Search

Background: Health care organizations need to be responsive to the needs of increasingly diverse patient populations. We compared the contents of six publicly available approaches to organizational responsiveness to diversity. The central questions addressed in this paper are: what are the most consistently recommended issues for health care organizations to address in order to be responsive to the needs of diverse groups that differ from the majority population? How much consensus is there between various approaches?Methods: We purposively sampled six approaches from the US, Australia and Europe and used qualitative textual analysis to categorize the content of each approach into domains (conceptually distinct topic areas) and, within each domain, into dimensions (operationalizations). The resulting classification framework was used for comparative analysis of the content of the six approaches.Results: We identified seven domains that were represented in most or all approaches: organizational commitment, empirical evidence on inequalities and needs, a competent and diverse workforce, ensuring access for all users, ensuring responsiveness in care provision, fostering patient and community participation, and actively promoting responsiveness. Variations in the operationalization of these domains related to different scopes, contexts and types of diversity. For example, approaches that focus on ethnic diversity mostly provide recommendations to handle cultural and language differences; approaches that take an intersectional approach and broaden their target population to vulnerable groups in a more general sense also pay attention to factors such as socio-economic status and gender.Conclusions: Despite differences in labeling, there is a broad consensus about what health care organizations need to do in order to be responsive to patient diversity. This opens the way to full scale implementation of organizational responsiveness in healthcare and structured evaluation of its effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Globally, female sex workers (FSWs) are considered a key population group due to the high HIV prevalence. Studies show that there are various factors in some contexts that render FSWs marginalised, which limits their access to sexual reproductive health (SRH) services. Access to SRH services are particularly challenging in countries where sex work is criminalised such as is the case in South Africa. Evidently, there are alternative ways in which FSWs in this context receive non-stigmatising SRH care through non-governmental organisations. The aim of this study was to understand the functioning of these non-governmental health care services as well as to document the experiences of FSWs utilising these services.Methods: Eleven focus group discussions were held with 91 FSWs. In addition, 21 in-depth individual interviews with researchers, stakeholders and FSWs were conducted. Interview guides were utilised for data collection. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Data were analysed thematically.Results: The FSWs expressed challenges related to SRH care access at public health facilities. The majority felt that they could not consult for SRH-related services because of stigma. The non-governmental health and advocacy organisations providing SRH services to FSWs through their mobile facilities utilising the peer approach, have done so in a way that promotes trust between FSWs and mobile health care providers. FSWs have access to tailored services, prevention materials as well as health information. This has resulted in the normalising of HIV testing as well as SRH seeking behaviours.Conclusion: This study has established that health and advocacy organisations have attempted to fill the gap in responding to SRH care needs of FSWs amidst intersecting vulnerabilities. FSWs' engagement with these organisations has encouraged their willingness to test for HIV. However, it is important to note that these organisations operate in urban areas, thus FSWs operating outside these areas are most likely exposed to compounding health risks and lack access to tailored services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]