abstract

This study set out to demonstrate the need for free clinics on a national level, to identify difference among types of free clinics in the US, to identify which services were commonly used, and to determine where else patients would seek care if not at the free clinics. Two separate, distinct surveys were sent out, one to free clinic directors and another to free clinic patients. Chi-squared tests, two tailed t-tests, and percentages were used to describe results and significant differences. 1,114 free clinics were identified in the US. 172 free clinics and 362 patients responded. Most clinics (44%) were independent. A mean of 4,310 annual visits was reported. Most patients used primary care (86%) and pharmacy (80%) services. If the free clinic did not exist, 24% would not seek care, 21% due to cost. Most would seek care at another free clinic (47%), or the emergency room (23%). Most patients were satisfied with their care at the free clinic (97%). Patient satisfaction correlated with use of primary care (P = 0.0143). Most patients (77%) reported greater satisfaction with the care they received at the free clinic than with their prior care. Free clinics provide primary care to a substantial number of uninsured and working poor. They provide an alternative to patients who might otherwise seek primary care in the emergency room. Even with reform of the national health care system, free clinics will provide primary care to millions of uninsured. How they will adapt to provide this care is yet to be seen.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 5%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 74 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 11 14%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 16%
Social Sciences 12 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 19 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 April 2018.
All research outputs
#7,478,822
of 22,862,742 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Health
#443
of 1,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,141
of 96,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Health
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,862,742 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,214 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 96,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.