BACKGROUND: Women veterans are generally less healthy than their nonveteran female counterparts or male veterans. Accumulating evidence suggests there may be barriers to women veterans' access to and use of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) care. OBJECTIVE: To document perceived and/or actual barriers to care in a nationally representative sample of women veterans and examine associations with VHA use. DESIGN: Cross-sectional telephone survey. PARTICIPANTS: Women who are current and former users of VHA from VA's National Registry of Women Veterans. MEASUREMENTS: Assessments of perceptions of VHA care, background characteristics, and health service use. RESULTS: Perceptions of VHA care were most positive regarding facility/physical environment characteristics and physician skill and sensitivity and least positive regarding the availability of needed services and logistics of receiving VHA care (M=0.05 and M=-0.10; M=-0.23 and M=-0.25, respectively). The most salient barrier to the use of VHA care was problems related to ease of use. Moreover, each of the barriers constructs contributed unique variance in VHA health care use above and beyond background characteristics known to differentiate current users from former VHA users (Odds ratio [OR]=4.03 for availability of services; OR=2.63 for physician sensitivity and skill: OR=2.70 for logistics of care; OR=2.30 for facility/physical environment). Few differences in barriers to care and their association with VHA health care use emerged for women with and without service-connected disabilities. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight several domains in which VHA decisionmakers can intervene to enhance the care available to women veterans and point to a number of areas for further investigation.
BACKGROUND:Women veterans are generally less healthy than their nonveteran female counterparts or male veterans. Accumulating evidence suggests there may be barriers to women veterans' access to and use of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) care. OBJECTIVE: To document perceived and/or actual barriers to care in a nationally representative sample of women veterans and examine associations with VHA use. DESIGN: Cross-sectional telephone survey. PARTICIPANTS: Women who are current and former users of VHA from VA's National Registry of Women Veterans. MEASUREMENTS: Assessments of perceptions of VHA care, background characteristics, and health service use. RESULTS: Perceptions of VHA care were most positive regarding facility/physical environment characteristics and physician skill and sensitivity and least positive regarding the availability of needed services and logistics of receiving VHA care (M=0.05 and M=-0.10; M=-0.23 and M=-0.25, respectively). The most salient barrier to the use of VHA care was problems related to ease of use. Moreover, each of the barriers constructs contributed unique variance in VHA health care use above and beyond background characteristics known to differentiate current users from former VHA users (Odds ratio [OR]=4.03 for availability of services; OR=2.63 for physician sensitivity and skill: OR=2.70 for logistics of care; OR=2.30 for facility/physical environment). Few differences in barriers to care and their association with VHA health care use emerged for women with and without service-connected disabilities. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight several domains in which VHA decisionmakers can intervene to enhance the care available to women veterans and point to a number of areas for further investigation.
Authors: JoAnn Damron-Rodriguez; Whitney White-Kazemipour; Donna Washington; Valentine M Villa; Shawkat Dhanani; Nancy D Harada Journal: Mil Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Karen H Seal; Greg Cohen; Daniel Bertenthal; Beth E Cohen; Shira Maguen; Aaron Daley Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Catherine Chanfreau-Coffinier; Donna L Washington; Emmeline Chuang; Julian Brunner; Jill E Darling; Ismelda Canelo; Elizabeth M Yano Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2019-04-15 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Emily M Johnson; Kimberly A Barrie; Kyle Possemato; Michael Wade; April Eaker; Paige C Ouimette Journal: Mil Med Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Megan M Kelly; Dawne S Vogt; Emily M Scheiderer; Paige Ouimette; Jennifer Daley; Jessica Wolfe Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-04-15 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Virginia Kotzias; Charles C Engel; Rajeev Ramchand; Lynsay Ayer; Zachary Predmore; Patricia Ebener; Gretchen L Haas; Janet E Kemp; Elizabeth Karras Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 1.505
Authors: Lisa H Glassman; Nicholas P Otis; Betty Michalewicz-Kragh; Kristen H Walter Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Mona Duggal; Joseph L Goulet; Julie Womack; Kirsha Gordon; Kristin Mattocks; Sally G Haskell; Amy C Justice; Cynthia A Brandt Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-06-22 Impact factor: 2.655