Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38164529›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2024

Exploring whether primary care networks can contribute to the national goal of reducing health inequalities: a mixed-methods study.

Lynsey Warwick-Giles, Joseph Hutchinson, Kath Checkland, Jonathan Hammond, Donna Bramwell, Simon Bailey, Matt Sutton

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme uptake, patient satisfaction, and QOF achievement: an ecological study from 2020-2023.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Lynsey Warwick-GilesCentre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester.ORCID 0000-0002-2105-2323
Joseph HutchinsonCentre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester.ORCID 0000-0001-8964-0984
Kath ChecklandCentre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester.ORCID 0000-0002-9961-5317
Jonathan HammondCentre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester.ORCID 0000-0002-4682-9514
Donna BramwellCentre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester.ORCID 0000-0001-6147-6932
Simon BaileyCentre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury.ORCID 0000-0001-9142-2791
Matt SuttonCentre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester.ORCID 0000-0002-6635-2127
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Kent · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSignificant health inequalities exist in England. Primary care networks (PCNs), comprised of GP practices, were introduced in England in 2019 with funding linked to membership. PCNs have been tasked with tackling health inequalities.

aimTo consider how the design and introduction of PCNs might influence their ability to tackle health inequalities. DESIGN AND

settingA sequential mixed-methods study of PCNs in England.

methodLinear regression of annual PCN-allocated funding per workload-weighted patient on income deprivation score from 2019-2023 was used. Qualitative interviews and observations of PCNs and PCN staff were undertaken across seven PCN sites in England (July 2020-March 2022).

resultsAcross 1243 networks in 2019-2020, a 10% higher level of income deprivation resulted in £0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI] = £0.25 to £0.37), 4.50%, less funding per weighted patient. In 2022-2023, the same difference in deprivation resulted in £0.16 (95% CI = £0.11 to £0.21), 0.60%, more funding. Qualitative interviews highlighted that, although there were requirements for PCNs to tackle health inequalities, the policy design, and PCN internal relationships and maturity, shaped and sometimes restricted how PCNs approached this task locally.

conclusionAllocated PCN funding has become more pro-poor over time, suggesting that the need to account for deprivation within funding models is understood by policymakers. The following additional approaches have been highlighted that could support PCNs to tackle inequalities: better management support; encouragement and support to redistribute funding internally to support practices serving more deprived populations; and greater specificity in service requirements.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareEnglandGeneral PracticeHealthcare DisparitiesHealth InequitiesHealth Status DisparitiesHumansQualitative ResearchState Medicinehealth inequalitiesmixed methodspolicyprimary care networksprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID38164529
PMCPMC11060797
OpenAlexW4389687179

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.