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)