4.6 Article

Patient housing barriers to hematopoietic cell transplantation: results from a mixed-methods study of transplant center social workers

期刊

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
卷 24, 期 3, 页码 1167-1174

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-015-2872-9

关键词

Hematopoietic cell transplantation; Housing; Barriers

资金

  1. National Marrow Donor Program's System Capacity Initiative Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is performed in select centers in the United States (U.S.), and patients are often required to temporarily relocate to receive care. The purpose of this study was to identify housing barriers impacting access to HCT and potential solutions. A mixed-methods primary study of HCT social workers was conducted to learn about patient housing challenges and solutions in place that help address those barriers. Three telephone focus groups were conducted with adult and pediatric transplant social workers (n = 15). Focus group results informed the design of a national survey. The online survey was e-mailed to a primary social worker contact at 133 adult and pediatric transplant centers in the U.S. Transplant centers were classified based on the patient population cared for by the social worker. The survey response rate was 49 %. Among adult programs (n = 45), 93 % of centers had patients that had to relocate closer to the transplant center to proceed with HCT. The most common type of housing option offered was discounted hotel rates. Among pediatric programs (n = 20), 90 % of centers had patients that had to relocate closer to the transplant center to proceed with HCT. Ronald McDonald House was the most common option available. This study is the first to explore housing challenges faced by patients undergoing HCT in the U.S. from the perspective of social workers and to highlight solutions that centers use. Transplant centers will benefit from this knowledge by learning about options for addressing housing barriers for their patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据