Literature DB >> 24233106

Binational utilization and barriers to care among Mexican American border residents with diabetes.

Hendrik D de Heer1, Jennifer Salinas, Lisa M Lapeyrouse, Josiah Heyman, Osvaldo F Morera, Hector G Balcazar.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether U.S.-Mexico border residents with diabetes 1) experience greater barriers to medical care in the United States of America versus Mexico and 2) are more likely to seek care and medication in Mexico compared to border residents without diabetes.
METHODS: A stratified two-stage randomized cross-sectional health survey was conducted in 2009 - 2010 among 1 002 Mexican American households.
RESULTS: Diabetes rates were high (15.4%). Of those that had diabetes, most (86%) reported comorbidities. Compared to participants without diabetes, participants with diabetes had slightly greater difficulty paying US$ 25 (P = 0.002) or US$ 100 (P = 0.016) for medical care, and experienced greater transportation and language barriers (P = 0.011 and 0.014 respectively) to care in the United States, but were more likely to have a person/place to go for medical care and receive screenings. About one quarter of participants sought care or medications in Mexico. Younger age and having lived in Mexico were associated with seeking care in Mexico, but having diabetes was not. Multiple financial barriers were independently associated with approximately threefold-increased odds of going to Mexico for medical care or medication. Language barriers were associated with seeking care in Mexico. Being confused about arrangements for medical care and the perception of not always being treated with respect by medical care providers in the United States were both associated with seeking care and medication in Mexico (odds ratios ranging from 1.70 - 2.76).
CONCLUSIONS: Reporting modifiable barriers to medical care was common among all participants and slightly more common among 1) those with diabetes and 2) those who sought care in Mexico. However, these are statistically independent phenomena; persons with diabetes were not more likely to use services in Mexico. Each set of issues (barriers facing those with diabetes, barriers related to use of services in Mexico) may occur side by side, and both present opportunities for improving access to care and disease management.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24233106

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rev Panam Salud Publica        ISSN: 1020-4989


  5 in total

1.  Exploring the Association of Homicides in Northern Mexico and Healthcare Access for US Residents.

Authors:  Kimberley H Geissler; Charles Becker; Sally C Stearns; Harsha Thirumurthy; George M Holmes
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2015-08

2.  Change in Breast Cancer Screening Knowledge is Associated With Change in Mammogram Intention in Mexican-Origin Women After an Educational Intervention.

Authors:  Jennifer J Salinas; Theresa Byrd; Charmaine Martin; Alok K Dwivedi; Adam Alomari; Rebekah Salaiz; Navkiran K Shokar
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Auckl)       Date:  2018-06-18

Review 3.  Cross-border healthcare: A review and applicability to North America during COVID-19.

Authors:  Lyndsay T Glass; Christopher M Schlachta; Jeff D Hawel; Ahmad I Elnahas; Nawar A Alkhamesi
Journal:  Health Policy Open       Date:  2022-01-10

Review 4.  Barriers and Facilitators in Access to Diabetes, Hypertension, and Dyslipidemia Medicines: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Carla Castillo-Laborde; Macarena Hirmas-Adauy; Isabel Matute; Anita Jasmen; Oscar Urrejola; Xaviera Molina; Camila Awad; Catalina Frey-Moreno; Sofia Pumarino-Lira; Fernando Descalzi-Rojas; Tomás José Ruiz; Barbara Plass
Journal:  Public Health Rev       Date:  2022-09-02

5.  What are the contextual risk factors for low colorectal cancer screening uptake in El Paso County, Texas? Spatial cross-sectional analysis.

Authors:  Jennifer Salinas; Jacquelyn Brito; Cheyenne Rincones; Navkiran K Shokar
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-10-10       Impact factor: 2.692

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.