Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28968901›Full record

ArticleFamily practice2018

General practitioners' perspective on poverty: a qualitative study in Montreal, Canada.

Christine Loignon, Thomas Gottin, Sophie Dupéré, Christophe Bedos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Christine LoignonFaculty of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.
Thomas GottinFaculty of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.
Sophie DupéréFaculty of Nursing, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
Christophe BedosFaculty of Dentistry, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.

Funding

CIHR MOP200361
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Social inequalities in healthcare systems persist worldwide. Physicians' prejudices and negative attitudes towards people living in poverty are one of the determinants of healthcare inequalities. We know very little about general practitioners' (GPs) perceptions of poverty, which shape their attitudes. Objective: To identify the perceptions of poverty of GPs who deal with it in everyday practice. Methods: A qualitative study based on interviews with GPs working in deprived urban neighbourhoods. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with physicians working in disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Montreal, Canada. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Analysis consisted of interview debriefing, transcript coding, and thematic analysis using an inductive and iterative approach. Results: Our study revealed two contrasting perceptions of poverty. The global conception of poverty referred to social determinants and was shared by the majority of physicians interviewed, while the moral conception, centring on individual responsibility, was shared by a minority of participants. Conclusion: The moral judgments and misunderstandings evidenced by GPs regarding poverty suggest avenues for improving general medical training. Understanding social determinants of health should be an important component of this training, to improve access to care for people living in poverty.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPhysician-Patient RelationsPovertyAdultFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchQuebecVulnerable PopulationsYoung AdultDelivery of healthcareeducationequitygeneral practitionerperceptionspovertysocial determinants of health

Identifiers

PMID28968901
PMCPMC6191939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.