ArticlePloS one2021
Health workers and Sub Saharan African women's understanding of equal access to healthcare in Norway.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Racialized migrant women's discrimination in maternal care: a scoping review.International journal for equity in health · 2025Pooled it
- A scoping review of how the candidacy framework has been used in research on access to general practice.Journal of health services research & policy · 2026Article
- Risk of Somatic Diagnoses in Specialist Health Care Among Norwegian-Born Youth and Young Adults with Immigrant Parents.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2025Article
- Article
- Racism against racialized migrants in healthcare in Europe: a scoping review.International journal for equity in health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article describes and analyzes conceptions of equal access to healthcare by health workers and Sub Saharan African women living in Norway. The main objective of the study was to find out if there is equal access to healthcare as understood by both the provider and receiver side of healthcare. The two sides have different positions from where to observe and judge the services given, which can give a broader understanding of the healthcare system. Do Sub Saharan African women find healthcare services unjust and discriminating? Do health workers share conceptions of access held by these women? This study used a qualitative fieldwork research design. One hundred interviews were done with health workers and 55 interviews were done with Somali, Gambian and Eritrean women who all had experienced female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). The study found a mismatch in the conceptions of access to healthcare between health workers and the women. Health workers did not believe there was equal access to healthcare and were critical of how the system functioned, whereas the women trusted the system and believed there was equal access. However, both sides had corresponding views on the following challenges facing the healthcare system: little time available to identify symptoms, difficulties in navigating the system, difficulties in getting referrals, and some negative adjudication by some health workers. Bourdieu's concepts of field, habitus and hysteresis, and candidacy theory were used to analyze the collected data. It was concluded that health workers and the women based their experiences of healthcare on differing cultural frames and expectations. The women seemed to base their assessments of healthcare on previous experiences from their home country, while health workers based their understanding from experiences within the system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.