Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32800013›Full record

ArticlePrimary health care research & development2019

Primary care doctors' understandings of and strategies to tackle health inequalities: a qualitative study.

Mark Exworthy, Victoria Morcillo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Primary health care research & development, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Mark ExworthyHealth Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Victoria MorcilloFaculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo examine general practitioners' knowledge of and their role in tackling health inequalities, in relation to their professional responsibilities.

backgroundPrimary care is often seen as being in the frontline of addressing health inequalities and the social determinants of health (SDH).

methodsA qualitative study with a maximum variety sample of English General Practitioners (GPs). In-depth, semi-structured interviews were held with 13 GPs in various geographical settings; they lasted between 30 and 70 min. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The analysis involved a constant comparison process undertaken by both authors to reveal key themes.

findingsGPs' understanding of health inequalities reflected numerous perspectives on the SDH and they employ various different strategies in tackling them. This study revealed that GPs' strategies were changing the nature of (medical) professionalism in primary care. We locate these findings in relation to Gruen's model of professional responsibility (comprising a distinction between obligation and aspiration, and between patient advocacy, community participation and political involvement). We conclude that these GPs do not exploit the full potential of their contribution to tackling health inequalities. These findings have implication for policy and practice in other practitioners and in other health systems, as they seek to tackle health inequalities.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesPhysicians, Primary CareFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInterviews as TopicMaleQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementQuality of Health CareSocial Determinants of Healthdoctorshealth inequalitiesmedical responsibilityprimary care

Identifiers

PMID32800013
PMCPMC6536748

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.