Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26573437›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

How should health service organizations respond to diversity? A content analysis of six approaches.

Conny Seeleman, Marie-Louise Essink-Bot, Karien Stronks, David Ingleby

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Physician behaviours that optimize patient-centred care: Focus groups with migrant women.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Conny SeelemanDepartment of Public Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22700, 1100 DE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.c.seeleman@amc.uva.nl.
Marie-Louise Essink-BotDepartment of Public Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22700, 1100 DE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.l.essink-bot@amc.uva.nl.
Karien StronksDepartment of Public Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22700, 1100 DE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. k.stronks@amc.uva.nl.
David InglebyCentre for Social Science and Global Health (SSGH), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. J.D.Ingleby@uu.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth care organizations need to be responsive to the needs of increasingly diverse patient populations. We compared the contents of six publicly available approaches to organizational responsiveness to diversity. The central questions addressed in this paper are: what are the most consistently recommended issues for health care organizations to address in order to be responsive to the needs of diverse groups that differ from the majority population? How much consensus is there between various approaches?

methodsWe purposively sampled six approaches from the US, Australia and Europe and used qualitative textual analysis to categorize the content of each approach into domains (conceptually distinct topic areas) and, within each domain, into dimensions (operationalizations). The resulting classification framework was used for comparative analysis of the content of the six approaches.

resultsWe identified seven domains that were represented in most or all approaches: organizational commitment, empirical evidence on inequalities and needs, a competent and diverse workforce, ensuring access for all users, ensuring responsiveness in care provision, fostering patient and community participation, and actively promoting responsiveness. Variations in the operationalization of these domains related to different scopes, contexts and types of diversity. For example, approaches that focus on ethnic diversity mostly provide recommendations to handle cultural and language differences; approaches that take an intersectional approach and broaden their target population to vulnerable groups in a more general sense also pay attention to factors such as socio-economic status and gender.

conclusionsDespite differences in labeling, there is a broad consensus about what health care organizations need to do in order to be responsive to patient diversity. This opens the way to full scale implementation of organizational responsiveness in healthcare and structured evaluation of its effectiveness in improving patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Cultural DiversityAustraliaClinical CompetenceCommunity ParticipationDelivery of Health CareEthnicityEuropeHealthcare DisparitiesHealth PersonnelHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansInsurance, HealthOrganizational CultureOrganizational PolicyOrganizationsPatient Participation

Identifiers

PMID26573437
PMCPMC4647506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.