Examining Contextual Influences Affecting health-related Quality of life Among under-resourced Appalachian Patients Attending pop-up Medical Clinics

Roberson, Patricia N. E.; Tasman, Jordan; Lenger, Katherine A.; Cortez, Gina

doi:10.1007/s10900-022-01140-1

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are several reports of studies performed in pop‐up models 12,23–25 . A pop‐up health check stationed in shopping centres in England revealed 45 (22.6%) and 20 (13.1%) hypertensive (BP ≥140/90 mmHg) participants from testing 199 and 152 adults in the unhealthy and healthy locations, respectively (relative risk 1.72; 95% confidence interval: 1.06–2.78), and indicated unmet needs for public testing of BP to improve health inequalities 12 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rural residents also face other barriers that include cost, language, time (health is not a priority) and cultural beliefs 26–28 . One of the most important advantages of the pop‐up model is its excellent availability 25 . In addition to this advantage, ‘Heart Screen’ has the benefit of not requiring the GP to request a blood sample, reducing the time for health check‐ups conducted by GPs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are several reports of studies performed in pop-up models. 12,[23][24][25] A pop-up health check stationed in shopping centres in England revealed 45 (22.6%) and 20 (13.1%) hypertensive (BP ≥140/90 mmHg) participants from testing 199 and 152 adults in the unhealthy and healthy locations, respectively (relative risk 1.72; 95% confidence interval: 1.06-2.78), and indicated unmet needs for public testing of BP to improve health inequalities. 12 The project 'Diabetes Management Along the Mallee Track' more than doubled the number of diabetes patients accessing diabetes services in the Australian Rural, but the study did not provide details on where and how screening was done.…”

Section: What This Paper Addsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[26][27][28] One of the most important advantages of the pop-up model is its excellent availability. 25 In addition to this advantage, 'Heart Screen' has the benefit of not requiring the GP to request a blood sample, reducing the time for health check-ups conducted by GPs. This study included resident pharmacists for 'Heart Screen', based on a previous report that community pharmacists could provide screening for hypertension and diabetes, playing an important role in reducing CVRF, improving public health and reducing the burden on the healthcare system.…”

Section: What This Paper Addsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Pop‐up screening nested within routine community activities unmasks an addressed cardiovascular risk: A pilot study (Gippsland Healthy Heart Study)

Fujino,

Butters,

Boyes

et al. 2023

Australian J Rural Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefits of a pop‐up health screening for cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) in the Gippsland region, and to assess the acceptability of the screening and to determine whether such a process results in attendance at a general practitioner (GP).ParticipantsOverall, 454 participants over the age of 18 who were residents of the Gippsland region were enrolled.MethodsThis is a community‐based, observational, prospective cohort study using pop‐up screening sites at six retail locations or workplaces, where participants' blood pressure, body weight and lipid profile were measured. The primary outcome was to assess the proportion of participants with at least one unaddressed CVRF (hypertension [blood pressure >140/90 mmHg], overweight and obesity [body mass index >25 kg/m2] or hypercholesterolaemia [low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol >2.5 mmol/L]). Email surveys were performed after 4 weeks of follow‐up.ResultsOverall, 85.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.1%–88.8%) of participants had at least one unaddressed CVRF. Among the 54 participants who responded to the email survey, 50 participants (92.6% [95% CI, 81.3%–97.6%]) found the screening approach acceptable, and 31 (57.4% [95% CI, 43.3%–70.5%]) considered a discussion with the GP.ConclusionsThis study supported the feasibility and effectiveness of pop‐up screening to detect CVRF in rural communities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%