Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31992209›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2020

Health mediators as members of multidisciplinary group practice: lessons learned from a primary health care model programme in Hungary.

Karolina Kósa, Cintia Katona, Magor Papp, Gergely Fürjes, János Sándor, Klára Bíró, Róza Ádány

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Karolina KósaInstitute of Behavioural Sciences, Faculty of Public Health, University of Debrecen, Móricz Zs. krt. 22, Debrecen, 4032, Hungary. kosa.karolina@sph.unideb.hu.ORCID 0000-0001-7867-2403
Cintia KatonaInstitute of Behavioural Sciences, Faculty of Public Health, University of Debrecen, Móricz Zs. krt. 22, Debrecen, 4032, Hungary.
Magor PappSemmelweis Health Promotion Centre, Budapest, Hungary.
Gergely FürjesInstitute of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Public Health, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.
János SándorInstitute of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Public Health, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.
Klára BíróDepartment of Health Management, Faculty of Public Health, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.
Róza ÁdányInstitute of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Public Health, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.
University of Debrecen · HUSemmelweis University · HU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA Model Programme of primary care group practices was implemented in Hungary between 2013 and 2017 - where virtually all GPs had worked in single practices - aiming to increase preventive service uptake and reduce inequalities based on a bilateral agreement between the Swiss and Hungarian governments. Group practices employed a wide variety of health professionals as well as support workers called health mediators. Employment of the latter was based on two decades of European experience of health mediators who specifically facilitate access to and use of health services in Roma minority groups. Health mediators had been recruited from local communities, received training on the job, and were tasked to increase uptake of new preventive services provided by the group practices by personal contacts in the local minority populace. The paper describes the contribution of the work of health mediators to the uptake of two new services provided by group practices.

methodsQuantitative analysis of depersonalized administrative data mandatorily reported to the Management of the Programme during 43 months of operation was carried out on the employment of health mediators and their contribution to the uptake of two new preventive services (health status assessment and community health promoting programmes).

results80% of all clients registered with the GPs participated at health status assessment by invitation that was 1.3-1.7 times higher than participation at the most successful national screening programmes in the past 15 years. Both the number of mediator work minutes per client and participation rate at health status assessment, as well as total work time of mediators and participants at community health events showed high correlation. Twice as many Roma minority patients were motivated for service use by health mediators compared to all patients. The very high participation rate reflects the wide impact of health mediators who probably reached not only Roma minority, but vulnerable population groups in general.

conclusionThe future of general practices lays in multidisciplinary teams in which health mediators recruited from the serviced communities can be valuable members, especially in deprived areas.

Indexed as

Community Health WorkersHealth Services AccessibilityMinority GroupsPatient ParticipationPreventive MedicinePrimary Health CareCommunity-Institutional RelationsGroup PracticeHealth PromotionHumansHungaryPatient Care TeamWorkloadCommunity health workersHealth mediationHealth status assessmentInequalitiesPreventionPrimary health careProfessions allied to medicine (PAMs)

Identifiers

PMID31992209
PMCPMC6988313
OpenAlexW3005576503

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.