4.4 Article

Accessible health care for Roma: a gypsy's tale a qualitative in-depth study of access to health care for Roma in Ghent

期刊

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12939-016-0327-7

关键词

Roma; Health care; Access; Trust

资金

  1. City of Ghent (Department of Integration)
  2. City of Ghent (Department of Health)
  3. European Union of Primary Care (EFPC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In general, vulnerable populations experience more problems in accessing health care. This also applies to the Roma-population. In the City of Ghent, Belgium, a relativly large group of Roma resides more or less permanently. The aim of this study is to explore the barriers this population encounters in their search for care. Methods: In this qualitative study using in-depth interviews the barriers to health care for the Roma in Ghent are explored. We interviewed 12 Roma and 13 professionals (volunteers, health care providers,.) who had regular contact with the Roma-population in Ghent. For both groups purposive sampling was used to achieve maximal variation regarding gender, age, nationality and legal status. Results: The Roma-population in Ghent encounters various barriers in their search for care. Financial constraints, not being able to reach health care and having problems to get through the complexity of the system are some of the most critical problems. Another important finding is the crucial role of trust between patient and care provider in the care-giving process. Conclusion: Roma share several barriers with other minority groups, such as: financial constraints, mobility issues and not knowing the language. However, more distinctive for this group is the lack of trust in care providers and health care in general. As a result, restraint and lack of communication form serious barriers for both patient and provider in their interaction. In order to ensure equitable access for Roma, more emphasis should be on establishing a relationship of mutual respect and understanding.

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

4.4
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