Role of patient factors, preferences, and distrust in health care and access to liver transplantation and organ donation.

Despite major improvements in access to liver transplantation (LT), disparities remain. Little is known about how distrust in medical care, patient preferences, and the origins shaping those preferences contribute to differences surrounding access. We performed a single-center, cross-sectional survey of adults with end-stage liver disease and compared responses between LT listed and nonlisted patients as well as by race. Questionnaires were administered to 109 patients (72 nonlisted; 37 listed) to assess demographics, health care system distrust (HCSD), religiosity, and factors influencing LT and organ donation (OD). We found that neither HCSD nor religiosity explained differences in access to LT in our population. Listed patients attained higher education levels and were more likely to be insured privately. This was also the case for white versus black patients. All patients reported wanting LT if recommended. However, nonlisted patients were significantly less likely to have discussed LT with their physician or to be referred to a transplant center. They were also much less likely to understand the process of LT. Fewer blacks were referred (44.4% versus 69.7%; P = 0.03) or went to the transplant center if referred (44.4% versus 71.1%; P = 0.02). Fewer black patients felt that minorities had as equal access to LT as whites (29.6% versus 57.3%; P < 0.001). For OD, there were more significant differences in preferences by race than listing status. More whites indicated OD status on their driver's license, and more blacks were likely to become an organ donor if approached by someone of the same cultural or ethnic background (P < 0.01). In conclusion, our analysis demonstrates persistent barriers to LT and OD. With improved patient and provider education and communication, many of these disparities could be successfully overcome. Liver Transplantation 22 895-905 2016 AASLD.

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices among Street Children in LMICs

Background: Worldwide, it is estimated that there are up to 150 million street children. Street children are an understudied, vulnerable population. While many studies have characterized street children’s physical health, few have addressed the circumstances and barriers to their utilization of health services.

Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to understand the barriers and facilitators that street children face when accessing healthcare in low and middle income countries. Six databases were used to search for peer review literature and one database and Google Search engine were used to find grey literature (theses, dissertations, reports, etc.). There were no exclusions based on study design. Studies were eligible for inclusion if the study population included street children, the study location was a low and middle income country defined by the World Bank, AND whose subject pertained to healthcare.

In addition, a cross-sectional study was conducted between May 2015 and August 2015 with the goal of understanding knowledge, attitudes, and health seeking practices of street children residing in Battambang, Cambodia. Time location and purposive sampling were used to recruit community (control) and street children. Both boys and girls between the ages of 10 and 18 were recruited. Data was collected through a verbally administered survey. The knowledge, attitudes and health seeking practices of community and street children were compared to determine potential differences in healthcare utilization.

Results: Of the 2933 abstracts screened for inclusion in the systematic literature review, eleven articles met all the inclusion criteria and were found to be relevant. Cost and perceived stigma appeared to be the largest barriers street children faced when attempting to seek care. Street children preferred to receive care from a hospital. However, negative experiences and mistreatment by health providers deterred children from going there. Instead, street children would often self treat and/or purchase medicine from a pharmacy or drug vendor. Family and peer support were found to be important for facilitating treatment.

The survey found similar results to the systematic review. Forty one community and thirty four street children were included in the analysis. Both community and street children reported the hospital as their top choice for care. When asked if someone went with them to seek care, both community and street children reported that family members, usually mothers, accompanied them. Community and street children both reported perceived stigma. All children had good knowledge of preventative care.

Conclusions: While most current services lack the proper accommodations for street children, there is a great potential to adapt them to better address street children’s needs. Street children need health services that are sensitive to their situation. Subsidies in health service costs or provision of credit may be ways to reduce constraints street children face when deciding to seek healthcare. Health worker education and interventions to reduce stigma are needed to create a positive environment in which street children are admitted and treated for health concerns.