Table 3 SexHealth Mobile feasibility: Key findings
Feasibility Construct1 | Facilitators ( +) and Barriers (-) |
|---|---|
Demand (To what extent is the intervention likely to be used?) | 86% of intervention participants indicated interest in an MMU visit on a SexHealth Mobile Day ( +) |
56.4% of intervention participants who visited the MMU received on-site contraception ( +) | |
21 individuals not enrolled in the study had an MMU visit ( +) | |
42 individuals took free condoms and 30 took free pregnancy tests from study staff; 18 study participants took free condoms at an MMU visit ( +) | |
Acceptability (How do stakeholders react to the intervention?) | 92.3% of intervention participants who visited the MMU were “very satisfied” with their visit; 97.4% were “likely” or “extremely likely” to recommend to a friend (+) |
86.8% of intervention participants who visited the MMU gave the provider a top score for patient-centeredness ( +) | |
76.6% of intervention participants who spoke to an outreach leader “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the leader supported them in making their own decisions ( +) | |
Recovery center leadership actively supported implementation at all three sites ( +) | |
81.3% of EUC participants reported they would have used the MMU if it had been available ( +) | |
Implementation (To what extent can the intervention be implemented as planned?) | Outreach leaders successfully mobilized attendance for SexHealth Mobile Days ( +) |
60.0% of intervention participants reported having spoken to an outreach leader about SexHealth Mobile ( +) | |
Patients with sexual or reproductive health needs beyond available contraception methods were able to have a preliminary consultation on the MMU and schedule a later appointment at the main FQHC ( +) | |
Interest in MMU appointments (which were often lengthy) sometimes exceeded the number of interested individuals (-) | |
Some women were asked to wait for a future confirmatory negative pregnancy test before receiving a subdermal implant (-) | |
Integration (To what extent can the intervention be integrated within an existing system?) | Pre-existing FQHC/recovery center relationships facilitated smooth service integration and service provision for patients regardless of insurance status ( +) |
MMU process were easily adapted to accommodate contraception care (including implant insertion and self-collection of urine) and SexHealth Mobile Days were easily integrated into recovery center activities ( +) | |
Limited availability of the FQHC MMU and staff created scheduling challenges ( +) | |
Patients not yet registered to receive services with the FQHC faced a high burden of paperwork (-) |