Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31035997›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2019

Health service brokerage to improve primary care access for populations experiencing vulnerability or disadvantage: a systematic review and realist synthesis.

Louise Thomas, Sharon Parker, Hyun Song, Nilakshi Gunatillaka, Grant Russell, Mark Harris, IMPACT Team

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Advancing equity and value in United States healthcare: an umbrella review.International journal for equity in health · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. "Float[ing] in the Middle" Nurse Navigators and the Interface of Access to Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Engaging with peers to integrate community care: Knowledge synthesis and conceptual map.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors.

Louise ThomasCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. louise.thomas@unsw.edu.au.
Sharon ParkerCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Hyun SongCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Nilakshi GunatillakaThe Southern Academic Primary Care Research Unit, School of Primary Health Care, Monash University, Notting Hill, Victoria, 3168, Australia.
Grant RussellThe Southern Academic Primary Care Research Unit, School of Primary Health Care, Monash University, Notting Hill, Victoria, 3168, Australia.
Mark HarrisCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
IMPACT Team

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research TTF-130729
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndividuals experiencing disadvantage or marginalisation often face difficulty accessing primary health care. Overcoming access barriers is important for improving the health of these populations. Brokers can empower and enable people to access resources; however, their role in increasing access to health services has not been well-defined or researched in the literature. This review aims to identify whether a health service broker working with health and social service providers in the community can (a) identify individuals experiencing vulnerability who may benefit from improved access to quality primary care, and (b) link these individuals with an appropriate primary care provider for enduring, appropriate primary care.

methodsSix databases were searched for studies published between January 2008 and August 2015 that evaluated a health service broker intervention linking adults experiencing vulnerability to primary care. Relevant websites were also searched. Included studies were analysed using candidacy theory and a realist matrix was developed to identify mechanisms that may have contributed to changes in response to the interventions in different contexts.

resultsEleven studies were included in the review. Of the eight studies judged to provide detailed description of the programs, the interventions predominately addressed two domains of candidacy (identification of candidacy and navigation), with limited applicability to the third and fourth dimensions (permeability of services and appearances at health services). Six of the eight studies were judged to have successfully linked their target group to primary care. The majority of the interventions focused on assisting patients to reach services and did not look at ways that providers or health services could alter the way they deliver care to improve access.

conclusionsWhile specific mechanisms behind the interventions could not be identified, it is suggested that individual advocacy may be a key element in the success of these types of interventions. The interventions were found to address some dimensions of candidacy, with health service brokers able to help people to identify their need for care and to access, navigate and interact with services. More consideration should be given to the influence of providers on patient candidacy, rather than placing the onus on patients.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchHealth Status DisparitiesDelivery of Health CareEvidence-Based PracticeHumansPrimary Health CareQuality ImprovementAccess to careBrokerCandidacy theoryHealth service brokerageIMPACT studyPrimary careRealist evaluationSystematic reviewVulnerable populations

Identifiers

PMID31035997
PMCPMC6489346

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.