View clinical trials related to Low-Income Population.
Filter by:This project will identify the causative behavioral factors in low-income African American women leading to sedentarism, a major source of morbidity in HABD communities. Working with our partner, WUCN, we will engage with women in HABD housing to develop and (later) deliver a physical activity education program (BeFit) customized for this population.
The aim of this study is to describe the patient clinical profile, resource requirements, and health system dynamics in a field hospital during the second wave of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, leading to the outbreak of viral severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2 virus), in South Africa. By describing the field hospital in this unique setting, the investigators hope to provide an efficient guide to similar settings across low- and middle-income countries. This was a retrospective, single-center study. A total of 596 patients with confirmed COVID-19 were admitted to Mitchells Plain Hospital of Hope (MPHOH), Cape Town, South Africa, between January 1st and February 28th, 2021. Patient clinical characteristics, outcome, and resource allocation was collected. Daily hospital dynamics, including admissions, discharges, deaths and oxygen use was analyzed and compared to the local and national COVID-19 incidence rates.
Building on an intervention for early child development from the SPARK Center in Boston, Socios En Salud (SES) pilot tested "CASITA" a community-based package to screen and treat young children (ages 1-3 years of age) diagnosed with neurodevelopment risk and delay in Carabayllo, Lima, Peru. Ministry of Health CHWs identified children with developmental delays within the clinics and community and delivered a structured early intervention that included parent coaching and social support. In order to test the hypothesis that CASITA improves early child development, caregiver, and home environment, dyads received either nutrition supplements alone, nutrition + "CASITA" early child development sessions individually, or CASITA in a group of 10 dyads.
The Supporting Healthy Marriage (SHM) evaluation was launched in 2003 to test the effectiveness of a skills-based relationship education program designed to help low- and modest-income married couples strengthen their relationships and to support more stable and more nurturing home environments and more positive outcomes for parents and their children. The evaluation was led by MDRC with Abt Associates and other partners, and it was sponsored by the Administration for Children and Families, in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. SHM was a voluntary, year long, marriage education program for lower-income, married couples who had children or were expecting a child. The program provided group workshops based on structured curricula; supplemental activities to build on workshop themes; and family support services to address participation barriers, connect families with other services, and reinforce curricular themes. The study's random assignment design compared outcomes for families who were offered SHM's services with outcomes for a similar group of families who were not but could access other services in the community.
Primary objective is to determine the impact of messages related to conventionally grown and organically grown produce on purchasing behaviors in low-income individuals. Secondary objective is to assess knowledge and attitudes about conventionally and organically grown fruit and vegetable in low-income individuals.
The goal of this study is to learn about the factors that influence people to take part in discount generic prescription programs. The primary objective of this study is to identify the factors associated with awareness and utilization of discount generic prescription programs and how two low-income populations in Houston utilize the $4 for a 30-day supply or $10 for a 90-day supply, Generic Prescriptions Program offered by Kroger, Randalls, Target, Walmart, HEB, CVS, and Walgreens.
This study is designed to provide clear evidence for health and social policymakers about the influence of alternate service-delivery models and practices on enhancing and sustaining low-income family linkages to available services. A challenge faced by Canadian health and social service providers is to promote health for low-income families in a proactive and cost-effective manner. Families with low incomes experience an array of health and social barriers that compromise their resilience, lead to negative family outcomes, and act as barriers to available services. Family barriers are compounded by service delivery barriers and result in reduced opportunities for effective, primary-level services and in increased use of secondary-level services (e.g., emergency room visits, emergency intervention, police involvement), with the obvious increase in costs. Randomized-controlled trials are rare in community-based intervention research. This Families First Edmonton randomized-controlled trial (RCT) will enable testing of innovative service-delivery models and provide an opportunity for evidence-based decision making for Canadian policy makers. Critical information will be provided about 1. optimizing cost effectiveness for public systems 2. the long-term effects on the health of low-income family members 3. mechanisms that intervene between the interventions and their effect on the health of low-income family members 4. building on previous research and on community-based initiatives 5. promoting knowledge transfer
This study will identify what programs, along with traditional healthcare, low-income urban residents would choose to improve their health. The information is intended as a step toward designing public policies aimed at improving the health of low-income populations in the United States. Residents of Washington, D.C., who are between 18 and 64 years of age and are in a specified income bracket may be eligible for this study. Participants take part in audio-taped group discussions led by a trained facilitator. During a 3 hour session, participants engage in 4 cycles of choosing benefits. Participants select benefits as follows: - For themselves individually. - For their neighborhood. - For an entire city. - Once again individually.