Client-Identified needs and agency-provided services at a harm reduction community based organization in the District of Columbia

Harm Reduction Journal

Sean T. Allen¹  Monica S. Ruiz¹  Allison O’Rourke¹ 

[1] Milken Institute School of Public Health at the George Washington University, 950 New Hampshire Ave, Suite 300, Washington 20052, DC, USA

关键词: Social services;    Case management;    District of Columbia;    Harm reduction;   

Others  :  1211916
DOI  :  10.1186/s12954-015-0051-4

 received in 2015-01-02, accepted in 2015-05-27,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Harm reduction case management relies on client-identified goals to drive the provision of care in order to “meet clients where they are at”. This research measured the level of agreement between client-identified needs and agency-provided services at a community based organization (CBO) in Washington DC by examining: (1) the services clients most often identified, (2) the services most often given to clients by the CBO, and (3) the level of alignment between client-identified needs and services provided.

Methods

Case file reviews were completed for 151 clients who received case management services at the CBO between January 2010 and February 2011. Client-identified needs and agency-provided services were extracted from case files and divided into 9 matching need and service categories: pharmaceutical assistance (e.g., prescription renewal), medical or dental care, housing, mental health services, substance use services, support services (e.g., support group meetings), legal assistance, and employment/job training. Client-identified needs and services provided were analyzed using McNemar’s Chi-square to assess for significant differences in discordant pairs.

Results

Clients were mostly Black (90.7 %), heterosexual (63.6 %), HIV positive (93.4 %), and over 40 years old at the time of intake (76.2 %). On average, clients identified 2.44 needs and received 3.29 services. The most common client-identified needs were housing (63.7 %), support services (34.3 %), and medical/dental care (29.5 %). The most common agency-provided services were housing (58.2 %), support services (51.4 %), and medical/dental care (45.2 %). In 6 of the 9 service categories, there were statistically significant (p < .01) differences between those who received services not asked for and those who did not receive asked for services in the categories of pharmaceutical assistance, medical/dental care, substance abuse services, support services, legal assistance, and food access. In each of these matched service categories, the percentage of clients who received services not asked for was significantly higher than those who did not.

