OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review to address the following key questions: (1) what interventions have been successful in improving access for veterans with reduced health care access? (2) Have interventions that have improved health care access led to improvements in process and clinical outcomes? DATA SOURCES: OVID MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: English language articles published in peer-reviewed journals from 1990 to June 2010. All interventions designed to improve access to health care for US veterans that reported the impact of the intervention on perceived (e.g., satisfaction with access) or objective (e.g., travel time, wait time) access were included. APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Investigators abstracted data on study design, study quality, intervention, and impact of the intervention on access, process outcomes, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Nineteen articles (16 unique studies) met the inclusion criteria. While there were a small number of studies in support of any one intervention, all showed a positive impact on either perceived or objective measures of access. Implementation of Community Based Outpatient Clinics (n = 5 articles), use of Telemedicine (n = 5 articles), and Primary Care Mental Health Integration (n = 6 articles) improved access. All 16 unique studies reported process outcomes, most often satisfaction with care and utilization. Four studies reported clinical outcomes; three found no differences. LIMITATIONS: Included studies were largely of poor to fair methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Interventions can improve access to health care for veterans. Increased access was consistently linked to increased primary care utilization. There was a lack of data regarding the link between access and clinical outcomes; however, the limited data suggest that increased access may not improve clinical outcomes. Future research should focus on the quality and appropriateness of care and clinical outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review to address the following key questions: (1) what interventions have been successful in improving access for veterans with reduced health care access? (2) Have interventions that have improved health care access led to improvements in process and clinical outcomes? DATA SOURCES: OVID MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: English language articles published in peer-reviewed journals from 1990 to June 2010. All interventions designed to improve access to health care for US veterans that reported the impact of the intervention on perceived (e.g., satisfaction with access) or objective (e.g., travel time, wait time) access were included. APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Investigators abstracted data on study design, study quality, intervention, and impact of the intervention on access, process outcomes, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Nineteen articles (16 unique studies) met the inclusion criteria. While there were a small number of studies in support of any one intervention, all showed a positive impact on either perceived or objective measures of access. Implementation of Community Based Outpatient Clinics (n = 5 articles), use of Telemedicine (n = 5 articles), and Primary Care Mental Health Integration (n = 6 articles) improved access. All 16 unique studies reported process outcomes, most often satisfaction with care and utilization. Four studies reported clinical outcomes; three found no differences. LIMITATIONS: Included studies were largely of poor to fair methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Interventions can improve access to health care for veterans. Increased access was consistently linked to increased primary care utilization. There was a lack of data regarding the link between access and clinical outcomes; however, the limited data suggest that increased access may not improve clinical outcomes. Future research should focus on the quality and appropriateness of care and clinical outcomes.
Authors: John C Fortney; Diane E Steffick; James F Burgess; Matt L Maciejewski; Laura A Petersen Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: John D Whited; Russell P Hall; Marjorie E Foy; Laurie E Marbrey; Steven C Grambow; Tara K Dudley; Santanu K Datta; David L Simel; Eugene Z Oddone Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2004 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Susan C Hedrick; Edmund F Chaney; Bradford Felker; Chuan-Fen Liu; Nicole Hasenberg; Patrick Heagerty; Jan Buchanan; Rocco Bagala; Diane Greenberg; Grady Paden; Stephan D Fihn; Wayne Katon Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Paul E Ruskin; Michele Silver-Aylaian; Mitchel A Kling; Susan A Reed; Douglas D Bradham; J Richard Hebel; David Barrett; Frederick Knowles; Peter Hauser Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: David W Oslin; Steven Sayers; Jennifer Ross; Vince Kane; Thomas Ten Have; Joseph Conigliaro; Jack Cornelius Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2003 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Michelle J Bovin; Christopher J Miller; Christopher J Koenig; Jessica M Lipschitz; Kara A Zamora; Patricia B Wright; Jeffrey M Pyne; James F Burgess Journal: Psychol Serv Date: 2018-05-21
Authors: Claire O'Hanlon; Christina Huang; Elizabeth Sloss; Rebecca Anhang Price; Peter Hussey; Carrie Farmer; Courtney Gidengil Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ada Ng; Rachel Kornfield; Stephen M Schueller; Alyson K Zalta; Michael Brennan; Madhu Reddy Journal: Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact Date: 2019-11
Authors: Jeffrey M Pyne; P Adam Kelly; Ellen P Fischer; Christopher J Miller; Samantha L Connolly; Patricia Wright; Kara Zamora; Christopher J Koenig; Karen H Seal; John C Fortney Journal: Psychol Serv Date: 2020-10-08
Authors: Leah M Haverhals; George Sayre; Christian D Helfrich; Catherine Battaglia; David Aron; Lauren D Stevenson; Susan Kirsh; Michael Ho; Julie Lowery Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 2.229