| Literature DB >> 29927934 |
Neha P Limaye1, Magaly M Blas2, Isaac E Alva2, Cesar P Carcamo2, Patricia J García2.
Abstract
The Loreto region of the Peruvian Amazon faces many obstacles to health care delivery. The majority of the population is river-bound and lives below the poverty line, with some of the worst health indicators in Peru. To overcome these barriers and fill a gap in health services, an NGO-based provider known as the Vine Trust has been providing care since 2001 via a mobile ship clinic called the Amazon Hope. This study presents an assessment of the Amazon Hope, first reporting health indicators of the program´s catchment area, services provided, and program utilization. It then describes perceptions of the program by community members and health workers, the program's strengths and weaknesses in contributing to health service delivery, and provides recommendations addressing limitations. The qualitative analysis included 20 key informant interviews with community members and health service providers. In the quantitative analysis, 4,949 residents of the catchment area were surveyed about medical histories, experiences with the program, and suggestions for improvement. The survey showed poor indicators for reproductive health. The AH clinic was the main provider of health care among those surveyed. Community members reported satisfaction with the program's quality of care, and health workers felt the program provided a unique and necessary service. However, community members requested prior notification and additional services, while health workers described misunderstandings in community-tailored care, and difficulties with continuity of care and coordination. Data show that the program has been successful in providing quality health care to a population but has room to improve in its health service delivery. Suggested improvements are provided based on participant suggestions and relevant literature. The study sheds light on the important role of mobile clinics in Peru, and the methodology can serve as a model for assessing the role of mobile clinics in other remote settings.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29927934 PMCID: PMC6013175 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196988
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Demographic data of household members who participated in the study.
| Variable | Total |
|---|---|
| 23.8 (23.2–24.4) | |
| 0–5 | 19.4 (18.4–20.5) |
| 6–14 | 25.5 (24.3–26.7) |
| 15–49 | 42.2 (41.0–43.3) |
| >49 | 12.9 (11.7–14.1) |
| Male | 52.5 (51.3–53.7) |
| Female | 47.5 (46.3–48.7) |
| None | 4.3 (3.4–5.2) |
| Primary education | 54.8 (52.6–57.0) |
| Secondary education | 37.1 (35.0–39.3) |
| Superior technical education | 2.2 (1.4–3.0) |
| University education | 1.6 (0.9–2.2) |
| 90.0 (88.6–91.2) | |
| 77.9 (75.7–80.1) | |
| Seguro Integral de Salud | 97.2 (96.1–98.1) |
| EsSalud | 2.8 (1.9–3.9) |
Among participants 18 years old and older.
Armed forces was excluded because there was only one participant in this category.
Sexual and reproductive health of 958 women 15–49 years of age who live in communities visited by the Amazon Hope program.
| Female | |
|---|---|
| Ever had a Pap test | 13.6 (11.3–16.0) |
| Number of pregnancies among women who were ever pregnant, mean (95% CI) | 4.2 (4.0–4.3) |
| Number of children currently alive among women who were ever pregnant, mean (95% CI) | 3.8 (3.6–4.0) |
| Pregnancies who ended up in a live birth | 95.2 (94.3–96.1) |
| Percentage of home deliveries | 80.2 (77.9–82.5) |
| Currently pregnant | 6.8 (5.0–8.6) |
| Use of a family planning method among 702 women with a partner | 81.9 (78.9–84.9) |
| Tubal ligation | 1.2 (0.3–2.1) |
| Breastfeeding | 3.6 (2.1–5.1) |
| Periodic abstinence | 41.4 (37.1–45.7) |
| Contraceptive pills | 21.8 (18.2–25.3) |
| Injectable contraceptive | 31.4 (27.4–35.4) |
| Condoms | 0.6 (0.0–1.3) |
Demographic data of households members who did and did not seek care at the AH program.
| Variable | Sought health care at the Amazon Program within the last 12 months | Total | Prevalence Ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–5 | 21.5 (20.1–22.9) | 16.7 (15.0–18.4) | 19.4 (18.4–20.5) | Ref |
| 6–14 | 29.6 (27.9–31.2) | 20.1 (18.0–22.1) | 25.5 (24.3–26.7) | 1.03 (0.99–1.08) |
| 15–49 | 37.3 (35.8–38.8) | 48.7 (46.5–50.8) | 42.2 (41.0–43.3) | 0.88 (0.85–0.92) |
| >49 | 11.7 (10.2–13.1) | 14.5 (12.7–16.4) | 12.9 (11.7–14.1) | 0.89 (0.84–0.94) |
| Female | 56.6 (54.8–58.3) | 35.5 (33.4–37.5) | 47.5 (46.3–48.7) | Ref |
| Male | 43.4 (41.7–45.2) | 64.5 (62.5–66.6) | 52.5 (51.3–53.7) | 0.81 (0.79–0.84) |
| 92.8 (91.4–94.1) | 86.0 (83.8–88.3) | 90.0 (88.6–91.2) | 1.02 (0.99–1.05) | |
| 84.0 (81.9–86.1) | 69.8 (66.2–73.4) | 77.9 (75.7–80.1) | 1.22 (1.16–1.29) | |
| 65.5 (63.0–67.9) | 40.2 (37.0–43.5) | 54.6 (52.4–56.8) | 1.28 (1.24–1.33) | |
| EsSalud | 1.9 (1.1–3.2) | 4.2 (2.7–6.4) | 2.8 (1.9–3.9) | Ref |
| Seguro Integral de Salud | 98.1 (96.8–98.9) | 95.9 (93.7–97.3) | 97.2 (96.1–98.1) | 1.22 (1.04–1.43) |
Armed forces was excluded because there was only one participant in this category.
Fig 1Healthcare provided by Amazon Hope and Ministry of Health, divided by age group and gender.
AH: Amazon Hope, MoH: Ministry of Health.
Amazon Hope’s performance within the WHO components of service delivery.
| Characteristic of good service delivery | Definition | AH Strengths | AH Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|---|
| •Reaches riverine population in extreme poverty •Higher rate of coverage than MoH across majority of age groups, and provides coverage to areas where MoH does not | |||
| •Majority of survey participants could access AH care. | •Some community members do not receive information about AH schedule, miss chances to access care | ||
| •Participants most appreciated quality of care of AH •Females particularly felt AH providers were truly concerned about them. | |||
| •AH provides many preventative and curative services. | •Reproductive health care and prevention programs are limited in scope •Technological services (X-rays, ultrasounds, biopsies) are not consistently available. | ||
| •Patients misunderstand prescriptions and care plans due to non-tailored communication | |||
| •AH attempts to coordinate follow-up with specialty providers. | -Inherent difficulty providing continuity of care when AH visits every 3 months. | ||
| •Strong connections between AH and regional government. | •Room to strengthen connections between AH, community health workers and local government services | ||
| •Data collection to assess AH performance very limited. |