Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33962627›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2021

Assessing healthcare access using the Levesque's conceptual framework- a scoping review.

Anthony Cu, Sofia Meister, Bertrand Lefebvre, Valéry Ridde

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 148 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
148citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

148 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Navigating Emergency Care After Injury: A Qualitative Study of Asylum Seekers and Refugees in England and Wales Using the Candidacy Framework (BE SURE Study).Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  13. Development and Validation of a Brief Healthcare Insecurity Scale in a Sample of US Adults Living With and Without HIV.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

88 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Anthony CuDepartment of Health, Republic of the Philippines, Manila, Philippines. dranthonycu@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0863-3534
Sofia MeisterCentre Population et Développement (Ceped), Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD) et Université de Paris, Inserm ERL 1244, 45 rue des Saints-Pères, 75006, Paris, France.
Bertrand LefebvreUniversity of Rennes, EHESP, CNRS, ARENES - UMR 6051, F-35000, Rennes, France.
Valéry RiddeCentre Population et Développement (Ceped), Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD) et Université de Paris, Inserm ERL 1244, 45 rue des Saints-Pères, 75006, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCountries are working hard to improve access to healthcare through Universal Healthcare Coverage. To genuinely address the problems of healthcare access, we need to recognize all the dimensions and complexities of healthcare access. Levesque's Conceptual Framework of Access to Health introduced in 2013 provides an interesting and comprehensive perspective through the five dimensions of access and the five abilities of the population to access healthcare. The objectives of this paper are to identify and analyze all empirical studies that applied Levesque's conceptual framework for access to healthcare and to explore the experiences and challenges of researchers who used this framework in developing tools for assessing access.

methodsA scoping review was conducted by searching through four databases, for studies citing Levesque et al. 2013 to select all empirical studies focusing on healthcare access that applied the framework. An initial 1838 documents underwent title screening, followed by abstract screening, and finally full text screening by two independent reviewers. Authors of studies identified from the scoping review were also interviewed.

resultsThere were 31 studies identified on healthcare access using the Levesque framework either a priori, to develop assessment tool/s (11 studies), or a posteriori, to organize and analyze collected data (20 studies). From the tools used, 147 unique questions on healthcare access were collected, 91 of these explored dimensions of access while 56 were about abilities to access. Those that were designed from the patient's perspective were 73%, while 20% were for health providers, and 7% were addressed to both. Interviews from seven out of the 26 authors, showed that while there were some challenges such as instances of categorization difficulty and unequal representation of dimensions and abilities, the overall experience was positive.

conclusionLevesque's framework has been successfully used in research that explored, assessed, and measured access in various healthcare services and settings. The framework allowed researchers to comprehensively assess the complex and dynamic process of access both in the health systems and the population contexts. There is still potential room for improvement of the framework, particularly the incorporation of time-related elements of access.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityHealth Services ResearchHumansHealthcare accessHealth systemLevesque’s frameworkScoping review

Identifiers

PMID33962627
PMCPMC8103766

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.