Evaluation designs of outpatient health centres focusing on vulnerable patient groups
Abstract Background Homeless and non-insured persons experience worse physical and mental health than comparable populations. Outpatient (public) health institutions, which are easily accessible, contribute considerably to the medical treatment of vulnerable patient groups. Sound evaluation methods, indicators and instruments are necessitated to target patients’ needs and to enable strategic health and social policy planning. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search in several databases (PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO etc.) for studies from 2000 to 2019 reporting on evaluations in outpatient health institutions for homeless and/ or non-insured patients. In addition, we contacted 5 Austrian public health/ research institutions dealing with complex interventions for relevant publications. Results 12 evaluation studies and 7 evaluation reports met our inclusion criteria. Evaluation designs mostly considered various target groups and nearly all assessments pursued a ’mixed-method’ approach. 13 publications assessed socio-demographic data, 11 the use of health and social services and 7 patients’ health status. Further indicators related to ’satisfaction issues’ such as patients’ satisfaction with the provided range of health and social services (n = 7). 6 publications reported on health economic indicators. In total, 7 out of 19 studies reported on evaluation instruments; most instruments (n = 6) were on patients’ mental health status. Conclusions Patients represented the major target group in the included evaluations. There is little research on evaluation indicators directing on health professionals. Evaluations focusing on the intersectional levels (e.g. the impact of health programmes for vulnerable groups on various institutions) are lacking. Key messages Evaluation designs involving ‘hardly to reach populations’ shall consider a ‘participatory assessment approach’ to avoid drop-outs and to create a trustworthy evaluation situation. Hence, evaluation indicators shall be commonly selected and adequately reflect patients’ realities.