ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2025
Development and validation of the healthcare access barrier scale (HABS).
Article in International journal for equity in health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMeasuring healthcare access barriers is crucial for improving service equity. However, existing tools often lack a holistic, process-integrated approach. This study addresses this gap by developing and validating the Healthcare Access Barriers Scale (HABS), a new instrument that holistically assesses barriers before, during, and after medical visits.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among 2,009 Shanghai residents. HABS was developed based on Penchansky and Thomas's Theory of Access and Saurman's modification. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA, CFA) were used to assess its structure. Reliability and validity were tested using Cronbach's alpha and model fit indices.
resultsEFA and CFA supported a six-factor structure of the HABS, corresponding to six key dimensions of access barriers: unawareness, unavailability, inaccessibility, inadaptability, unaffordability, and unacceptability. The HABS demonstrated strong reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.974) and a good fit for the six-factor model (CFA: Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.937, Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] = 0.930, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = 0.069). The two most pronounced barriers were financial constraints (mean of unaffordability dimension = 3.26) and lack of awareness (unawareness = 3.19), highlighting cost burdens and health literacy gaps in this population.
conclusionsThe HABS is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring perceived healthcare access barriers in urban populations, offering a more holistic, process-integrated assessment by capturing obstacles across the full continuum of care - before, during, and after healthcare visits. This unified scale can facilitate assessment of systematic barriers, comparisons across settings, and identification of target areas for intervention. Future use of the HABS may inform policies and programs aimed at improving access to health services and equity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.