Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32051313›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Patient data-sharing for immigration enforcement: a qualitative study of healthcare providers in England.

Vasiliki Papageorgiou, Alexandra Wharton-Smith, Ines Campos-Matos, Helen Ward

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Mothers Seeking Sanctuary in Wales: a Cohort Profile.International journal of population data science · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Supporting patients with female genital mutilation in primary care: a qualitative study exploring the perspectives of GPs' working in England.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Article
  13. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vasiliki PapageorgiouPatient Experience Research Centre, Imperial College London School of Public Health, London, UK vasiliki.papageorgiou17@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2387-6780
Alexandra Wharton-SmithDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London, UK.
Ines Campos-MatosMigration Health, Health Improvement Directorate, Public Health England, London, UK.
Helen WardPatient Experience Research Centre, Imperial College London School of Public Health, London, UK.
Imperial College London · GBPublic Health England · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 205456/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo explore healthcare providers' perceptions and experiences of the implications of a patient data-sharing agreement between National Health Service (NHS) Digital and the Home Office on access to NHS services and quality of care received by migrant patients in England.

designA qualitative study using semi-structured interviews, thematic analysis and constant-comparison approach.

participantsEleven healthcare providers and one non-clinical volunteer working in community or hospital-based settings who had experience of migrants accessing NHS England services. Interviews were carried out in 2018.

settingEngland.

resultsAwareness and understanding of the patient data-sharing agreement varied among participants, who associated this with a perceived lack of transparency by the government. Participants provided insight into how they thought the data-sharing agreement was negatively influencing migrants' health-seeking behaviour, their relationship with clinicians and the safety and quality of their care. They referred to the policy as a challenge to their core ethical principles, explicitly patient confidentiality and trust, which varied depending on their clinical specialty.

conclusionsA perceived lack of transparency during the policy development process can result in suspicion or mistrust towards government among the health workforce, patients and public, which is underpinned by a notion of power or control. The patient data-sharing agreement was considered a threat to some of the core principles of the NHS and its implementation as adversely affecting healthcare access and patient safety. Future policy development should involve a range of stakeholders including civil society, healthcare professionals and ethicists, and include more meaningful assessments of the impact on healthcare and public health.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAdultAgedConfidentialityEmigration and ImmigrationEnglandFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInformation DisseminationInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchState MedicineTransients and Migrantshealth policymedical ethicsmigrant healthpublic healthqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID32051313
PMCPMC7044876
OpenAlexW3005847840

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.