Introduction:
Human trafficking is the exploitation of an individual through force or coercion, for labor or services, including commercial sex.
Healthcare providers are uniquely positioned to encounter trafficked people.
Prior research has found a need for increased sensitivity in identifying trafficked persons in healthcare settings, and for provider education about the issue.https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/comphp_gallery/1227/thumbnail.jp

Albert, Jennifer

Bolton, Kenyon

Finogenov, Gilana

Hakim, Mateen

James, Ted

Klimosky, Edith

Shatten, Julia

Suresh, Abishag

Thura, Soriaya

Wheat, Stephen

English

UVM ScholarWorks

University of VermontScholarWorks @ UVMPublic Health Projects, 2008-present Public Health Projects, University of VermontCollege of Medicine1-20-2016Slipping Through the Cracks: Receptivity ofhealthcare professionals to an electronic screeningtool for human traffickingJennifer AlbertKenyon BoltonGilana FinogenovMateen HakimJulia ShattenSee next page for additional authorsFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/comphp_galleryPart of the Community Health and Preventive Medicine Commons, and the Health ServicesResearch CommonsThis Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Public Health Projects, University of Vermont College of Medicine at ScholarWorks @UVM. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public Health Projects, 2008-present by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ UVM. For moreinformation, please contact donna.omalley@uvm.edu.Recommended CitationAlbert, Jennifer; Bolton, Kenyon; Finogenov, Gilana; Hakim, Mateen; Shatten, Julia; Suresh, Abishag; Thura, Soriaya; Wheat, Stephen;Klimosky, Edith; and James, Ted, "Slipping Through the Cracks: Receptivity of healthcare professionals to an electronic screening toolfor human trafficking" (2016). Public Health Projects, 2008-present. 225.https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/comphp_gallery/225AuthorsJennifer Albert, Kenyon Bolton, Gilana Finogenov, Mateen Hakim, Julia Shatten, Abishag Suresh, SoriayaThura, Stephen Wheat, Edith Klimosky, and Ted JamesThis book is available at ScholarWorks @ UVM: https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/comphp_gallery/225Slipping Through the Cracks: Receptivity of healthcare professionals  to an electronic screening tool for human trafficking  J. Albert1, K. Bolton1, G. Finogenov1, M. Hakim1, J. Shatten1, A. Suresh1, S. Thura1, S. Wheat1, E. Klimoski, MS3, T. James, MD, MS, FACS1,2 1University of Vermont College of Medicine; 2University of Vermont Medical Center; 3Give Way to Freedom  Introduction • Human trafficking is the exploitation of an individual through force or coercion, for labor or services, including commercial sex. • Healthcare providers are uniquely positioned to encounter trafficked people. 1  • Prior research has found a need for increased sensitivity in identifying trafficked persons in healthcare settings, and for provider education about the issue. 2   Objectives • Assess healthcare worker receptivity to the implementation of an electronic screening tool for human trafficking in various clinical settings. • Identify barriers to implementation of current screening practices. • Promote awareness among healthcare workers about the prevalence of human trafficking and the potential signs of trafficking among their patients. Methods • Participants included 26 healthcare practitioners selected via convenience sampling. • Surveys with Likert scale and open-ended responses were administered in person. • Each participant encounter included an introduction to a prototypical electronic screening tool (pictured below),3 and an educational discussion about human trafficking.  Results Common themes in open-ended responses • The healthcare providers had a positive opinion of the usefulness of the electronic screening tool, with 92% responding that such a tool would help providers identify victims. • Implementation would need to address the time constraints, provider buy-in, and primary care ‘screening fatigue’ that some providers identified as barriers. • The survey itself served as a valuable source of education for healthcare providers. However, educating healthcare providers remains essential.  • A shorter form of the screening tool with a few sensitive questions could prompt the use of more specific methods of identification.  • Future direction: pilot testing of the application in a clinical setting. Awareness and education:  “Education for providers is lacking and outreach across the state is essential.” “If nothing else, tools like this raise the awareness of providers who are then more likely to recognize the victims of human trafficking.” Barriers for implementation:  “If providers feel it is not a problem that occurs frequently, they will not feel it is relevant.” “Given the low prevalence of human trafficking, I feel that this would subject many patients to a long screen in the waiting room for a relatively rare situation.” “Trying to carve out time and space and hardware could be challenging… also considering that we are being asked to screen for many things in primary care and DO something about it: depression, suicide, obesity, DM, HTH, activity level, etc.” Suggestions for the screening tool: “I think that maybe 5 well-chosen questions would be better.” “I think this has potential. It could be a good option on a mobile device to be administered while someone is waiting in the exam room. Somewhere private. Sometimes the victims are accompanied by the perpetrator so giving them a safe place would be essential.” Discussion References: 1. Isaac, R., Solak, J., & Giardino, A. P. (2011). Health care providers' training needs related to human trafficking: maximizing the opportunity to effectively screen and intervene. Journal of     Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, 2(1), 8. 2. Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance. (2012). Wisconsin Human Trafficking Protocol & Resource Manual. Madison, WI. 105 p. Available at: https://www.wcasa.org/file_open.php?id=336. 3. Dunston, D. (2015). You Have A Voice [Mobile Application Software]. Obtained from the developer.  Acknowledgements:  A special thanks to Professor Duane Dunston (Dept. of Information Security, Champlain College), Courtney Albert (Founder and President, Give Way to Freedom), Gonzalo Martinez de Vedia (Human Trafficking Center, Worker Justice Center of NY), Cynthia Wolfe, MD (Oli Med Family Wellness Clinic), and The Worker Justice Center of NY for their valuable insight. Strongly Disagree 58% Somewhat Disagree 4% Neither Agree nor Disagree 34% Somewhat Agree 4% Strongly Agree 0% Our clinic/hospital has an existing protocol for identifying people at risk of trafficking. Strongly Disagree 58% Somewhat Disagree 0% Neither Agree nor Disagree 4% Somewhat Agree 31% Strongly Agree 7% The issue of human trafficking has been addressed in my professional training. Unaware 0% Very Low Awareness 23% low awareness 12% Medium Awareness 46% high awareness 15% Very High Awareness 4% Self-Reported Level of Awareness Regarding Human Trafficking Strongly Disagree 4% Somewhat Disagree 15% Neither Agree nor Disagree 12% Somewhat Agree 38% Strongly Agree 31% I am unsure of what to do if I encounter a trafficked person, or someone at risk, in my practice. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%This tool (or a similar electronic screening tool) would be animprovement on screening methods currently in place.This screening tool (or a similar electronic screening tool) would beuseful in a healthcare setting.This screening tool (or a similar electronic screening tool) would bedifficult to integrate into my usual daily practiceThere should be a standardized way for healthcare workers to screenfor trafficking victims.This screening tool (or a similar electronic screening tool) would helpproviders  to identify trafficking victims.Applicability of an Electronic Screening Tool Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%I would use this screening tool in my practice.I found the screening tool to be too complex.The screening tool was easy to use.I felt confident about my use of the screening tool.I think my patients would be able to interface with this applicationindependently.I believe my patients would feel comfortable answering questions onthe electronic screening tool.I think my patients would feel more comfortable answering questionsin a paper format rather than in an electronic format.Ease of Use of this Application as a Possible Screening Tool Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly AgreeOur sample included: • 15 Primary care physicians • 4 Emergency Dept. physicians • 3 Nurses • 3 Emergency medical technicians • 1 Physician assistant   

Slipping Through the Cracks: Receptivity of healthcare professionals to an electronic screening tool for human trafficking

https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&amp;context=comphp_gallery

Slipping Through the Cracks: Receptivity of healthcare professionals to an electronic screening tool for human trafficking

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UVM ScholarWorks