Conclusion

This research shows that, while there is general alignment between the services that clients most often want and the services most often provided, there are still instances where services are requested but are not being provided.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 O'Rourke et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Baggett TP, O’Connell JJ, Singer DE, Rogotti NA. The unmet health care needs of homeless adults: a national study. Am J Public Health. 2010; 100:1326-33.
• [2]Moore G, Manias E, Gerdtz MF. Complex health service needs for people who are homeless. Aust Health Rev. 2011; 35(4):480-5.
• [3]Neale J, Tompkins C, Sheard L. Barriers to accessing generic health and social care services: a qualitative study of injecting drug users. Health Social Care Commun. 2008; 16(2):147-54.
• [4]Robbins JL, Wenger L, Lorvick J, Shiboski C, Kral AH. Health and oral health care needs and health care-seeking behavior among homeless injection drug users in San Francisco. J Urban Health. 2010; 87(6):920-30.
• [5]Rosenheck R, Lam JA. Homeless mentally ill clients’ and providers’ perceptions of service needs and clients’ use of services. Psychiatr Serv. 1997; 48:381-6.
• [6]Kalichman SC, Cherry C, White D, Jones M, Kalichman MO, Amaral C, Swetzes C. Falling through the cracks: unmet health service needs among people living with HIV in Atlanta, Georgia. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2012; 23(3):244-54.
• [7]Lennon CA, Pellowshi JA, White AC, Kalichman SC, Finitsis DJ, Turcios-Cotto V, Pishori A, Overstreet NM, Hernandex D, Kane A, Kelly DM, Lanouette GA. Service priorities and unmet service needs among people living with HIV/AIDS: Results from a nationwide interview of HIV/AIDS housing organizations. AIDS Care. 2013; 25(9):1083-91.
• [8]Kuehn BM. Supportive housing cuts costs of caring for the chronically homeless. JAMA. 2012; 308(1):17-9.
• [9]Bush H. Health care’s costliest 1 %. Hosp Health Netw. 2012; 86(9):30-4.
• [10]Järvinen M. Approaches to methadone treatment: harm reduction in theory and practice. Sociol Health Illn. 2008; 30(7):975-91.
• [11]Kerr T, Small W, Buchner C, Zhang R, Li K, Montaner J, Wood E. Syringe sharing and HIV incidence among injection drug users and increased access to sterile syringes. Am J Public Health. 2010; 100(8):1449-53.
• [12]Ksobiech K. A meta-analysis of needle sharing, lending, and borrowing behaviors of needle exchange program attenders. AIDS Educ Prev. 2003; 15:257-68.
• [13]Hurley SF, Jolley DJ, Kaldor JM. Effectiveness of needle exchange programmes for prevention of HIV infection. Lancet. 1997; 21(9068):1797-800.
• [14]Palmateer N, Kimber J, Hickman M, Hutchinson S, Rhodes T, Goldberg D. Evidence for the effectiveness of sterile injecting equipment provision in preventing hepatitis C and human immunodeficiency virus transmission among injecting drug users: a review of reviews. Addiction. 2010; 105:844-59.
• [15]Wodak A, Cooney A. Do needle syringe programs reduce HIV infection among injecting drug users: a comprehensive review of the international evidence. Substance Use Misuse. 2006; 41:777-816.
• [16]Wodak A, McLeod L. The role of harm reduction in controlling HIV among injecting drug users. AIDS. 2008; 22 Suppl 2:S81-92.
• [17]Pauly BB, Reist D, Belle-isle L, Schactman C. Housing and harm reduction: what is the role of harm reduction in addressing homelessness? Int J Drug Policy. 2013; 24(4):284-90.
• [18]Polosa R, Rodu B, Caponnetto P, Maglia M, Raciti C. A fresh look at tobacco harm reduction: the case for the electronic cigarette. Harm Reduct J. 2013; 10:19. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Maziak W. Harm reduction at the crossroads: the case of e-cigarettes. Am J Prev Med. 2014; 47(4):505-7.
• [20]Adriaens K, Van Gucht D, Declerck P, Baeyens F. Effectiveness of the electronic cigarette: an eight-week Flemish study with Six-month follow-up on smoking reduction, craving and experienced benefits and complaints. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014; 11(11):11220-48.
• [21]Denning P, Little J. Harm reduction in mental health: The emerging work of harm reduction psychotherapy. Harm Reduction Communication. 2001,11. Available at: http://harmreduction.org/publication-type/newsletter/communication-eleven/.
• [22]Tatarsky A. Harm reduction psychotherapy: extending the reach of traditional substance use treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2003; 25(4):249.
• [23]Tiderington E, Stanhope V, Henwood BF. A qualitative analysis of case managers’ use of harm reduction in practice. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2013; 44(1):71-7.
• [24]Mancini MA, Wyrick-Waugh W. Consumer and practitioner perceptions of the harm reduction approach in a community mental health setting. Community Ment Health J. 2013; 49(1):14-24.
• [25]Henwood BF, Padgett DK, Tiderington E. Provider views of harm reduction versus abstinence policies within homeless services for dually diagnosed adults. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2014; 41(1):80-9.
• [26]Denning P. Strategies for implementation of harm reduction in treatment settings. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2001; 33(1):23-6.
• [27]Odo R. Harm reduction: the case management connection. Harm Reduction Communication, Fall; 1997.
• [28]Thyer B. The handbook of social work research methods. 2nd ed. SAGE Publications, Inc, United States of America; 2009.
• [29]Kidder DP, Wolitski RJ, Royal S, Aidala A, Courtenay-Quirk C, Holtgrave DR, Harre D, Sumartojo E, Stall R. Access to housing as a structural intervention for homeless and unstably housed people living with HIV: rationale, methods, and implementation of the housing and health study. AIDS Behav. 2007; 11(6 Suppl):149-61.
• [30]Leaver CA, Bargh G, Dunn JR, Hwang SW. The effects of housing status on health-related outcomes in people living with HIV: a systematic review of the literature. AIDS Behav. 2007; 11(6 Suppl.):85-100.
• [31]O’Toole TP, Gibbon JL, Hanusa BH, Freyder PJ, Conde AM, Fine MJ. Self-reported changes in drug and alcohol use after becoming homeless. Am J Public Health. 2004; 94(5):830-5.
• [32]Tsemberis S, Kent D, Respress C. Housing stability and recovery among chronically homeless persons with co-occurring disorders in Washington. DC Am J Public Health. 2012; 102(1):13-6.
• [33]Collins SE, Clifasefi SL, Dana EA, Andrasik MP, Stahl N, Kirouac M, Welbaum C, King M, Malone DK. Where harm reduction meets housing first: exploring alcohol’s role in a project-based housing first setting. Int J Drug Policy. 2012; 23(2):111-9.
• [34]Collins SE, Malone DK, Clifasefi SL, Ginzler JA, Gerner MD. Project-based housing first for chronically homeless individuals with alcohol problems: within-subject analyses of 2-year alcohol trajectories. Am J Public Health. 2012; 102(3):511-9.
• [35]Sun AP. Helping homeless individuals with co-occurring disorders: the four components. Soc Work. 2012; 57(1):23-37.