Loading…

Implementation of a mobile health clinic framework for Hepatitis C virus screening and treatment: a descriptive study

Although treatment for Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) is effective, individuals face access barriers. The utility of mobile health clinics (MHC), effective mechanisms for providing healthcare to underserved populations, is understudied for HCV-related interventions. We aimed to describe implementation of,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Lancet Regional Health - Americas (Online) 2024-01, Vol.29, p.100648-100648, Article 100648
Main Authors: Rennert, Lior, Howard, Kerry A., Kickham, Caitlin M., Gezer, Fatih, Coleman, Ashley, Roth, Prerana, Boswell, Kristie, Gimbel, Ronald W., Litwin, Alain H.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Although treatment for Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) is effective, individuals face access barriers. The utility of mobile health clinics (MHC), effective mechanisms for providing healthcare to underserved populations, is understudied for HCV-related interventions. We aimed to describe implementation of, and factors associated with, screening and treatment via MHCs. Clemson Rural Health implemented a novel MHC program to reach and treat populations at-risk for HCV with a focus on care for uninsured individuals. We examined HCV screening and treatment initiation/completion indicators between May 2021 and January 2023. Among 607 individuals screened across 31 locations, 94 (15.5%) tested positive via antibody and viral load testing. Treatment initiation and completion rates were 49.6% and 86.0%, respectively. Among those screened, the majority were male (57.5%), White (61.3%; Black/Hispanic: 28.2%/7.7%), and without personal vehicle as primary transportation mode (54.4%). Injection drug use (IDU) was 27.2% and uninsured rate was 42.8%. Compared to HCV-negative, those infected included more individuals aged 30–44 (52.1% vs. 36.4%, p = 0.023), male (70.2% vs. 55.2%, p = 0.009), White (78.5% vs. 60.2%, p 
ISSN:2667-193X
2667-193X
DOI:10.1016/j.lana.2023.100648