Abstract
To the Editor.— Bellin and Geiger ( 214 :2147, 1970) have developed what would appear at initial glance to be an impressive case in proof of the acceptance and utilization of a Neighborhood Health Center (NHC) by urban poor. Evaluation efforts in this area are few, 1 difficult, and largely dependent on the primary interest of the investigator or sponsoring agency. While the activity counts dispel any doubt that the NHC was well utilized by the urban poor in 1965 to 1967, the study presents too many half-truths, poorly defined variables, and unproved assumptions about health attitudes and practices of the poor to be accepted without challenge. In the first place, the distinctions between the basic groups being studied are unclear. Regular Source of Care, the distinguishing feature of the three categories, is not defined or particularized. It could easily mean one thing to one respondent and another to a second.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
