Several data sets representing multiple choice and open-ended questions answered by the family units’ self-appointed head of household were collected and reviewed: main demographic data (figure 1 a-e), provider and insurance information (figure 2 a-c), healthcare access (figure 3), housing and employment status (figure 4 a-b), family demographics (figure 5), and community barriers (figure 6). Total number of services utilized during this event were quantified and presented here (table 1). To improve cohesiveness, the event data is compared to readily available zip code level census data (table 2). A comparison between communities was also considered (table 3). It should be noted that this comparison does not hold statistical significance but rather will serve as a tool for MHC to understand community themes and emerging issues throughout the valley.
The a. Individual household age range (n=206) shows 53% of clients are adults aged 18-65 followed by 43% children age 18 and under with 7% of clientele representing the 65+ age group. This data set represents each household member attending the event while the b. Head of household age (n=91): 5-12 at 1%, 13-17 at 5%, 18-24 at 12%, 25-34 at 18%, 34-44 at 22%, 45-54 at 12%, 55-61 at 15%, 62+ at 14% c. Race (n=90): White (46%), Black or African American (37%), Asian (1%), American Indian or Alaskan Native (2%), Multiple Races (1%), and Other (13%) d. Hispanic Ethnicity (n=86): Non-Hispanic/Non-Latino (70%), Hispanic/Latino (30%) and e. Sex (n=94): Male (29%), Female (71%) represents only the head of household.
a. Housing status (n=36) shows 64% of clients reported being stably housed with 22% homeless, 10% at imminent risk of losing their housing, 3% at risk of homelessness, and 1% fleeing domestic violence. b.Employment status (n=57) shows 70% of participants reported being unemployed.
a. clients covered by health insurance (n=80): 71% reported yes while 24% reported no and 5% were unsure whether or not they were covered b. 43% of clients reported having a regular doctor while 57% did not (n=95) c. 61% of clients with health insurance reported having a regular doctor (n=57). Limitations of data collection did not allow differentiating between coverage for parents and coverage for children.
Client choice for accessing healthcare (n=36): Clinic (58%), Hospital (17%), Do not go anywhere for healthcare services (14%), and other (11%).
QUALITY OF LIFE
This was a multiple choice and open-ended question that asked the participant to rate their quality of life from very poor to very good. Open ended options were available if Quality of Life was ranked as poor or very poor.
a. Self-reported barriers for accessing healthcare (n=22) shows 59% of clients reported having no barriers, 18% experiencing financial barriers, 14% with insurance issues, 9% found navigating the system difficult, and 5% did not have adequate transportation available. b. Self-reported quality of life rated from 1 (Very Poor-8%) to 5 (Very Good-17%) with a majority of participants reporting neither poor nor good at 33% followed by good (27%) and poor (17%)
There were 95 family units that registered for the Whitney Recreation Center Event. The events potential reach was 206 people (total number of members in the 95 families). Most participants who registered as head of household were non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black females aged 35-44 with an average of 2 household members representing their family unit (figure 1). Insurance coverage does not appear to be a major issue for this community according to the data collected at the Whitney Event (figure 2) as well as census data (table 1). Additionally, less than 50% of clients reported having a regular doctor (2-b), however, more than half of the clients that did report having health insurance also reported having a regular doctor (2-c). Most survey participants reported receiving healthcare in clinics and hospitals. There were no specific trends explaining why participants chose where they get their healthcare needs met, but convenience and proximity to their homes were noted as reasons why clients were accessing these services. However, it is worth mentioning that a large number of clients who reported using clinics or the hospital for their healthcare needs did have a regular doctor. All clients who do not access any healthcare facilities did not have a regular doctor and felt they could go not go because they lack insurance or do not know which facilities would take their insurance.
This data suggested that there is a high need for assistance in this neighborhood. This is most notable in the need for employment, followed by housing, and access to care inclusive of medical, social, and behavioral services. To improve our reach to these communities and families we need to ensure a “warm handoff” or continuity of care with a heavy focus on establishing trust. There also needs to be a complete follow through with interventions. This can be accomplished through improve data collection, shared data bases (H/CMIS), and global case management. The Mobile Health Collaborative should engage in group discussions to decide on the validity of recommendations the strongest plan for addressing these recommendations moving forward.