Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34130967›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Reducing health inequalities through general practice: protocol for a realist review (EQUALISE).

John Alexander Ford, Anna Gkiouleka, Isla Kuhn, Sarah Sowden, Fiona Head, Rikke Siersbaek, Clare Bambra, Rebecca R Harmston, Sukaina Manji, Annie Moseley and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors.

John Alexander FordDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK jf653@medschl.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8033-7081
Anna GkioulekaDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Isla KuhnMedical Library, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Sarah SowdenInstitute Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9359-3463
Fiona HeadNHS Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group, Cambridge, UK.
Rikke SiersbaekSchool of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-3223-1420
Clare BambraPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Rebecca R HarmstonPatient and Public Involvement Representative, Norfolk, UK.
Sukaina ManjiPatient and Public Involvement Representative, Peterborough, UK.
Annie MoseleyPatient and Public Involvement Representative, Norwich, UK.
Geoff WongNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHealthcare organisations recognise the moral imperative to address inequalities in health outcomes but often lack an understanding of which types of interventions are likely to reduce them. This realist review will examine the existing evidence on the types of interventions or aspects of routine care in general practice that are likely to decrease or increase health inequalities (ie, inequality-generating interventions) across cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our realist review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages. We will start by developing an initial programme theory based on existing theories and discussions with stakeholders. To navigate the large volume of literature, we will access the primary studies through the identification of published systematic reviews of interventions delivered in general practice across the four key conditions. We will examine the primary studies included within each systematic review to identify those reporting on inequalities across PROGRESS-Plus categories. We will collect data on a range of clinical outcomes including prevention, diagnosis, follow-up and treatment. The data will be synthesised using a realist logic of analysis. The findings will be a description and explanation of the general practice interventions which are likely to increase or decrease inequalities across the major conditions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required because this study does not include any primary research. The findings will be integrated into a series of guiding principles and a toolkit for healthcare organisations to reduce health inequalities. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and user-friendly summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020217871.

Indexed as

General PracticeHealth Status DisparitiesDelivery of Health CareResearch DesignReview Literature as Topicorganisation of health servicesprimary carepublic health

Identifiers

PMID34130967
PMCPMC8208022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.