Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36447186›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2022

Access to general practice for people with intellectual disability in Australia: a systematic scoping review.

Bradley Shea, Jodie Bailie, Sally Hall Dykgraaf, Nicola Fortune, Nicholas Lennox, Ross Bailie

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Health problems of people with intellectual disabilities in general practice: dynamic cohort study between 2012 and 2021 with Dutch routine care data.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Bradley SheaSydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jodie BailieUniversity Centre for Rural Health, The University of Sydney, Lismore, NSW, Australia. jodie.bailie@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-4393-5773
Sally Hall DykgraafRural Clinical School, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8532-1086
Nicola FortuneCentre for Disability Research and Policy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Nicholas LennoxQueensland Centre for Intellectual and Developmental Disability, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3201-3186
Ross BailieSydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5966-3368
The University of Sydney · AUAustralian National University · AUThe University of Queensland · AUUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with intellectual disability experience inadequate access to general practice and poorer health outcomes than the general population. While some access barriers have been identified for this population, these studies have often used narrow definitions of access, which may not encompass the multiple dimensions that influence access to general practice. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review to identify factors impacting access to general practice for people with intellectual disability in Australia, using a holistic framework of access conceptualised by Levesque and colleagues.

methodsThis scoping review followed Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Medline (Ovid), Scopus, CINAHL, Informit and PsycINFO databases were searched. Screening, full-text review and data extraction were completed by two independent reviewers, with consensus reached at each stage of the study. Data were extracted, coded and synthesised through deductive qualitative analysis - using the five corresponding conceptual dimensions within Levesque and colleagues' theoretical framework of access, which incorporate both supply-side features of health systems and services, and demand-side characteristics of consumers and populations.

resultsThe search identified 1364 publications. After duplicate removal, title and abstract screening and full-text review, 44 publications were included. Supply-side factors were more commonly reported than demand-side factors, with the following issues frequently identified as impacting access to general practice: limited general practitioner education about, and/or experience of, people with intellectual disability; communication difficulties; and inadequate continuity of care. Less frequently included were factors such as the health literacy levels, promotion of general practice services and availability of complete medical records.

conclusionsThis is the first scoping review to assess access barriers for people with intellectual disability using a comprehensive conceptualisation of access. The findings highlight the need for increased efforts to address demand-side dimensions of access to general practice and offer a basis for a balanced portfolio of strategies that can support recent policy initiatives to enhance access to care for people with intellectual disability.

Indexed as

General PracticeGeneral PractitionersIntellectual DisabilityAustraliaFamily PracticeHumansAccessFamily medicineIntellectual disabilityLearning disabilityPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID36447186
PMCPMC9707181
OpenAlexW4310602902

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.