4.1 Article

Organizational Leaders Perceptions of Barriers to Accessing Behavioral Health Services in a Low-Resource Community

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11414-022-09801-8

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Little is known about effective implementation of behavioral health programs in low-resource communities. This study surveyed community-serving behavioral health organization leaders in Flint, MI, to understand their organizations and the barriers they face in providing and accessing services. The most common barriers reported were funding for providing services and reliable transportation for accessing services. Comparisons with other settings and populations provide insight into the misalignment between providers' perceptions and the needs of the population, suggesting the need for systemic improvements.
Little is known about how to effectively implement behavioral health programs in low-resource communities. Leaders from 20 community-serving behavioral health organizations in Flint, MI, were asked about their organizations and the barriers that they, and the populations they serve, face in providing and accessing behavioral health services. Barriers are reported using a mixed-methods analysis, reporting the number and percentage of organizations that experienced the barrier along with example quotations from the organization leaders. The most frequently reported barrier to providing services was finding adequate funding (50%) while the most frequently reported barrier for accessing services was finding adequate and reliable transportation (30%). Comparisons of these findings with barriers reported by providers in different settings and those seeking services are discussed. These comparisons may provide an important next step in identifying areas where providers perceptions and the needs of the population are misaligned and for systemic improvements more broadly.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available