ArticleBMC health services research2019
Who knows best? A Q methodology study to explore perspectives of professional stakeholders and community participants on health in low-income communities.
Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conceptualisation of Empathy in Interactions Between Healthcare Professionals and People With Fibromyalgia Syndrome: A Mixed-Methods Study.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2026Article
- Causes, Solutions and Health Inequalities: Comparing Perspectives of Professional Stakeholders and Community Participants Experiencing Low Income and Poor Health in London.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Young people's perspectives on addressing UK health inequalities: utopian visions and preferences for action.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Policy actors' perceptions of public participation to tackle health inequalities in Scotland: a paradox?International journal for equity in health · 2023Article
- Eliciting public values on health inequalities: missing evidence forEvidence & policy : a journal of research, debate and practice · 2022Article
- Evaluating meaningful impact of Patient and Public Involvement: A Q methodology study among researchers and young people with a chronic condition.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Public understandings of potential policy responses to health inequalities: Evidence from a UK national survey and citizens' juries in three UK cities.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2021Article
- Public perspectives on health improvement within a remote-rural island community.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth inequalities in the UK have proved to be stubborn, and health gaps between best and worst-off are widening. While there is growing understanding of how the main causes of poor health are perceived among different stakeholders, similar insight is lacking regarding what solutions should be prioritised. Furthermore, we do not know the relationship between perceived causes and solutions to health inequalities, whether there is agreement between professional stakeholders and people living in low-income communities or agreement within these groups.
methodsQ methodology was used to identify and describe the shared perspectives ('subjectivities') that exist on i) why health is worse in low-income communities ('Causes') and ii) the ways that health could be improved in these same communities ('Solutions'). Purposively selected individuals (n = 53) from low-income communities (n = 25) and professional stakeholder groups (n = 28) ranked ordered sets of statements - 34 'Causes' and 39 'Solutions' - onto quasi-normal shaped grids according to their point of view. Factor analysis was used to identify shared points of view. 'Causes' and 'Solutions' were analysed independently, before examining correlations between perspectives on causes and perspectives on solutions.
resultsAnalysis produced three factor solutions for both the 'Causes' and 'Solutions'. Broadly summarised these accounts for 'Causes' are: i) 'Unfair Society', ii) 'Dependent, workless and lazy', iii) 'Intergenerational hardships' and for 'Solutions': i) 'Empower communities', ii) 'Paternalism', iii) 'Redistribution'. No professionals defined (i.e. had a significant association with one factor only) the 'Causes' factor 'Dependent, workless and lazy' and the 'Solutions' factor 'Paternalism'. No community participants defined the 'Solutions' factor 'Redistribution'. The direction of correlations between the two sets of factor solutions - 'Causes' and 'Solutions' - appear to be intuitive, given the accounts identified.
conclusionsDespite the plurality of views there was broad agreement across accounts about issues relating to money. This is important as it points a way forward for tackling health inequalities, highlighting areas for policy and future research to focus on.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.