Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27703534›Full record

ReviewZdravstveno varstvo2016

Patients' perception of differences in general practitioners' attitudes toward immigrants compared to the general population: Qualicopc Slovenia.

Maja Jakič, Danica Rotar Pavlič

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Zdravstveno varstvo, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Maja JakičUniversity of Ljubljana, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Familiy Medicine, Poljanski nasip 58, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Danica Rotar PavličUniversity of Ljubljana, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Familiy Medicine, Poljanski nasip 58, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionGlobally, the number of immigrants is rising every year, so that the number of immigrants worldwide is estimated at 200 million. In Slovenia, immigrants comprise 6.5% of the overall population. Immigrants bring along to a foreign country their cultural differences and these differences can affect immigrants' overall health status and lead to chronic health conditions. The aim of this study was to identify patients' perception of general practitioners' (GPs') attitudes toward immigrants in Slovenia.

methodsThis study was based on the Qualicopc questionnaire. We used the questions that targeted patients' experience with the appointment at their GP on the day that the study was carried out.

resultsThere were no differences in GPs' accessibility based on groups included in our study (p>0.05). Compared to the non-immigrant population, first-generation immigrants answered that their GPs were impolite (p=0.018) and that they did not take enough time for them (p=0.038). In addition, they also experienced more difficulties understanding their GP's instructions (p<0.001). Second-generation immigrants experienced more negative behaviour from GPs, and first-generation immigrants had more difficulties understanding GPs' instructions.

conclusionThere may be some differences in patients' perception of GPs' attitudes towards immigrants in comparison with the general Slovenian population. However, based on the perception of the immigrants that do benefit from the medical care it is not possible to judge the GPs' attitudes towards immigrants as worse compared to their attitude towards the non-immigrant population. Indeed, there may be other reasons why the patients answered the way they did.

Indexed as

general practitioners’ attitudesimmigrantslanguage barrierspatients’ perception

Identifiers

PMID27703534
PMCPMC5031064

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.