What is driving people's dissatisfaction with their own health care in 17 Latin American countries?

BACKGROUND: A number of expert reports have pointed to serious problems with health care in many Latin American countries and argued the need to reform and improve health-care systems. In addition, the Ministers of Health of the Americas have stated that health systems should be accountable to citizens. OBJECTIVE: This paper examines, in each of 17 Latin American countries, public dissatisfaction with the health care to which people have access, the proportion of people reporting problems with access to and the cost of health care and the factors that are most important in driving public dissatisfaction. METHODS: Data are drawn from a 2007 Latinobarómetro survey of 19 212 adults interviewed face-to-face in 17 Latin American countries. RESULTS: The proportion of people expressing dissatisfaction with their health care varies a great deal by country, as do the proportions reporting problems with access to and the cost of health care. Problems with access to care seem to matter most in trying to explain public dissatisfaction with their health care. More traditional measures of health outcomes and resources seem to matter less as drivers of dissatisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: For governments trying to improve their citizens' satisfaction with the health care they receive, the highest priority would be improving people's basic access to health-care services. Also, it appears that democratic governments are seen as being more responsive to the public's needs in health care.

Mixed messages: residents' experiences learning cross-cultural care.

PURPOSE: An Institute of Medicine report issued in 2002 cited cross-cultural training as a mechanism to address racial and ethnic disparities in health care, but little is known about residents' training and capabilities to provide quality care to diverse populations. This article explores a select group of residents' perceptions of their preparedness to deliver quality care to diverse populations. METHOD: Seven focus groups and ten individual interviews were conducted with 68 residents in locations nationwide. Qualitative analysis of focus-group and individual interview transcripts was performed to assess residents' perceptions of (1) preparedness to deliver care to diverse patients; (2) educational climate; and (3) training experiences. RESULTS: Most residents in this study noted the importance of cross-cultural care yet reported little formal training in this area. Residents wanted more formal training yet expressed concern that culture-specific training could lead to stereotyping. Most residents had developed ad hoc, informal skills to care for diverse patients. Although residents perceived institutional endorsement, they sensed it was a low priority due to lack of time and resources. CONCLUSIONS: Residents in this study reported receiving mixed messages about cross-cultural care. They were told it is important, yet they received little formal training and did not have time to treat diverse patients in a culturally sensitive manner. As a result, many developed coping behaviors rather than skills based on formally taught best practices. Training environments need to increase training to enhance residents' preparedness to deliver high-quality cross-cultural care if the medical profession is to achieve the goals set by the Institute of Medicine.