Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35789753›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2022

Migrants' primary care utilisation before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in England: An interrupted time series analysis.

Claire X Zhang, Yamina Boukari, Neha Pathak, Rohini Mathur, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Parth Patel, Ines Campos-Matos, Dan Lewer, Vincent Nguyen, Greg C G Hugenholtz and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Prediagnostic primary care consultations and imaging in emergency-diagnosed versus referred patients with lung cancer: a population-based linked data study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Ethnic inequities in 6-8 week baby check coverage in England 2006- 2021: a cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

14 authors.

Claire X ZhangInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Rd, London NW1 2DA, United Kingdom.
Yamina BoukariInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Rd, London NW1 2DA, United Kingdom.
Neha PathakInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Rd, London NW1 2DA, United Kingdom.
Rohini MathurDepartment of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, United Kingdom.
Srinivasa Vittal KatikireddiMRC/CSO Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Berkeley Square, 99 Berkeley Street, Glasgow G3 7HR, United Kingdom.
Parth PatelInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Rd, London NW1 2DA, United Kingdom.
Ines Campos-MatosOffice for Health Improvement and Disparities, Department of Health and Social Care, 39 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0EU, United Kingdom.
Dan LewerInstitute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom.
Vincent NguyenInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Rd, London NW1 2DA, United Kingdom.
Greg C G HugenholtzInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Rd, London NW1 2DA, United Kingdom.
Rachel BurnsInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Rd, London NW1 2DA, United Kingdom.
Amy MulickDepartment of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, United Kingdom.
Alasdair HendersonDepartment of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, United Kingdom.
Robert W AldridgeInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Rd, London NW1 2DA, United Kingdom.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SCAF/15/02Chief Scientist Office SPHSU17Medical Research Council MC_PC_19070Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/2Medical Research Council MR/V028375/1Wellcome Trust 206602/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: How international migrants access and use primary care in England is poorly understood. We aimed to compare primary care consultation rates between international migrants and non-migrants in England before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2015-2020). Methods: Using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD, we identified migrants using country-of-birth, visa-status or other codes indicating international migration. We linked CPRD to Office for National Statistics deprivation data and ran a controlled interrupted time series (ITS) using negative binomial regression to compare rates before and during the pandemic. Findings: In 262,644 individuals, pre-pandemic consultation rates per person-year were 4.35 (4.34-4.36) for migrants and 4.60 (4.59-4.60) for non-migrants (RR:0.94 [0.92-0.96]). Between 29 March and 26 December 2020, rates reduced to 3.54 (3.52-3.57) for migrants and 4.2 (4.17-4.23) for non-migrants (RR:0.84 [0.8-0.88]). The first year of the pandemic was associated with a widening of the gap in consultation rates between migrants and non-migrants to 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.94) times the ratio before the pandemic. This widening in ratios was greater for children, individuals whose first language was not English, and individuals of White British, White non-British and Black/African/Caribbean/Black British ethnicities. It was also greater in the case of telephone consultations, particularly in London. Interpretation: Migrants were less likely to use primary care than non-migrants before the pandemic and the first year of the pandemic exacerbated this difference. As GP practices retain remote and hybrid models of service delivery, they must improve services and ensure primary care is accessible and responsive to migrants' healthcare needs. Funding: This study was funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_PC 19070 and MR/V028375/1) and a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship (206602).

Indexed as

ConsultationCOVID-19General practiceHealthcare accessHealthcare utilisationMigrantPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID35789753
PMCPMC9243519

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.