Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of studies of barriers to accessing resources

From: Strategies for improving the lives of US women aged 40 and above living with HIV/AIDS: an evidence map

Author (year) Mean age Study design (data collection method) Barriers to... Person-level modifiers examined System-level (including caregiver-related) modifiers examined
Sociodemographic Cultural Psychosocial Exp. with incarceration Medical history Mental history
Studies of barriers to accessing or remaining in care
Burke-Miller (2006), Multiplea [69] NS Observational (interviews and examinations) Engaging in care Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes None
Blackstock (2015), Multipleb [53] 42 Observational (interviews) Engaging in care Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Transportation
Williams (2013), Multiplec [55] 41 Observational (survey) Engaging in care Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Intensity of care services received in jail
Tello (2010), Maryland [41] 46 Observational (survey + focus groups) Engaging in care; cancer screening Yes No Yes No Yes No Transportation, relationship with provider
Toth (2013), North Carolina [70] 46 Observational (interviews) Engaging in care Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Transportation, financial, other logistical
Sevelius (2014), California [54] NS Observational (interviews + focus groups) Engaging in care Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Provider/staff cultural competence, integrated transgender and /HIV care, confidentiality
Stevens (2009), Wisconsin [71] 41 Observational (interviews) Engaging in care No No No No No No Insurance, transportation, financial, provider turnover
Fletcher (2014), Texas [40] 51 Observational (focus groups) Cervical cancer screening No No Yes No Yes No Transportation, wait times, scheduling
Quinlivan (2013), North Carolina [72] 45 Observational (interviews) Engaging in care Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Navigating labs, transportation and parking, relationship with providers
Vyava-harkar (2008), South Carolina [73] 44 Observational (focus groups) Engaging in care Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Relationship with provider
Pivnick (2010), New York [52] 48 Observational (interviews + focus groups) Engaging in care Yes Yes Yes No Yes No None
McDoom (2015), Massachusetts [74] 57 Observational (interviews) Engaging in care No No Yes No No No Relationship with provider
Kempf (2010), Alabama [75] 46 Observational (focus groups) Retention in care Yes No Yes No Yes No Transportation, clinic hours, flexible scheduling
Kupprat 2009, New York [38] 47 Observational (chart review) Engaging in care Yes No No No Yes Yes Unclear
Sarnquist 2011, California [76] NS Observational (interviews) Engaging in care Yes No No No Yes No Transportation, navigating healthcare system
Studies of barriers to other goals
Blackstock (2015), New York [42] 50 Observational (interviews) Using the Web Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Place of medical care (clinic, private PCP vs healthcare for homeless, methadone clinic, visiting PCP)
Blackstock (2015), New York [43] 49 Observational (interviews) Accessing Web-based social support Yes Yes Yes No Yes No None
Cocohoba (2013), California [35] NS Observational (interviews) Adhering to ART No No Yes No Yes No Privacy, pharmacy location, presence of drug-seeking or intoxicated pharmacy patrons, relationship with provider
  1. ART antiretroviral therapy, NS not stated
  2. aNYC (NY), Washington (DC), Chicago (IL), LA and San Francisco (CA)
  3. bBrooklyn (NY), Chicago (IL), LA (CA), Miami (FL), San Antonio (TX), Springfield (MA), Alabama (AL), (NC), Longview (TX)
  4. cAtlanta (GA), Chester (PA), Chicago (IL), Cleveland (OH), Columbia (SC), New Haven (CT), New York city (NY), Philadelphia (PA), Providence (RI), Springfield (MA)