Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29907157›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2018

Why do some physicians choose to tackle inequities in healthcare?

Victoria Nkunu, Kevin J McLaughlin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 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

2 authors.

Victoria NkunuCumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4N1, Canada. victoria.nkunu@ucalgary.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-8508-6282
Kevin J McLaughlinCumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4N1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the reputation of Canada's healthcare system as being accessible to all Canadians, certain populations continue to face inequities within our healthcare system. In addition to promoting fairness, addressing healthcare inequities has the potential to reduce healthcare costs, which is increasingly important as healthcare costs continue to rise. Intentionally or otherwise, physicians are often leaders in healthcare teams, but there is a paucity of literature on physicians' perceptions of the problem of healthcare inequities and their potential role in addressing inequities. In this pilot study, we use a grounded theory approach to explore contextual factors and mechanisms that associate with an individual physician's involvement (or otherwise) in initiatives to reduce healthcare inequity.

methodsUsing purposeful sampling and a set of a priori questions, we interviewed ten physicians - five of whom self-identified as being actively involved and five not actively involved in addressing healthcare inequities - to explore potential reasons for physicians choosing to address the causes of healthcare inequities.

resultsWe identified contextual barriers (e.g., lack of knowledge and time) and facilitators (prior experience, protected time, mentorship and system supports) that we interpreted as interacting with the underlying mechanism (motivation to address inequities) to influence a physician's decision on whether or not to address healthcare inequities.

conclusionBased upon our findings we propose further studies to understand and/or overcome barriers to physicians being involved in addressing healthcare inequities.

Indexed as

AwarenessCanadaFemaleGrounded TheoryHealthcare DisparitiesHumansPhysiciansPilot ProjectsTime FactorsGrounded theoryHealth inequityPhysiciansRealism

Identifiers

PMID29907157
PMCPMC6003020

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.